| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote:
i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! What TT are you planning to use, and what's your budget? (What cartridge too?) -- Rich Teer, Publisher Vinylphile Magazine www.vinylphilemag.com |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:46:02 -0700, Rich Teer wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! What TT are you planning to use, and what's your budget? (What cartridge too?) The shape is not important, PER SE. What is important is the position of the stylus on the record with relation to the arm pivot point. Curved arms allow for a more ideal tracking angle with a shorter distance from stylus tip to pivot point, I.E., a physically shorter arm tube. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:46:02 -0700, Rich Teer wrote (in article ): On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! What TT are you planning to use, and what's your budget? (What cartridge too?) The shape is not important, PER SE. What is important is the position of the stylus on the record with relation to the arm pivot point. Curved arms allow for a more ideal tracking angle with a shorter distance from stylus tip to pivot point, I.E., a physically shorter arm tube. Whether the arm is straight or curved won't affect the tracking angle, provided you're willing to set the cartridge at an angle to the (straight) arm. Another thing that is important is the mass of the arm (including the pickup, of course) -- it should be as low as possible for best tracking, especially of warped or eccentric records (of which there are more than you think). In this, a straight arm with an offset cartridge will win. Isaac |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:46:02 -0700, Rich Teer wrote (in article ): On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! What TT are you planning to use, and what's your budget? (What cartridge too?) The shape is not important, PER SE. What is important is the position of the stylus on the record with relation to the arm pivot point. Curved arms allow for a more ideal tracking angle with a shorter distance from stylus tip to pivot point, I.E., a physically shorter arm tube. This is a common myth, but a myth, nonetheless. Consider the following gedanken: Take ANY curved arm shape you can imagine providing a "more ideal tracking angle." Now, without changing the orientation of the cartridge/stylus at all, draw a straight line between the mounting point of the cartridge and the main pivot of the tone arm, and replace the curved tone arm with a straight tube follwiong that line. You now have two different toen arms: one curved, one straight, and BOTH provide the IDENTICAL "ideal tracking angle." Basically, what this tells us is tracking geometry is not intrinsically linked to the shape of the tone arm. Beyond that, shape IS important for a number of reasons. All other things being equal, a straight tone arm will have lower mass and higher mechanical stability than a curved tone arm, and lower mass can be argued as being a good thing. Even for those that might claim that for a given cartridge, a higher moving mass is required, that is trivially achieved by adding mass to the mounting of the cartridge. It's MUCH more difficult (read: it's pretty much impossible) to remove mass from an arm whose mass is too high for a given cartridge. One of the legitimate reasons for a curved arm is to facilitate the design and implementation of a removable headshell, along the lines of the original SME arm. Here, a small machining facility (Small Model Engineering, to be precise), had limited resources available. It used a an existing 4-pin connector designed for another purpose and used it to come up with a workable removable headshell. Because the connector had to be straight-on, that dictated the requirement of a curved tone arm in order to achieve the offset angle required for proper tracking. Then, the use of the size, material and wall thickness for the tone arm tube put severe constraints on the amount and radius of the bend in the tube before the tube ran the risk of collapse. Finally, the the connector's mechanical requirements dictated where thebend could occur. The net result was that the shape of the old SME 3009 arm tube was a compromise forced on the designers by the available matericals and techniques on hand at the time (1950's). It did, howver, establish a significant precedent for further high-end arm design, a precedent whose origins were largely lost in the usual high-end mythology and hype. Subsequent justifications for curved tone arms, principally by a number of Japanese manufactures in the 1970's, was that a curved arm of the right profile could be statically balanced by distributing the mass equally on either side of the "imaginary" straight line connecting the pivot to the stylus. But that same balance can be achieved, if it is important, but simply using a straight tube along that same imaginary straight line. And, it's also interesting to note that for those arms where this rtype of balance is crucial, i.e., unipivot arms, two of the more pupoular unipivot arms, the A&D/Monks and the Decca, BOTH used straight arm tubes with offset angles implemented right at the headshell/mounting. The A&D "solved" the quick interchangeability issue by allowing, through its unique use of mercury-bath contacts, completely removable arms, while the Decca solved it by simply not having quick interchangeability. Bottom line: * Correct tracking angle idoes NOT require curved tone arms. * Any profile other than a straight line MUST have more moving mass, all other things being equal. Tone arm shape IS important, but the reasons often given are irreleventa or just plain wrong. Which is better: depends upon your requirements. Do you need a commonly-available removable headshell scheme (i.e. SME-type)? If yes, you're almost certainly stuck with a curved tone arm? Do you require the absolute minimum moving mass for your high-compliance cartridge? Of yes, seek out straight tone arms with non-removable headshells? Is achieving the correct tracking angle important? If yes, arm shape is irrelevant. If no, arm shape is still irrelevant. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Rich Teer" wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! Correct. The shortest distance between the pivot and the stylus is always a straight line. Therefore the straight tube with the cartridge mounted at an appropriate offset angle and overhang distance is the most likely to have minimal mass, all other things being equal. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:04:52 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:46:02 -0700, Rich Teer wrote (in article ): On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! What TT are you planning to use, and what's your budget? (What cartridge too?) The shape is not important, PER SE. What is important is the position of the stylus on the record with relation to the arm pivot point. Curved arms allow for a more ideal tracking angle with a shorter distance from stylus tip to pivot point, I.E., a physically shorter arm tube. Whether the arm is straight or curved won't affect the tracking angle, provided you're willing to set the cartridge at an angle to the (straight) arm. Another thing that is important is the mass of the arm (including the pickup, of course) -- it should be as low as possible for best tracking, especially of warped or eccentric records (of which there are more than you think). In this, a straight arm with an offset cartridge will win. Isaac "(The mass of the arm) should be as low as possible for best tracking" Depends on the cartridge. Ideally, the total mass of the arm/cartridge, combined with the stylus compliance should allow for a system resonance of between 8-12 Hz. That would be a frequency lower than the lowest note on the record (about 20 Hz for pedal notes) but above the frequency where foot-falls and warped records would excite the system (around 6 Hz). Some cartridges need low-mass arms to attain this ideal resonant frequency, and some need a low-mass arm. Generally speaking, Arms with high effective mass, when used in combination with high-compliance cartridges will yield a resonant frequency which falls below the ideal range making it susceptible to being being dislodged from the groove by heavy footfalls and making the system overly sensitive to warp-wow. On the other hand cartridges with low-compliance, used in conjunction with a low-mass arm will move the system resonance up into the audible range, resulting in overblown and muddy bass. Obviously both extremes should be avoided for bast results. While this is obviously simple physics, it is also one of the least understood and one of the most ignored phases of most people's record playing setups. People buy an arm (or a turntable/arm combo) and then pick a cartridge based on reviews or upon having heard a certain model at a friend's house or a hi-fi show, and pair the two without even a thought as to compatibility. The industry hasn't helped much either. There are rarely any guidelines given for pairing either arm or cartridge, and when there are, they are vague and don't make a lot of sense to the average audiophile. What the industry should have done, years ago, is to come up with some simple number matching system for both arms and cartridges. Ideally, thei system could have worked like this: Cartridges could be classed using the numbering system 1 through 10 with 1 being an extremely high compliance cartridge and 10 being an extremely low compliance cartridge. Then arms would be rated using the same scale 1 through 10, only with 1 being a low-mass arm and 10 being a high-mass arm. To gauge compatibility all the buyer need do is match numbers. A cartridge with a rating of 3 would match with an arm rated at three (with more or less acceptable performance being obtained by using an arm rated from 2 to 4). Some system like this would be very helpful, but nobody has ever done it. I usually recommend that people buy complete turntable packages - preferably those put together by the manufacturer, such as the Clearaudio Performance SE Package (which comes equipped with suitable Benz MC cartridges) or the various Rega or Music Hall turntable/cartridge combos. Generally speaking, you'll get better performance with an inexpensive combo package where the arm and cartridge are a well thought-out, synergistic system, than you will with a more expensive setup where the arm/cartridge interface is left to chance. