What the Heck?

[alphaGT]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180210/58edf7894415065f3f26cc5db6969093.jpg


What do you suppose the mass is on this arm?

Russell

[Audio Al]

:eek: :lol:

[paulf-2007]

:eek: :lol:
My thoughts exactly:lol:

[Wakefield Turntables]

i bet it has very low tracking error!!!

[Truckletheuncivil]

Not after the kids/pets have clattered into the arm support

[Barry]

Not after the kids/pets have clattered into the arm support

My thoughts as well!

[RobbieGong]

If thats legit, the mind boggles :eek: :scratch:

[walpurgis]

What's the arm mass? And what's the cartridge compliance?

[alphaGT]

As you can see it’s a pic I clipped from Pinterest, it’s supposed to be legit. It appears that someone put a lot of money and effort into this monster?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[struth]

First thing that comes to mind is. WHY?

[jandl100]

Tom !! - you gotta get one of those! :lol:

[Mike Reed]

i bet it has very low tracking error!!!

Tracing error; often confused but very different. I'd imagine that its rigidity would be questionable, as would getting perfect alignment, and rather subject to footfall, possibly?

[Barry]

Tracking error: the angular deviation from true tangential tracking of the record groove by a pivoted arm/cartridge assembly. It is dependant on the arm geometry. Longer arms have lower tracking error (at the expense of effective mass) than shorter arms.

Tracing error: the inability of the stylus to precisely trace the pattern of the record groove. It depends on the geometry of the stylus, and how closely it approximates the profile of the cutter head. Spherical styli have the greatest tracing error (as well as 'pinch' distortion), whereas 'micro ridge' types have the least.

[Mike Reed]

Barry, I've always understood that 12" arms, e.g., have a lower TRACING error than, say 9" That is, they are more able to trace the ideal sweep from outer to inner grooves, thereby exhibiting lower inner/outer groove distortion. Similarly, TRACKING error is the inability for the stylus to stay in/ track the groove. This could be caused, e.g. by incorrect overhang etc.

Could be wrong here, but it looks as though your info. above completely gainsays my understanding, which is learnt rather than derived from technical knowhow. Odd, but I'd like to know.

[struth]

The lower the mass of a cantilever will also reduce tracing error

[Marco]

Lol - great pic, but that arm's a joke, and will almost certainly sound like it! :D

12" arms? Undoubtedly technically superior to 9" ones (for reasons given), but most I've heard sound a bit laid back, despite their otherwise good points (smoothness and bass weight) compared with even the best 9-inchers.

For me, however, the latter have a zesty/dynamic 'get-up-and-go', and 'fun factor', absent in their 12" counterparts, which I need for my music listening.

Some say 10" arms offer the best compromise between both - sentiments my instincts tell me could be right - which is why at some point, sooner rather than later, I intend to test that theory :cool:

Marco.

[Barry]

Barry, I've always understood that 12" arms, e.g., have a lower TRACING error than, say 9" That is, they are more able to trace the ideal sweep from outer to inner grooves, thereby exhibiting lower inner/outer groove distortion. Similarly, TRACKING error is the inability for the stylus to stay in/ track the groove. This could be caused, e.g. by incorrect overhang etc.

Could be wrong here, but it looks as though your info. above completely gainsays my understanding, which is learnt rather than derived from technical knowhow. Odd, but I'd like to know.

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/arc_angles_optimizing_tonearm_geometry/index.html

[Wakefield Turntables]

Tracing error; often confused but very different. I'd imagine that its rigidity would be questionable, as would getting perfect alignment, and rather subject to footfall, possibly?

I was being sarcastic.

[Ammonite Audio]

Going to the other extreme, how about a 7” tonearm with zero offset?

https://theaudiophileman.com/rigid-float-tonearm-viv-labs/

I’d love to hear one of these.

[Marco]

There's some clever engineering going on there... Love the bubble level, for ascertaining correct VTA! Why has no-one else thought of that? :)

Marco.

[Barry]

Going to the other extreme, how about a 7” tonearm with zero offset?

https://theaudiophileman.com/rigid-float-tonearm-viv-labs/

I’d love to hear one of these.

It's perfectly possible to have an arm with zero angular offset (and hence no need for any provision of anti-skating), but in only having one degree of freedom in the geometry (which in this case will mean the arm underhangs the turntable spigot), there will only be one point on the record playing surface where the tracking error is zero.

