Raul, I really get what you mean and what you are preaching. I have seen those figures and plots many times. You are saying "the facts", "specs" or "numbers" are the last word which I totally disagree.
Ask yourself, what are we after in this hobby? "facts/specs" or sound?
Back to Stevenson. He was 25 yrs after Lofgren. Did you ask yourself why he chose a curve with much inferior "facts" than Lofgren? I am sure he knew the Lofgren "facts" and equation before making his so called inferior curve. Did you think he was stupid or was he fixing some of the Lofgren shortcomings? We all know there is no perfect curve. All have tradeoffs.
Maybe Harry of VPI was also wrong. I guess in your books, he is worse than Stevenson by not using any of the famous curves. Did it ever occur to you that Harry chose a curve that sounds best for his tonearm but not with the best "facts"? |
Jazzene yes, that is part correct. see Harry's quote below. Bottom line, Harry is the tonearm designer and I agree with my 12.6 & 7, his alignment overall sounded better that B or L. This is probably no different approach to the designers of the FR tonearm, Ortofon, SME, rega, Pioneer/Exclusive, SAEC etc etc - they all did not like B, L or S for probably very good engineering and musical reasons - Something Raul aka " Charlie Sheen - Winning " fails to even try to acknowledge or understand. If you go by science, bumble bees can't fly, tell them that when a hive is chasing you. Seriously, I don't use either of those curves, I did it by ear on my system, not by math on a computer. If you go by distortion you would never use tubes, only solid state. I began using the Mitch Cotter system and tweaked it from there.
This is not a condemnation of eithet system, it's just that I know what they sound like (doing this since 1958) and like my system better. That does not say you shouldn't make the guage, it may sound better for you so I would do it.
They said the same thing on Vinyl Asylum and the German guy ran the number and said the distortion is higher, then he listened to the arm and said I understand why he uses it.
Just my take on audio, yours may be different and there is absolutley nothing wrong with getting the lowest distortion possible.
HW |
Thanks Downunder. My point exactly. The quote from Harry nailed it on the head. I rest my case. |
Dear Genesis168: I understand what you mean with " sound " but we are not talking here about " sound " but what is right and what has higher distortions.
Btw, Stevenson don't fix any of the Löfgren shortcomings. Stevenson always has higher distortions even in the inner grooves, please read my 2-3 last posts or better yet use the VE last link I give to you and make for your self the calculations: it is extremely easy.
I don't give the Dennes white paper link for the figures and plot that you seen " many times " ( good ), I give you mainly for you read all what Dennes write other than those figures/plots/equations. I hope that with a new read for your self this time you understand in deep and clean/precise way: good luck!
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Trabvrow: +++++ " A tracing arc with a specific distortion curve should have the same geometric error and distortions regardless of the arm, cartridge stylus or if the record is stereo or mono, I thought? " +++++
Bravo!!! because things are so easy and not so " clouded " as he want to paint the picture.
+++++ " but picking a tonarm/cartridge set up geometry that has more tracing error will produce more tracing distortion, unless the mathematics used to figure these distortions are a lie. " +++++
I can't say it with better and simple understanding words. This tonearm/cartridge set up is not a Rocket to Júpiter!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