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:06:39 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:46:02 -0700, Rich Teer wrote (in article ): On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! What TT are you planning to use, and what's your budget? (What cartridge too?) The shape is not important, PER SE. What is important is the position of the stylus on the record with relation to the arm pivot point. Curved arms allow for a more ideal tracking angle with a shorter distance from stylus tip to pivot point, I.E., a physically shorter arm tube. This is a common myth, but a myth, nonetheless. Consider the following gedanken: Take ANY curved arm shape you can imagine providing a "more ideal tracking angle." Now, without changing the orientation of the cartridge/stylus at all, draw a straight line between the mounting point of the cartridge and the main pivot of the tone arm, and replace the curved tone arm with a straight tube follwiong that line. You now have two different toen arms: one curved, one straight, and BOTH provide the IDENTICAL "ideal tracking angle." Basically, what this tells us is tracking geometry is not intrinsically linked to the shape of the tone arm. Which is what I said. Beyond that, shape IS important for a number of reasons. All other things being equal, a straight tone arm will have lower mass and higher mechanical stability than a curved tone arm, and lower mass can be argued as being a good thing. Except when low-mass arms are combined with low compliance cartridges, and make no mistake, there are plenty of high-end cartridges which are low compliance. Even for those that might claim that for a given cartridge, a higher moving mass is required, that is trivially achieved by adding mass to the mounting of the cartridge. It's MUCH more difficult (read: it's pretty much impossible) to remove mass from an arm whose mass is too high for a given cartridge. That's why matching arm to cartridge is so important. The best way I know to render a large portion of a real-world record collection unplayable is to afix a fairly low mass arm with a really high-compliance cartridge. The best way I know to make one's records sound bass-heavy and muddy is to couple a low mass tone arm with low compliance cartridge. And the result is FAR from trivial in either case. One of the legitimate reasons for a curved arm is to facilitate the design and implementation of a removable headshell, along the lines of the original SME arm. Here, a small machining facility (Small Model Engineering, to be precise), had limited resources available. It used a an existing 4-pin connector designed for another purpose and used it to come up with a workable removable headshell. Because the connector had to be straight-on, that dictated the requirement of a curved tone arm in order to achieve the offset angle required for proper tracking. Then, the use of the size, material and wall thickness for the tone arm tube put severe constraints on the amount and radius of the bend in the tube before the tube ran the risk of collapse. Finally, the the connector's mechanical requirements dictated where thebend could occur. True enough. The net result was that the shape of the old SME 3009 arm tube was a compromise forced on the designers by the available matericals and techniques on hand at the time (1950's). It did, howver, establish a significant precedent for further high-end arm design, a precedent whose origins were largely lost in the usual high-end mythology and hype. Subsequent justifications for curved tone arms, principally by a number of Japanese manufactures in the 1970's, was that a curved arm of the right profile could be statically balanced by distributing the mass equally on either side of the "imaginary" straight line connecting the pivot to the stylus. But that same balance can be achieved, if it is important, but simply using a straight tube along that same imaginary straight line. Yep. And, it's also interesting to note that for those arms where this rtype of balance is crucial, i.e., unipivot arms, two of the more pupoular unipivot arms, the A&D/Monks and the Decca, BOTH used straight arm tubes with offset angles implemented right at the headshell/mounting. The A&D "solved" the quick interchangeability issue by allowing, through its unique use of mercury-bath contacts, completely removable arms, while the Decca solved it by simply not having quick interchangeability. Bottom line: * Correct tracking angle idoes NOT require curved tone arms. That's correct. * Any profile other than a straight line MUST have more moving mass, all other things being equal. Also correct. But to say that low-mass in a tone arm is always desireable is overly simplistic and not correct. The arm and cartridge must work together as a synergistic system. Record players are mechanical systems and mechanical systems have a number of criteria to meet before they can be considered a successful solution. Tone arm shape IS important, but the reasons often given are irreleventa or just plain wrong. Mostly they're irrelevant as there are, in engineering, usually more than one path to a satisfactory solution. Which is better: depends upon your requirements. Do you need a commonly-available removable headshell scheme (i.e. SME-type)? If yes, you're almost certainly stuck with a curved tone arm? Do you require the absolute minimum moving mass for your high-compliance cartridge? Of yes, seek out straight tone arms with non-removable headshells? Is achieving the correct tracking angle important? If yes, arm shape is irrelevant. If no, arm shape is still irrelevant. Can't argue with your last statement. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:06:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Rich Teer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! Correct. The shortest distance between the pivot and the stylus is always a straight line. Therefore the straight tube with the cartridge mounted at an appropriate offset angle and overhang distance is the most likely to have minimal mass, all other things being equal. Again with the mythology that low-mass in a tone arm is always desirable. It is NOT. Low mass and low compliance does not work just as high-mass and high compliance don't work. Mass in an arm is, in no way, and indicator of an arm's quality just as compliance in a cartridge is no measure of a cartridge's quality. To say that these are indicators of quality or performance (in and of themselves) is akin to asserting that a high-efficiency speaker performs better than a low efficiency speaker and for pretty much similar reasons. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:06:39 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote All other things being equal, a straight tone arm will have lower mass and higher mechanical stability than a curved tone arm, and lower mass can be argued as being a good thing. Except when low-mass arms are combined with low compliance cartridges, and make no mistake, there are plenty of high-end cartridges which are low compliance. Except that it's a trivial excercise to increase the mass of a low-mass arm to something suitable. Even for those that might claim that for a given cartridge, a higher moving mass is required, that is trivially achieved by adding mass to the mounting of the cartridge. It's MUCH more difficult (read: it's pretty much impossible) to remove mass from an arm whose mass is too high for a given cartridge. That's why matching arm to cartridge is so important. The best way I know to render a large portion of a real-world record collection unplayable is to afix a fairly low mass arm with a really high-compliance cartridge. The best way I know to make one's records sound bass-heavy and muddy is to couple a low mass tone arm with low compliance cartridge. And the result is FAR from trivial in either case. I did not say it's a trivial case. I said that if a higher mass is required, which is the same as saying if the effective arm mass is too low, the proper mass trivially achieved by adding mass. The same is NOT the case for an arm whose mass is already too high: there is no real-world solution for reducing the effective mass of an arm. * Any profile other than a straight line MUST have more moving mass, all other things being equal. Also correct. But to say that low-mass in a tone arm is always desireable is overly simplistic and not correct. The arm and cartridge must work together as a synergistic system. Record players are mechanical systems and mechanical systems have a number of criteria to meet before they can be considered a successful solution. Are we not getting it? If the mass of an arm is too low, then ADD MASS TO IT. Why does this seem such a difficult concept? A low-mass arm uis a far more suitable solution for a much wider range of cartridge compliances than a high mass arm. A low mass arm can work very well as-is for high- compliance cartridges, can work very well for moderate- compliance cartidges with the addition of a little extra mass, and can work very well for low-compliance cartridges with the addition of suitably greater amount of mass. Thus it CAN be argued that a low-mass arm is suitable for a wider range of cartridges than a high-mass arm simply through the expedient of adjusting the mass accordingly. The same is absolutely NOT true of high-mass arms. Do you not agree, and if not, why not? Tone arm shape IS important, but the reasons often given are irreleventa or just plain wrong. Mostly they're irrelevant as there are, in engineering, usually more than one path to a satisfactory solution. And as is often the case in high-end audio, for ever path to a satisfactory solution, there are many more paths to unsatisfactory solutions that are highly revered. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:06:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Correct. The shortest distance between the pivot and the stylus is always a straight line. Therefore the straight tube with the cartridge mounted at an appropriate offset angle and overhang distance is the most likely to have minimal mass, all other things being equal. Again with the mythology that low-mass in a tone arm is always desirable. It is NOT. Low mass and low compliance does not work just as high-mass and high compliance don't work. Fine, add mass to a low mass tone arm. What's the problem? Mass in an arm is, in no way, and indicator of an arm's quality just as compliance in a cartridge is no measure of a cartridge's quality. To say that these are indicators of quality or performance (in and of themselves) is akin to asserting that a high-efficiency speaker performs better than a low efficiency speaker and for pretty much similar reasons. No, mass IS an indicator of the RANGE of suitable compliances. A low mass arm can be auitably and satsifactorily adapted to a much wider range of cartridge compliances than a high- mass arm. With a high-mass arm, you are stuck with using low compliance cartridges. You can't use high-compliance cartridges to achieve reasonable performance. With a low mass arm, you can use cartridges ranging from low compliance to high compliance simply through the use of appropriate additional mass. What's the problem? -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:06:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Rich Teer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! Correct. The shortest distance between the pivot and the stylus is always a straight line. Therefore the straight tube with the cartridge mounted at an appropriate offset angle and overhang distance is the most likely to have minimal mass, all other things being equal. Again with the mythology that low-mass in a tone arm is always desirable. It is NOT. Low mass and low compliance does not work just as high-mass and high compliance don't work. Mass in an arm is, in no way, and indicator of an arm's quality just as compliance in a cartridge is no measure of a cartridge's quality. To say that these are indicators of quality or performance (in and of themselves) is akin to asserting that a high-efficiency speaker performs better than a low efficiency speaker and for pretty much similar reasons. I agree. The mass and the compliance of the cartridge need to be matched so that as you say, the tone arm resonance is in the 8 to 12 Hz region. Ideally, the counterweight is also suspended in such a way that it becomes a vibration absorber tuned to the resonance frequency of the arm. I also agree with what Scott points out, which is that so called linear tracking is preferable to a laterally pivoted tracking arm, all other things being equal. In fact mostlinear tracking arms have a lateral pivot, but the pivot is on a sled or trolly that moves across the record to minimize the lateral deflection of the pivot. One big advantage of linear tracking is reduction of low frequency FM distortion due to warping, eccentricity and low frequency program material. Mass is is pretty easy to add, but hard to subtract when excess mass is inherent in a design. Therefore starting out with a design with the lowest possible mass is often a good idea. The curved arms look sexy, and often cause no harm. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:35:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:06:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Rich Teer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Edward wrote: i'm looking at seriously upgrading the turntable situation for my "at home" stereo set up. serious in the sense of quality and that i would like this to be the last turntable i buy. maybe... so my question is this: do i go with a curved or straight tonearm?? remember, this is for my home set up and not for taking out of the house and DJ'ing with. I don't think the shape of the arm is important per se, provided the offset angle ends up being correct. That said, all the better arms I can think of off the top of my head are straight, so I guess there's your answer! Correct. The shortest distance between the pivot and the stylus is always a straight line. Therefore the straight tube with the cartridge mounted at an appropriate offset angle and overhang distance is the most likely to have minimal mass, all other things being equal. Again with the mythology that low-mass in a tone arm is always desirable. It is NOT. Low mass and low compliance does not work just as high-mass and high compliance don't work. Mass in an arm is, in no way, and indicator of an arm's quality just as compliance in a cartridge is no measure of a cartridge's quality. To say that these are indicators of quality or performance (in and of themselves) is akin to asserting that a high-efficiency speaker performs better than a low efficiency speaker and for pretty much similar reasons. I agree. The mass and the compliance of the cartridge need to be matched so that as you say, the tone arm resonance is in the 8 to 12 Hz region. Ideally, the counterweight is also suspended in such a way that it becomes a vibration absorber tuned to the resonance frequency of the arm. I also agree with what Scott points out, which is that so called linear tracking is preferable to a laterally pivoted tracking arm, all other things being equal. In fact mostlinear tracking arms have a lateral pivot, but the pivot is on a sled or trolly that moves across the record to minimize the lateral deflection of the pivot. One big advantage of linear tracking is reduction of low frequency FM distortion due to warping, eccentricity and low frequency program material. Mass is is pretty easy to add, but hard to subtract when excess mass is inherent in a design. Therefore starting out with a design with the lowest possible mass is often a good idea. The curved arms look sexy, and often cause no harm. The problem with adding mass is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result and almost as importantly, where to add it. The math is pretty obscure for making those determinations, and often the required parameters are not forthcoming from the manufacturer. For instance, while some cartridges' enclosed data sheets include the cartridge's mass and compliance, not all do. Also, you need to know lots of things about the arm that aren't generally known by the buyer. Of course, most people just use trial and error - and it's mostly error. Like I said in an earlier post the industry would benefit form some kind of standard compatibility rating system. A simple match-the-numbers scheme would be ideal. But it has never been done and I don't even know if anyone has ever even proposed such a standard. The closest to it (AFAIK) was the "P-mount" scheme of the late 70's where all P-mount arms were the same mass and effective length and all P-mount cartridges were the same weight, same compliance, same tracking force, and same stylus tip to pivot distance, same VTA, etc. That didn't go over very well for any but the most inexpensive of mass market players. I think the original Blue-Point high-output MC cartridge was the "highest-end" P-mount cartridge ever offered. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
Audio Empire wrote:
The problem with adding mass is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result Yhe problem with buying a high-mass tone arm is knowing how much mass to buy to obtain the desired result. How, then, is the problem of adding mass to an existing tone arm ANY different than selecting the right arm mass (and, thus the "right" arm) to begin with? Both require EXACTLY the same starting information: what mass is needed, and what is the mass of the arm. Then the issue of adding mass is pretty damned simple: subtract the existing mass from the required mass. If the result is a positive number, add that mass, if the result is a negative number, your arm mass is too high for the cartridge chosen. and almost as importantly, where to add it. You're kidding, right? If 5 grams of additional mass are needed, add 5 grams at the catridge. The math is pretty obscure for making those determinations, Really? If the recommended total moving mass is, oh, 15 grams, the arm contributes 7 of those and the cartridge adds 5, why is: 15g - 7g - 5g = 3g obscure? and often the required parameters are not forthcoming from the manufacturer. Like? Not an example, how about a comprehensive list as an aid for those actually interested in the substance of the discussion? For instance, while some cartridges' enclosed data sheets include the cartridge's mass and compliance, not all do. Why is this not a problem for choosing a high-mass vs low mass arm, but IS a problem for adding mass to a low mass arm? Also, you need to know lots of things about the arm that aren't generally known by the buyer. What "lot of things about the arm that aren't generally known" aren't a problem for selecting a high-mass vs low- mass arm but are a problem for adding mass to a low-mass arm? Of course, most people just use trial and error - and it's mostly error. Like I said in an earlier post the industry would benefit form some kind of standard compatibility rating system. A simple match-the-numbers scheme would be ideal. But it has never been done Yes, it hasL: I did it 40 years ago. Many other people did. The fact that the bulk of the high-end audio realm is terrified of early high-school math is no excuse. and I don't even know if anyone has ever even proposed such a standard. DIN, for one. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