[karma67]

barry,going back to the link you posted,whats you view on inner and outer groove radius's.
he seems to advocate 56-58mm for the inner,rather like the JIS 1981 standard size of 57.6mm.
what are the benefits of changing the sizes of the inner/outer groove radius's ?
i know from playing with them on the conrad hoffman arc protractor program you it effects the offset angle.

[Barry]

I've never measured the average inner groove radii for any of the LPs in my collection - life's too short.

Rather, I assume the arm manufacturer has done his sums and that the alignment protractor provided is correct. Most alignment protractors have null points at 66mm and 121mm; corresponding to inner and outer groove radii of 60.3mm and 146mm respectively.

Yes, small changes to the inner groove radius will change the offset angle as well as the overhang. Whereas the overhang is readily adjustable, the offset angle is not. So with a change of inner groove radius, and with a fixed offset angle and effective arm length, I would recalculate the null radii and mark them on an existing alignment protractor to set up the arm

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?20109-Tonearm-alignment

[Mike Reed]

BARRY, thanks for the Stereophile link, the contents of which surprise me. What on Earth, therefore, is TRACING error? I'm beginning to wonder if this is simply a linguistic difference (American v British English).

After all, when one talks about TRACKING, one is referring to the cart's ability to stay in the groove without distortion. TRACING would, i.m.o., be the correct word for following a geometric line, more with reference to a tonearm rather than the cart.

Utterly baffled here, as when this subject has come up on forums previously, it's always been as I'd conceived the differences between the two terms; one concerns the geometry and t'other the physical connection between stylus and groove.

[Ammonite Audio]

BARRY, thanks for the Stereophile link, the contents of which surprise me. What on Earth, therefore, is TRACING error? I'm beginning to wonder if this is simply a linguistic difference (American v British English).

After all, when one talks about TRACKING, one is referring to the cart's ability to stay in the groove without distortion. TRACING would, i.m.o., be the correct word for following a geometric line, more with reference to a tonearm rather than the cart.

Utterly baffled here, as when this subject has come up on forums previously, it's always been as I'd conceived the differences between the two terms; one concerns the geometry and t'other the physical connection between stylus and groove.

I believe you are correct.

[karma67]

I've never measured the average inner groove radii for any of the LPs in my collection - life's too short.

Rather, I assume the arm manufacturer has done his sums and that the alignment protractor provided is correct. Most alignment protractors have null points at 66mm and 121mm; corresponding to inner and outer groove radii of 60.3mm and 146mm respectively.

Yes, small changes to the inner groove radius will change the offset angle as well as the overhang. Whereas the overhang is readily adjustable, the offset angle is not. So with a change of inner groove radius, and with a fixed offset angle and effective arm length, I would recalculate the null radii and mark them on an existing alignment protractor to set up the arm

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?20109-Tonearm-alignment

What I’ve found Barry is the figures for my arm (zeta) are spindle to pivot is 210.6, effective length of 228.6, offset is 23.75 with an over hang of 18mm.
Now if I put the effective length or spindle to pivot figures into the vinyl engine calculator the offset and overhang figures don’t match. You can get them close by changing the inner and outer radius’s but not excactly.

I don’t have a zeta original protractor so in the end I mounted it at 211 and went with linn alignment.

[paulf-2007]

Lol - great pic, but that arm's a joke, and will almost certainly sound like it! :D

12" arms? Undoubtedly technically superior to 9" ones (for reasons given), but most I've heard sound a bit laid back, despite their otherwise good points (smoothness and bass weight) compared with even the best 9-inchers. Oi

For me, however, the latter have a zesty/dynamic 'get-up-and-go', and 'fun factor', absent in their 12" counterparts, which I need for my music listening.

Some say 10" arms offer the best compromise between both - sentiments my instincts tell me could be right - which is why at some point, sooner rather than later, I intend to test that theory :cool:

Marco.should be interesting when I get my Stax UA-7 9" arm working and compare with the UA-70 12" arm. The exact same arm other than the wand and removable headshell so can try with the same cart. I found it difficult to hear any difference between 9" and 12" unipivots I've used. Certainly nothing to stress about, then I'm totally relaxed about music playback these days.

[struth]

i dont bother with any of that :lol: just bung on the geodisc and slide the arm til stylus is in the dot. job done:ner:

[karma67]

Well that’s kinda what I did in using the linn protractor,I’m just interested why gb tools who made my arm went with 210.6 instead of 211 mounting distance.

[Barry]

BARRY, thanks for the Stereophile link, the contents of which surprise me. What on Earth, therefore, is TRACING error? I'm beginning to wonder if this is simply a linguistic difference (American v British English).

After all, when one talks about TRACKING, one is referring to the cart's ability to stay in the groove without distortion. TRACING would, i.m.o., be the correct word for following a geometric line, more with reference to a tonearm rather than the cart.

Utterly baffled here, as when this subject has come up on forums previously, it's always been as I'd conceived the differences between the two terms; one concerns the geometry and t'other the physical connection between stylus and groove.

Indeed it does: the former is called tracking error, the latter is called tracing error. It's not a matter of semantics, and whilst I'm sympathetic to your entomological argument (I used to have a similar problem with the designation of 'inner' and 'outer' lanes on motorways), I'm afraid the terms "tracking" and "tracing" have already been defined.

http://www.richardbrice.net/LP%20distortion%20compensation.htm

[narabdela]

There's some clever engineering going on there... Love the bubble level, for ascertaining correct VTA! Why has no-one else thought of that? :)

Marco.

Decca built them into their International Arm headshells donkeys years ago.

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/deccainternationa900.gif

[Mike Reed]

I believe you are correct.

Not according to the more informative link from Barry above, Hugo (thanks, Barry). I can't pretend to follow the more technical descriptions, but it appears that lateral tracking distortion describes what I thought was tracing and tracing error concerns the ability of different styli to emulate the cutter head. At least, I think it does ! Seems strange to have one's firmly fixed and simply explained ideas completely (as it seems) turned on their head, despite the adjectives appearing to describe the function.

MARCO, your take on 12" arms is about right; from my own experience, that is. Yes, there IS a more 'laid-back' aspect to the presentation. Not sure that there's a difference in bass, though it makes sense that the lateral tracking (ahem !) improvement could define the bass and treble better. One positive of the longer arm that I've noticed is a certain feeling of security ('solidity, almost); it just sounds more stable, esp. on busy or loud passages.

Another benefit is practicality. Both of my 12" arms are just so much easier to manipulate and cue in relation to my previous SME Five. They seem to have better balance. In all fairness, though, a change of deck from suspended to mass may be involved here. I don't think I could revert to a 9" arm now though; I'd find it too fiddly (at my age !). In addition, a 12" arm does have more mass than its shorter brethren, and this does favour most decent moving coils.

[Mike Reed]

Decca built them into their International Arm headshells donkeys years ago.

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/deccainternationa900.gif

I had one on different decks; my bro.-in-law still has it. Surprised at the misspelling of 'jewelled', though, and there's that tracing error mentioned again !!!!! My arm had its bias defined by cutting off a specific length of specific thickness solder and the usual string/twisted wire carrier. Maybe that was the original FFS arm; can't remember back to '65/6. Mounted on my TD150, it made jelly seem more secure; 'Twas better on my TD125 though, and that WAS the International arm

[montesquieu]

Tom !! - you gotta get one of those! :lol:

Lol. Next project perhaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ammonite Audio]

There's some clever engineering going on there... Love the bubble level, for ascertaining correct VTA! Why has no-one else thought of that? :)

Marco.

What we need is a well engineered, structurally sound and non-resonant, fully adjustable headshell with an inbuilt bubble level. Wait, Out ;)

[montesquieu]

I have a Nasotec swing headshell for SPU which works rather well at minimising tracking error ... better I think than the normal SPU headshell. I got it for use with my Royal N, which is currently on a Fidelity Research S3 headshell, but I may revert to the Nasotec at some point. Some good stuff here and a video:

http://www.highendcity.com/swing-headshell-catalog/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei7NjQ_7QxY

[WESTLOWER]

I have a Nasotec swing headshell for SPU which works rather well at minimising tracking error ... better I think than the normal SPU headshell. I got it for use with my Royal N, which is currently on a Fidelity Research S3 headshell, but I may revert to the Nasotec at some point. Some good stuff here and a video:

http://www.highendcity.com/swing-headshell-catalog/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei7NjQ_7QxY

I like that!

[alphaGT]

I have a Nasotec swing headshell for SPU which works rather well at minimising tracking error ... better I think than the normal SPU headshell. I got it for use with my Royal N, which is currently on a Fidelity Research S3 headshell, but I may revert to the Nasotec at some point. Some good stuff here and a video:

http://www.highendcity.com/swing-headshell-catalog/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei7NjQ_7QxY

That is pure genius!