In rereading, I find the following claim to be,
well, extraordinary: Audio Empire wrote: A simple match-the-numbers scheme would be ideal. But it has never been done and I don't even know if anyone has ever even proposed such a standard. A simple google search suggests, somewhat overwhelmingly if I may, the opposite. I had the idea of revising the table I generated some 4 decades ago and, to populate it, went searching for "phono cartridge compliance" and got thousands of hits, including some in the top 10 which included precisely such a scheme. There's even one site that has available a spreadsheet which has a database of arm and cartridge specs that allows one to easily calculate the resulting catridge/arm resonance. Empire, in talking about "pretty obscure math", "the required parameters are not forthcoming from the manufacturer," "lots of things about the arm that aren't generally known," and such might lead one to believe it's a mysterious, poorly studied and largely unsolved problem. Indeed, it may be to some, but the information and techniques have been well understood by many for a long time. The information is out there for anyone who wants to take the minimal trouble to find it. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Mass is is pretty easy to add, but hard to subtract when excess mass is inherent in a design. Therefore starting out with a design with the lowest possible mass is often a good idea. The curved arms look sexy, and often cause no harm. The problem with adding mass is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result and almost as importantly, where to add it. First off, since we have a system that rotates about pivots, it is not mass that we want to add, it is intertia. Inertia is maximized when the mass is added as far from the pivot as possible. The math is pretty obscure for making those determinations, and often the required parameters are not forthcoming from the manufacturer. I wouldn't even go there. Experimentation is the way to do. For instance, while some cartridges' enclosed data sheets include the cartridge's mass and compliance, not all do. Also, you need to know lots of things about the arm that aren't generally known by the buyer. Also, the resonance of the arm depends on the compliance of the stylus which my not be specified or may be specified as a marketing number. Of course, most people just use trial and error - and it's mostly error. Until you add measurements. The interesting thing about tone arm resonance is that you don't even need a test record to measure it - the arm usually resonates strongly enough due to warp and the like that it shows up big and strong, right there on the FFT. Of course only about one vinylphile in a thousand or less actually measures such things, even though the incremental cost is nearly zero. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
Arny Krueger wrote:
First off, since we have a system that rotates about pivots, it is not mass that we want to add, it is intertia. Inertia is maximized when the mass is added as far from the pivot as possible. Actually, while not wrong, it's not quite right either. All of the various masses which move when teh tone arm moves, indeed, contribute to the total rotational moment of inertia of the system. The moment of inertia of a rotating system is in units of kg m^2. However, pick any one point on the system: in this case the stylus point. Divide the total rotational moment of inertia by the distance to the rotational center squared, and the result is the effective, simple mass of the whole system seen at that point. Not inertia, mass (as in kilograms, grams, stones or whatever unit is convenient). -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
Arny Krueger wrote:
Ideally, the counterweight is also suspended in such a way that it becomes a vibration absorber tuned to the resonance frequency of the arm. Sorry, doesn't work. What such a sceme ends up doing is turning a second order resonant system into a 4th order resonant system, and unless you get ALL of the parameters right: cantilever compliance, arm mass, counterweight suspension compliance, counterweight mass, canitlever and pivot losses, counterweight suspension losses, it's more likely you'll end up with a WORSE performance than a better one. It's a problem that, physically, is completely analogous to a vented box speaker system, and your suggestion is reminicent of people taking a sealed box speaker, punching a hole and sticking a port in and assuming the result can only be better. It can only be better if you START with a proper system design to begin with: this fact is as true for your tone arm scheme as it is for a loudspeaker system. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:27:46 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On Sep 27, 6:35=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote: Thus it CAN be argued that a low-mass arm is suitable for a wider range of cartridges than a high-mass arm simply through the expedient of adjusting the mass accordingly. I've got headshells that span a range of 6 grams though I admit I've never seen the need for those billet aluminum Sumiko shells. ScottW I bought a bunch of those Ortofon aluminum SH-4 headshells http://tinyurl.com/3peeng8 They come in gray, blue, red and black and the different colors are perfect for swapping cartridges. I keep them in one of those Shure hard-plastic cartridge carry cases which holds four headshells with cartridges. http://tinyurl.com/3vzjzsz I must admit that I bought the headshells new, at an electronics flea-market for $10 each. But even at $25 ea they're still a good buy. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:30:28 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: The problem with adding mass is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result Yhe problem with buying a high-mass tone arm is knowing how much mass to buy to obtain the desired result. Of course, but that applies to any tone arm/cartridge combo. How, then, is the problem of adding mass to an existing tone arm ANY different than selecting the right arm mass (and, thus the "right" arm) to begin with? It's not. Just saying.... Both require EXACTLY the same starting information: what mass is needed, and what is the mass of the arm. Then the issue of adding mass is pretty damned simple: subtract the existing mass from the required mass. If the result is a positive number, add that mass, if the result is a negative number, your arm mass is too high for the cartridge chosen. Couldn't agree more. And often that info is hard to come by. and almost as importantly, where to add it. You're kidding, right? If 5 grams of additional mass are needed, add 5 grams at the catridge. Do you need a bigger counterweight when you add mass? Is one available? How do you KNOW that you need to add or subtract weight? If you do have to add or subtract weight, how does one know how much? The math is pretty obscure for making those determinations, Really? If the recommended total moving mass is, oh, 15 grams, the arm contributes 7 of those and the cartridge adds 5, why is: 15g - 7g - 5g = 3g obscure? Yeah, For instance, how do you know what the recommended total moving mass is? Few arm makers (if any) supply that info. and often the required parameters are not forthcoming from the manufacturer. Like? Not an example, how about a comprehensive list as an aid for those actually interested in the substance of the discussion? For instance, while some cartridges' enclosed data sheets include the cartridge's mass and compliance, not all do. Why is this not a problem for choosing a high-mass vs low mass arm, but IS a problem for adding mass to a low mass arm? Who said it wasn't? Also, you need to know lots of things about the arm that aren't generally known by the buyer. What "lot of things about the arm that aren't generally known" aren't a problem for selecting a high-mass vs low- mass arm but are a problem for adding mass to a low-mass arm? Who said that this is only a problem with adding mass to a low-mass arm? I'm afraid you are conflating two different topics here. Of course, most people just use trial and error - and it's mostly error. Like I said in an earlier post the industry would benefit form some kind of standard compatibility rating system. A simple match-the-numbers scheme would be ideal. But it has never been done Yes, it hasL: I did it 40 years ago. Many other people did. The fact that the bulk of the high-end audio realm is terrified of early high-school math is no excuse. So your method has been adopted by the entire audio industry as a standard? Is it called the Pierce method? Where does one find this "Pierce Standard" mentioned in the literature that accompanies arms and cartridges? How come I've never seen it? And that most audiophiles aren't technical enough to know how to use the math to determine the ideal combo of cartridge and arm is just a fact. That the consumer would NEED to know this math (and the parameters to plug into it) shows a shortcoming on the industry side of things, not the consumer side. and I don't even know if anyone has ever even proposed such a standard. DIN, for one. So I can find this simple cartridge/arm matching DIN standard accompanying any arm or cartridge that I buy? I have the literature for both a Jelco SA-750 arm in front of me as well as the enclosed data sheet for a Grado Reference1 cartridge. In neither data sheet do I see a "Pierce Number" that would allow me to use your 40 year-old "standard" to select a suitable match for either. I don't see any DIN spec for that purpose either. Not only that, but the Jelco Arm specs don't specify a suitable cartridge mass and compliance range, and while the Grado specs do give the cartridge weight at 6.5 grams, nowhere do I see its compliance mentioned. I also do not see any arm mass recommendations and that's my main point. The industry is no help here, and most audio types never even think about these issues when purchasing either an arm or a cartridge. If you ask the average vinyl aficionado about getting the arm/cartridge resonance correct, he might remember reading something about it somewhere, but I'll guarantee that most just buy whatever cartridge or arm strikes their fancy without any regard for the compatibility issues raised. I'll bet that the vast majority of phono rigs out there today lie well outside of the ideal 8-12 Hz and that a lot of vinyl lovers are putting up with rigs that have excessive warp-wow problems; suffer from muddy or boomy bass or are overly sensitive to foot-falls, and the owners of these rigs have never even thought about the "why" of the issue! |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:30:52 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): In rereading, I find the following claim to be, well, extraordinary: Audio Empire wrote: A simple match-the-numbers scheme would be ideal. But it has never been done and I don't even know if anyone has ever even proposed such a standard. A simple google search suggests, somewhat overwhelmingly if I may, the opposite. I had the idea of revising the table I generated some 4 decades ago and, to populate it, went searching for "phono cartridge compliance" and got thousands of hits, including some in the top 10 which included precisely such a scheme. There's even one site that has available a spreadsheet which has a database of arm and cartridge specs that allows one to easily calculate the resulting catridge/arm resonance. Empire, in talking about "pretty obscure math", "the required parameters are not forthcoming from the manufacturer," "lots of things about the arm that aren't generally known," and such might lead one to believe it's a mysterious, poorly studied and largely unsolved problem. Indeed, it may be to some, but the information and techniques have been well understood by many for a long time. The information is out there for anyone who wants to take the minimal trouble to find it. No argument there, but they shouldn't HAVE TO look for it, and THAT'S the point! Each arm and each cartridge should have enough data accompanying it that anyone, irrespective of his or her technical acumen, should be able to look at a prospective arm or cartridge purchase and know, immediately, whether or not it's compatible with their existing equipment. That's why I have long advocated for a simple number matching system for both arms and cartridges that would be included in the specs for each and would allow the consumer to choose either with the assurance that they will yield the ideal resonance frequency when used together. For instance: "My arm is a '#5', therefore I need a '#5' cartridge for it." Such a scheme would be simple, elegant and foolproof. Yet, such a system, as I said before, does not exist as a universally used industry standard as far as I can see. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:17:58 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: Ideally, the counterweight is also suspended in such a way that it becomes a vibration absorber tuned to the resonance frequency of the arm. Sorry, doesn't work. What such a sceme ends up doing is turning a second order resonant system into a 4th order resonant system, and unless you get ALL of the parameters right: cantilever compliance, arm mass, counterweight suspension compliance, counterweight mass, canitlever and pivot losses, counterweight suspension losses, it's more likely you'll end up with a WORSE performance than a better one. It's a problem that, physically, is completely analogous to a vented box speaker system, and your suggestion is reminicent of people taking a sealed box speaker, punching a hole and sticking a port in and assuming the result can only be better. It can only be better if you START with a proper system design to begin with: this fact is as true for your tone arm scheme as it is for a loudspeaker system. And that's true of any system designed to work as a synergistic whole. For instance, with sealed box speakers, it's often true that the driver(s) rely on the air sealed inside the box to be a part of the cone's suspension. Punch a hole in the box, and even if the port is designed and executed correctly, it still won't work because the cone, no longer pushing against trapped air, will sag. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: Ideally, the counterweight is also suspended in such a way that it becomes a vibration absorber tuned to the resonance frequency of the arm. Sorry, doesn't work. What such a sceme ends up doing is turning a second order resonant system into a 4th order resonant system, and unless you get ALL of the parameters right: cantilever compliance, arm mass, counterweight suspension compliance, counterweight mass, canitlever and pivot losses, counterweight suspension losses, it's more likely you'll end up with a WORSE performance than a better one. The above conclusion seems excessively negative. Most technical advances I know of make things worse unless you get your parameters right, so why say flatly that every tone arm vibration absorber "...doesn't work".? They work if you do your homework. There's no reason why a manufactorer couldn't make this technology work well if they can control or guide the relevant parameters. For example, making a vibration absorber work in a standardized tone arm based on P-mount cartridges should be simple enough. I suspect this may be done quite often - I just haven't kept up with practical implementations well enough to know. It's a problem that, physically, is completely analogous to a vented box speaker system, and your suggestion is reminicent of people taking a sealed box speaker, punching a hole and sticking a port in and assuming the result can only be better. This paragaph seems equally and unecessarily negative. Vented box speakers have become widely accepted by the audio industry for both home and professional use. The turning point was the classic Thiel-Small paper relating speaker parameters to box design. I watched the evolution of vented box designs from the mid-1950s and it was known all along that random combinations of boxes, drivers and vents didn't work. As far as it goes, the same is true to a great extent in unvented box speaker systems. Grotesque sound quality is likely with a random design whether or not the box was vented. It can only be better if you START with a proper system design to begin with: this fact is as true for your tone arm scheme as it is for a loudspeaker system. I totally agree. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... Audio Empire wrote: The problem with adding mass is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result Yhe problem with buying a high-mass tone arm is knowing how much mass to buy to obtain the desired result. A problem being that there are few if any audio products that are designed to add mass to an existing tone arm, and few tone arms are designed or shipped with the resources to manage their mass. How, then, is the problem of adding mass to an existing tone arm ANY different than selecting the right arm mass (and, thus the "right" arm) to begin with? Excellent point. Other than random anecdotes saying that this cartridge "sounds good" when mounted in a certain tone arm, there seems to be very little organized guidance for the purchaser. The idea of scientifically managing tone arm mass for a given cartridge seems to be as lost on the high end audio industry as the idea of using electrical equalization. One could be cynical, and say that by witholding this information, the high end audio industry maximizes market churn of tone arms and cartridges and gives people in the sales chain more control over customer behavior. I would prefer to believe that the actual issue is simple ignorance and mental laziness. Both require EXACTLY the same starting information: what mass is needed, and what is the mass of the arm. Exactly. And for the most part, I can only wish great luck to any audiophile who wishes to match tone arms and cartridges. Unlike other areas of audio, the goal which is a somewhat damped resonance in the 8-12 Hz region can be stated and justified reasonably simply. Doesn't matter, most of the high end tone arm industry seems to run the other way from this science, as well. Then the issue of adding mass is pretty damned simple: subtract the existing mass from the required mass. If the result is a positive number, add that mass, if the result is a negative number, your arm mass is too high for the cartridge chosen. and almost as importantly, where to add it. You're kidding, right? If 5 grams of additional mass are needed, add 5 grams at the catridge. Ignores the fact that adding 5 grams in the vicinity of the cartridge generally needs to be offset by corresponding changes at the counterweight end to maintain a consistent tracking force. What to do if your tone arm has too much mass for the cartridge? Damped brushes that help support the cartridge, such as those provided with some cartridges by Shure, would seem to be a step in the right direction. P-mount cartridges, which seem to be easy enough to match to a standardized tone arm design, are another viable approach. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:40:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... Audio Empire wrote: The problem with adding mass is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result Yhe problem with buying a high-mass tone arm is knowing how much mass to buy to obtain the desired result. A problem being that there are few if any audio products that are designed to add mass to an existing tone arm, and few tone arms are designed or shipped with the resources to manage their mass. This too is very true. How, then, is the problem of adding mass to an existing tone arm ANY different than selecting the right arm mass (and, thus the "right" arm) to begin with? Excellent point. Other than random anecdotes saying that this cartridge "sounds good" when mounted in a certain tone arm, there seems to be very little organized guidance for the purchaser. The idea of scientifically managing tone arm mass for a given cartridge seems to be as lost on the high end audio industry as the idea of using electrical equalization. Just as I've been saying all along. Most 'vinylphiles' never think about it, and as a consequence, get it wrong. I'll bet there are many more mismatches between cartridge and arm out there than there are setups that get it right! One could be cynical, and say that by witholding this information, the high end audio industry maximizes market churn of tone arms and cartridges and gives people in the sales chain more control over customer behavior. I would prefer to believe that the actual issue is simple ignorance and mental laziness. I'd say it's a combination of ignorance combined with the fact that there is no easy, foolproof way for a consumer to know ahead of time (pre-purchase) what arms are compatible with what cartridges. Both require EXACTLY the same starting information: what mass is needed, and what is the mass of the arm. Exactly. And for the most part, I can only wish great luck to any audiophile who wishes to match tone arms and cartridges. Unlike other areas of audio, the goal which is a somewhat damped resonance in the 8-12 Hz region can be stated and justified reasonably simply. Doesn't matter, most of the high end tone arm industry seems to run the other way from this science, as well. And it would be so easy to come-up with a system for doing this that would make matching these components a simple pre-purchase task. Then the issue of adding mass is pretty damned simple: subtract the existing mass from the required mass. If the result is a positive number, add that mass, if the result is a negative number, your arm mass is too high for the cartridge chosen. and almost as importantly, where to add it. You're kidding, right? If 5 grams of additional mass are needed, add 5 grams at the catridge. Ignores the fact that adding 5 grams in the vicinity of the cartridge generally needs to be offset by corresponding changes at the counterweight end to maintain a consistent tracking force. What to do if your tone arm has too much mass for the cartridge? Damped brushes that help support the cartridge, such as those provided with some cartridges by Shure, would seem to be a step in the right direction. P-mount cartridges, which seem to be easy enough to match to a standardized tone arm design, are another viable approach. Exactly, but P-mount never really took-off, except with cheap, mass-market Japanese turntables in the late seventies and early eighties. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sep 29, 6:40=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... Audio Empire wrote: The problem with adding mass =A0is knowing how much mass to add to obtain the desired result Yhe problem with buying a high-mass tone arm is knowing how much mass to buy to obtain the desired result. A problem being that there are few if any audio products that are designe= d to add mass to an existing tone arm, and few tone arms are designed or shipped with the resources to manage their mass. Have you actually looked into this? There are a lot of pickup arms out there. Mine was most certainly shipped with the "resources" to manage it's mass both in the lateral and vertical directions. How, then, is the problem of adding mass to an existing tone arm ANY different than selecting the right arm mass (and, thus the "right" arm) to begin with? Excellent point. Other than random anecdotes saying that this cartridge "sounds good" when mounted in a certain tone arm, there seems to be very little organized guidance for the purchaser. Where have you been looking? Have you tried talking to...say...the manufacturers of various pickup arms and cartridges? Really, it takes a minimal effort to find out if you have a compatatbility issue between a cartridge and a pickup arm if you are considering one or the other for an upgrade. =A0The idea of scientifically managing tone arm mass for a given cartridge seems to be as lost on the h= igh end audio industry as the idea of using electrical equalization. "scientifically managing?" This is vinyl playback 101 material. Do you really think the designers and manufacturers of modern day high end pickup arms and cartridges are actually oblivious to something as basic as arm/cartridge resonant frequencies? One could be cynical, and say that by witholding this information, the hi= gh end audio industry maximizes market churn of tone arms and cartridges and gives people in the sales chain more control over customer behavior. Who is witholding information? What manufacturer have you contacted of any cartridge or pickup arm has refused to give you the basic information about the effective mass or compliance of their product? I would prefer to believe that the actual issue is simple ignorance and mental laziness. On whose part? Both require EXACTLY the same starting information: what mass is needed, and what is the mass of the arm. Exactly. And for the most part, I can only wish great luck to any audioph= ile who wishes to match tone arms and cartridges. There is no luck involved Arny. It's actually really simple to get the info. And it is also really simple to check with a test record. Again this is vinyl playback 101 material. Unlike other areas of audio, the goal which is a somewhat damped resonance in the 8-12 Hz region can b= e stated and justified reasonably simply. Doesn't matter, most of the high = end tone arm industry seems to run the other way from this science, as well. Really? What manufacturer of high end pickup arm or cartridge is stating that this is not the desired goal for the arm/cartridge resonant frequency? What, by the way, do you mean by "somewhat damped?" What real world resonance in an actual real world suspension of any sort can not be called "somewhat" damped? Do you know of a perpetual motion suspension? What to do if your tone arm has too much mass for the cartridge? You don't wait to find this out until after you have bought a new cartridge. You check before hand. Damped brushes that help support the cartridge, such as those provided with some cartridges by Shure, would seem to be a step in the right direction. How does this change the compliance of a cartridge? P-mount cartridges, which seem to be easy enough to match to a standardized tone = arm design, are another viable approach. Unless one is actually interested in high end quality vinyl playback. You guys are more than welcome to debate this stuff amongst yourselves but don't act like this is stuff the designers and manufacturers of high end pickup arms and cartridges don't know about or keep secret. Any such belief is evidence of a complete disconnect from high end audio rather than a reflection of high end audio. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:43:52 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): You guys are more than welcome to debate this stuff amongst yourselves but don't act like this is stuff the designers and manufacturers of high end pickup arms and cartridges don't know about or keep secret. Any such belief is evidence of a complete disconnect from high end audio rather than a reflection of high end audio. I think you're missing the point. Sure, you can call the manufacturer and get the info you need to figure this stuff out, but it's not generally included in either the pre-sales or the enclosed product literature. Just hope the manufacturer is domestic as getting this info from a Japanese or a German company might prove problematical if you don't speak the language and I've found that the domestic importer/rep often doesn't know any more about the product than what came with the sales literature. It's not that this info isn't available, or that the math involved is that difficult, it's just that consumers shouldn't have to know any of these things or perform the math in order to make an intelligent buying decision. This information needs to be made simple, be widely used by the industry and be fool-proof. At the present, it is none of those things. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sep 29, 8:01=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:43:52 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): You guys are more than welcome to debate this stuff amongst yourselves but don't act like this is stuff the designers and manufacturers of high end pickup arms and cartridges don't know about or keep secret. Any such belief is evidence of a complete disconnect from high end audio rather than a reflection of high end audio. I think you're missing the point. Sure, you can call the manufacturer and= get the info you need to figure this stuff out, but it's not generally includ= ed in either the pre-sales or the enclosed product literature. Seriously? That is the point? OK for giggles sake let's say that as the point. Let's examine it for a moment. Just hope the manufacturer is domestic as getting this info from a Japanese or a German company might prove problematical if you don't speak the language and I'v= e found that the domestic importer/rep often doesn't know any more about th= e product than what came with the sales literature. As it happens I have a Koetsu cartridge. I don't speak Japanese. So let's see how hard it actually is to get that info. A quick internet search turned this up http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.htm http://store.acousticsounds.com/pdf/...comparison.pdf And this is Koetsu. Famous for being shrouded in myth and mystery. It's not that this info isn't available, or that the math involved is tha= t difficult, it's just that consumers shouldn't have to know any of these things or perform the math in order to make an intelligent buying decisio= n. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... What to do if your tone arm has too much mass for the cartridge? Damped brushes that help support the cartridge, such as those provided with some cartridges by Shure, would seem to be a step in the right direction. P-mount cartridges, which seem to be easy enough to match to a standardized tone arm design, are another viable approach. Exactly, but P-mount never really took-off, except with cheap, mass-market Japanese turntables in the late seventies and early eighties. There are some modern examples of P-mount cartridges, some for audiophile use, some for DJ use: http://www.lpgear.com/category/T4P.html http://www.planetdj.com/i--M92E http://www.planetdj.com/i--L720EE http://www.needledoctor.com/Brand-St...ono-Cartridges Technics still sells a turntable with a P-Mount tone arm the budget category (SLB20D). People must still be buying new P-Mount cartridges for some far more expensive legacy models, based on the pricing of some of these currently sold P-Mount cartridges. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Sep 29, 6:40 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Dick Pierce" wrote in message A problem being that there are few if any audio products that are designed to add mass to an existing tone arm, and few tone arms are designed or shipped with the resources to manage their mass. Have you actually looked into this? Of course. There are a lot of pickup arms out there. Mine was most certainly shipped with the "resources" to manage it's mass both in the lateral and vertical directions. Since you haven't said which tone arm you are talking about, your comment lacks substantiation. The following are the first examples of tone arm user manuals that I found online (no cherry-picking) and they are all highly deficient. Here is the owners manual for the well-known SME M-2 tone arm: http://www.sumikoaudio.net/sme/manua...ms_modelm2.pdf I defy you to substantiate your claims with quotes from it. Here is another, which specifies its mass, but again says nothing about what to do for cartridges that don't a priori match it: http://www.eliteavdist.com/images/ma...%20TONEARM.pdf Here is another example for a highly popular arm: http://www.rega.co.uk/downloads/RB25...STRUCTIONS.pdf No specs for mass, compliance or anything like it! http://www.rega.co.uk/downloads/RB1000%20Booklet.pdf Spending more money does not get you better specs or instructions. http://www.rega.co.uk/downloads/RB1000%20Booklet.pdf On this one you have your choice of weights to get the arm to balance, but again no guidance or facilities for dealing with mass/compliance issues. I'd say that my claim is already fully supported! |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sep 30, 8:46=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Technics still sells a turntable with a P-Mount tone arm the budget categ= ory (SLB20D). That model has been out of production for a number of years. A shame, really, as it was a definite step up from the cheapo "USB turntables" the typical non-audiophile is likely to come across. With an upgraded cart (easily found, as you noted), it could hold its own with the entry-level models from Pro-Ject, Music Hall, etc. And the p-mount made it beginner-proof. I bought one for my dad when he wanted to dust off his classical music collection (I still have it, modified to play 78s), and I used to recommend it to people looking for a really inexpensive but decent turntable. Even though the cartridges are still available, I don't know of anyone making p-mount tables anymore. bob |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:33:17 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Sep 30, 8:46=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Technics still sells a turntable with a P-Mount tone arm the budget categ= ory (SLB20D). That model has been out of production for a number of years. A shame, really, as it was a definite step up from the cheapo "USB turntables" the typical non-audiophile is likely to come across. With an upgraded cart (easily found, as you noted), it could hold its own with the entry-level models from Pro-Ject, Music Hall, etc. And the p-mount made it beginner-proof. I bought one for my dad when he wanted to dust off his classical music collection (I still have it, modified to play 78s), and I used to recommend it to people looking for a really inexpensive but decent turntable. Even though the cartridges are still available, I don't know of anyone making p-mount tables anymore. bob Or P-mount arms. The reason is likely due to the limited cartridge selection available. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:45:45 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Sep 29, 8:01=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:43:52 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): You guys are more than welcome to debate this stuff amongst yourselves but don't act like this is stuff the designers and manufacturers of high end pickup arms and cartridges don't know about or keep secret. Any such belief is evidence of a complete disconnect from high end audio rather than a reflection of high end audio. I think you're missing the point. Sure, you can call the manufacturer and= get the info you need to figure this stuff out, but it's not generally includ= ed in either the pre-sales or the enclosed product literature. Seriously? That is the point? OK for giggles sake let's say that as the point. Let's examine it for a moment. Just hope the manufacturer is domestic as getting this info from a Japanese or a German company might prove problematical if you don't speak the language and I'v= e found that the domestic importer/rep often doesn't know any more about th= e product than what came with the sales literature. As it happens I have a Koetsu cartridge. I don't speak Japanese. So let's see how hard it actually is to get that info. A quick internet search turned this up http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.htm http://store.acousticsounds.com/pdf/...comparison.pdf And this is Koetsu. Famous for being shrouded in myth and mystery. It's not that this info isn't available, or that the math involved is tha= t difficult, it's just that consumers shouldn't have to know any of these things or perform the math in order to make an intelligent buying decisio= n. This information needs to be made simple, be widely used by the industry = and be fool-proof. At the present, it is none of those things. The math is what it is. Matching arms and cartridges has been presented in simpler form. Arms and cartridges have been divided by the press and the manufacturers by high, medium and low mass arms and high, medium and low compliance cartridges. To ask that it be fool proof is unreasonable. Fools make it impossible. It IS widely used in the high end. Honestly can you name one dealer that you know of that sent ANY customer out the door with a mismatched arm and cartridge? IME this is a major non-problem in high end audio. It's elitist attitudes like yours - that there is no problem for true audiophiles and to hell with everybody else (If they aren't willing to take the time, do the research, and learn the math, then they aren't worthy to have a decent arm and cartridge to play their records) that push newcomers away from the audio hobby, in my opinion. Manufacturers should be striving to make this as easy as possible. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sep 30, 5:28=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