Russell

[Mike Reed]

I've not seen anything like that before. From a traditional rather than technical p.o.v., wouldn't this arrangement either decrease the rigidity of the arm and/or alter the compliance? Wouldn't it also be a bit of a bugger to set up with normal protractors ?

Assuming that the flexibility of the headshell allows for more accurate tracking/tracing, why hasn't this become a standard for pivoted arms, more or less obviating the need for different lengths of arm? Bit of scepticism here from an admittedly reactionary standpoint.

[Stratmangler]

http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/nasotec_swing_e.html

[alphaGT]

I've not seen anything like that before. From a traditional rather than technical p.o.v., wouldn't this arrangement either decrease the rigidity of the arm and/or alter the compliance? Wouldn't it also be a bit of a bugger to set up with normal protractors ?

Assuming that the flexibility of the headshell allows for more accurate tracking/tracing, why hasn't this become a standard for pivoted arms, more or less obviating the need for different lengths of arm? Bit of scepticism here from an admittedly reactionary standpoint.

It seems there are always trade offs and compromises. Every design that makes one thing better usually cost you somewhere else. Playing Records is a very imperfect science.

Russell

[montesquieu]

I've not seen anything like that before. From a traditional rather than technical p.o.v., wouldn't this arrangement either decrease the rigidity of the arm and/or alter the compliance? Wouldn't it also be a bit of a bugger to set up with normal protractors ?

Assuming that the flexibility of the headshell allows for more accurate tracking/tracing, why hasn't this become a standard for pivoted arms, more or less obviating the need for different lengths of arm? Bit of scepticism here from an admittedly reactionary standpoint.

It seems that some loss is allowed in the coupling/joint in the headshell so that not all the cartridge energy is directed into the tonearm ... there are a few other solutions around that work on that principle.

For me it makes SPU playback a bit 'cleaner' and more focused/detailed all round (not just around the end grooves), without losing that wonderful SPU body, the only reason I don't have it in at the moment is that it sits the stylus body a little low relative to the headshell connector than it does on a normal SPU, so you end up with a more tail-up angle on the tonearm, which can be dialled out if you only have one cartridge, but I have quite a few that go on this arm and I try to get them all at the same height to minimise the re-setup required when changing headshells. I have a 4mm ebony spacer on the way from Speedy Steve to mitigate this and when it arrives I'll put it back in the system again.

The only down side from my point of view is that it feels quite fragile compared to a normal SPU headshell and needs careful handling.

I don't see why the compliance should change? Compliance is all about mass and motion in the groove. All my my cartridges are low compliance and all my tonearms are pretty heavy.

On the protractor question, at rest the springs centre it and it behaves like a normal headshell, in any case the SPU version has identical 52mm headshell connector to stylus tip dimensions as standard SPU, so goes straight on any arm that's already correct for SPU geometry.

[paulf-2007]

It seems there are always trade offs and compromises. Every design that makes one thing better usually cost you somewhere else. Playing Records is a very imperfect science.

Russellmy thoughts too.
Thinking about the Thales arm with two arm wands and pivoting headshell, all well and good but expensive to engineer and avoid the downsides. Linear tracking is fine but not necessary with modern stylii.

[alphaGT]

my thoughts too.
Thinking about the Thales arm with two arm wands and pivoting headshell, all well and good but expensive to engineer and avoid the downsides. Linear tracking is fine but not necessary with modern stylii.

I was thinking the same thing about linear tracking, it corrects the alignment problem, but creates a whole new set of other problems.

Russell

[Frazeur1]

How about this? https://welltemperedlab.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dsc04240.jpg 16” anyone? I do like Well Tempered tables. The Royal is a wonderful deck, but price is just a bit north of what I could or would ever put into a deck.

[Audio Al]

How about this? https://welltemperedlab.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dsc04240.jpg 16” anyone? I do like Well Tempered tables. The Royal is a wonderful deck, but price is just a bit north of what I could or would ever put into a deck.


Now thats more like it :eyebrows:

[alphaGT]

How about this? https://welltemperedlab.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dsc04240.jpg 16” anyone? I do like Well Tempered tables. The Royal is a wonderful deck, but price is just a bit north of what I could or would ever put into a deck.

I kind of like it!

Russell