It's elitist attitudes like yours - that there is no problem for true audiophiles and to hell with everybody else (If they aren't willing to ta= ke the time, do the research, and learn the math, then they aren't worthy to have a decent arm and cartridge to play their records) that push newcomer= s away from the audio hobby, in my opinion. Well, push them away from analog, at any rate. A lot of other factors pushing them away from audio in general, including the 'phile priesthood thing. Manufacturers should be striving to make this as easy as possible. Agreed. So should the rags, instead of off-loading their analog reviews to dimwitted sociopaths who only know what the pricetags tell them. No names mentioned, of course. bob |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sep 30, 5:27=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:33:17 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): Even though the cartridges are still available, I don't know of anyone making p-mount tables anymore. Or P-mount arms. The reason is likely due to the limited cartridge select= ion available. Mebbe, but I think you've got a classic chicken-and-egg problem here. The most likely explanation is that p-mount came along too late in analog's lifespan to really catch on before the kool kids started losing interest in vinyl (beginning, really, with the Walkman era). Audiophiles stuck with analog, but they were never going to embrace p- mount. It was a mass market technology, and the masses weren't so interested anymore. If p-mount had been invented in 1970 instead of 1980, it might have developed into the dominant and lasting technology for low-end turntables. Which would have been a good thing for audio in general. bob |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:46:50 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Sep 30, 5:27=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:33:17 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): Even though the cartridges are still available, I don't know of anyone making p-mount tables anymore. Or P-mount arms. The reason is likely due to the limited cartridge select= ion available. Mebbe, but I think you've got a classic chicken-and-egg problem here. The most likely explanation is that p-mount came along too late in analog's lifespan to really catch on before the kool kids started losing interest in vinyl (beginning, really, with the Walkman era). Audiophiles stuck with analog, but they were never going to embrace p- mount. It was a mass market technology, and the masses weren't so interested anymore. If p-mount had been invented in 1970 instead of 1980, it might have developed into the dominant and lasting technology for low-end turntables. Which would have been a good thing for audio in general. bob I think you have a valid point there. Like they say, timing is everything. No high-end arm maker ever came out with a p-mount arm. Therefore, no really high-end P-mount cartridges were ever marketed in the format. Like I said the original Blue Point is the "highest-end" P-mount I recall. If someone such as SME or EMT, or perhaps Graham had produced a P-mount arm, things might have been very different. Of course, other attempts at a standard solution were tried. Anybody remember the original B&O arm and cartridge? or the Ortofon cartridges that came integral as part of an SME head shell (and are still available)? These schemes never took off either. OTOH, if you still have one of those gorgeous SLT B&O turntables from the 1980's, Soundsmith still makes modern, but rather expensive VR cartridges that will fit it. |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Sep 30, 2:28=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:45:45 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Sep 29, 8:01=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:43:52 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): You guys are more than welcome to debate this stuff amongst yourselve= s but don't act like this is stuff the designers and manufacturers of high end pickup arms and cartridges don't know about or keep secret. Any such belief is evidence of a complete disconnect from high end audio rather than a reflection of high end audio. I think you're missing the point. Sure, you can call the manufacturer = and=3D =A0get the info you need to figure this stuff out, but it's not generally inc= lud=3D ed in either the pre-sales or the enclosed product literature. Seriously? That is the point? OK for giggles sake let's say that as the point. Let's examine it for a moment. Just hope the manufacturer is domestic as getting this info from a Japanese or a Ger= man company might prove problematical if you don't speak the language and = I'v=3D e found that the domestic importer/rep often doesn't know any more about= th=3D e product than what came with the sales literature. As it happens I have a Koetsu cartridge. I don't speak Japanese. So let's see how hard it actually is to get that info. A quick internet search turned this up http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.htm http://store.acousticsounds.com/pdf/...comparison.pdf And this is Koetsu. Famous for being shrouded in myth and mystery. It's not that this info isn't available, or that the math involved is = tha=3D t difficult, it's just that consumers shouldn't have to know any of thes= e things or perform the math in order to make an intelligent buying deci= sio=3D n. This information needs to be made simple, be widely used by the indust= ry =3D and be fool-proof. At the present, it is none of those things. The math is what it is. Matching arms and cartridges has been presented in simpler form. Arms and cartridges have been divided by the press and the manufacturers by high, medium and low mass arms and high, medium and low compliance cartridges. To ask that it be fool proof is unreasonable. Fools make it impossible. It IS widely used in the high end. Honestly can you name one dealer that you know of that sent ANY customer out the door with a mismatched arm and cartridge? IME this is a major non-problem in high end audio. It's elitist attitudes like yours Oh give it a rest. There is nothing elitist about what I am saying here. - that there is no problem for true audiophiles and to hell with everybody else Everyone else being whom? This is rec audio "high end." Are you worried that the DJs have issues with arm/cartridge resonances? This IS an audiophile forum. Who is it you are so worried about if not audiophiles? (If they aren't willing to take the time, do the research, and learn the math, then they aren't worthy to have a decent arm and cartridge to play their records) that push newcomer= s away from the audio hobby, in my opinion. Manufacturers should be strivin= g to make this as easy as possible. Or if they have a dealer who actually understands the basics of vinyl playback. They are easy to find. There is nothing elitist about that fact. You are inventing a problem here. There is no crisis in the world of audio over the lack of understanding or relevant information about arm/cartridge resonances. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Oct 3, 7:07=A0am, Scott wrote:
Or if they have a dealer who actually understands the basics of vinyl playback. They are easy to find. Seriously? Trust in the knowledge of the same dealers who think cable at $100/ft. makes a difference? The last dealer I talked to about turntables tried to sell me a green pen for my CDs. If consumers are dependent on those clowns, they haven't a chance. bob |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:11:19 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Oct 3, 7:07=A0am, Scott wrote: Or if they have a dealer who actually understands the basics of vinyl playback. They are easy to find. Seriously? Trust in the knowledge of the same dealers who think cable at $100/ft. makes a difference? The last dealer I talked to about turntables tried to sell me a green pen for my CDs. If consumers are dependent on those clowns, they haven't a chance. bob You certainly have a point there. While there are retailers who know vinyl and are qualified to recommend arm/cartridge combinations (and can even properly install them), my take is that they are few and far between. 'Jerry Raksin's Needle Doctor' has the reputation of doing a good job at this and will professionally install a cartridge in a turntable package as can 'The Audio Advisor', 'Music Direct', and 'The Elusive Disc', et al (at least with the packages they sell), but these people are mail-order. From talking to the folks at most local shops, I'm not sure I'd trust most of them to properly install a cartridge (or even suggest proper matchings), as I've seen no evidence that they posses any special competence with record playing equipment, if they sell it at all. In the SF Bay Area, where I live, there is a dealer called the "Analog Room' who know their stuff, but they are about the only dealer I know that exhibits any real vinyl expertise. I think the average vinyl owner would do a lot better to either buy a compete manufacturer's ensemble, with cartridge preinstalled, or to learn the basics and select and install the cartridge one's self. Of course, it would be nice if the manufacturers could make this selection process easier with some kind of standardized matching nomenclature. 8^) As usual, I have no connection with any of these aforementioned dealers, etc. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello guys. Im new at www.audiobanter.com, and just wanted to introduce myself and say hello to everyone at www.audiobanter.com. Can't wait to chat with everyone.I just opnened my own website at http://www.carpet-cleaning-lasvegas.com and might require some assistance , I hope you don't mind some questions I might have. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
curved or straight tonearm?
In article , bob
wrote: On Oct 3, 7:07*am, Scott wrote: Or if they have a dealer who actually understands the basics of vinyl playback. They are easy to find. Seriously? Trust in the knowledge of the same dealers who think cable at $100/ft. makes a difference? The last dealer I talked to about turntables tried to sell me a green pen for my CDs. Salespeople sell things. It's the same mentality that tells you that using their toothpaste will get you a prettier mate, or buying their car will make you feel like your penis is larger. I don't like it, but that's reality. -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| opinion on these new curved (aka wrap around monitors) | Pro Audio | |||
| Easy way to make quality curved cabinets in your shop. | Car Audio | |||
| Easy Method to make quality curved cabinets at home. | General | |||
| Easy Method to make quality curved cabinets at home. | Marketplace | |||
| Curved Planar Designs | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
