Hello Turbon
You may be right. However, the support shaft could be made from hard anodized aluminum to keep it light. And don't forget that the entire mass of the tone arm bears on the support shaft in four places. One would have to build one to be sure.
I must be crazy being up at three in the morning. I'm going to bed.
Sincerely,
Ralf
You may be right. However, the support shaft could be made from hard anodized aluminum to keep it light. And don't forget that the entire mass of the tone arm bears on the support shaft in four places. One would have to build one to be sure.
I must be crazy being up at three in the morning. I'm going to bed.
Sincerely,
Ralf
Wouldn't the maximum contact point mostly be 3 since the imperfections in any rod?
The lighter the better if you are about to test it. Preferably test the sound against the original - how could we otherwise know the difference?
My thoughts right now is that if the rod is too light the resonances will move somewhere with frequency - it might show up to be a singing Rod...
Good night S.T!
I just have to add - got my first parts today - my missing to-220 isolators
Brgds
Last edited:
Turbon,
Absolutely zero problem altering the design, this is highly encouraged, I just would love to see tangible results. Before one can say anything is flawed they must first need to prove it wrong, this is much harder than solely theorizing, I'm no spring chicken to this
Colin
Happy to hear that Colin - yes comparative reproduceable results are needed. Your design might be the best your design is able to produce - alternations might improve it. You must be bold to test these yourself - of course you need to believe in them - no need to test every idea if you don't believe it improves things. The freedom will of course give a chaotic need to better it in many directions - the bad ideas will die and the good ones will endure. There will be a lot of fun even if it might not be one of those that endures - this is what we all are going to thank you for - the initial idea that made us think further and have a lot of fun...
Brgds
Last edited:
if that is the case, then would you not get a rocking motion?
("two bearings good, four bearings bad", to parody 'Animal Farm')
and if you are worried about imperfections in roundness of the rod, what about the roundness of the balls and bearing cases?
Last edited:
if that is the case, then would you not get a rocking motion?
("two bearings good, four bearings bad", to parody 'Animal Farm')
and if you are worried about imperfections in roundness of the rod, what about the roundness of the balls and bearing cases?
Yeah - good you made me thinking again C.S.
. V.A.'s design takes care of this thanks to gravitation... So in this design please forget the 3-point contact theory. My bad...Brgds
Turbon,
I agree for the most part, though finances aren't endless here. At the end of the day we must assess what we are trying to solve, what is the working problem with a glass
Tube?, what is the arm not doing?, or are we to be victims of our own psychological fears?, however founded or unfounded?.
Colin
I agree for the most part, though finances aren't endless here. At the end of the day we must assess what we are trying to solve, what is the working problem with a glass
Tube?, what is the arm not doing?, or are we to be victims of our own psychological fears?, however founded or unfounded?.
Colin
I agree with Colin. Remember that the original 'glass tube' linear arm (the Cantus) has remained effectively unchanged for over 20 years and people still buy it- so it must be doing something right. I've made all sorts of arms over the past few years and I always know if I'm on the right track-I ask myself 'What does i sound like?' I have to say that my take on this arm ranks it up there with the best Whatever material you use, the basic design is a good one-believe me!
At times where funding isn't available - let's lean on those with a heavier pocket as we allways do hoping that the truth will drop down upon us or when funds are available buy the product for some hopeless sum when pantented and protected by law... Now, your original idea with the glass tube is the one in que in my shed. After that I will have a choice of many ideas that I will think about. I believe there's a lot thinking the same way. Let's first see if we can agree with you describing what you heard - either we throw it away or agree. Then we make a change depending on our believes of how to do things better - and we compare. We communicate the findings and describe what alternations we have made so that others can test it as well and give their verdict of what they think. Let it evolve this way keeping the bearings free from snakeoil... Why not?
Brgds
Last edited:
I do believe you Chris but let the search for improvement continue, if stoneage was enough we would still be at stoneage...
Brgds
Yeah - good you made me thinking again C.S.
Brgds
You are right, it can be only 3 points for a plane, and the carriage runs on a plane anytime.
Actually not on a simple plane as I got mixt up thinking of internally - but on a convex plane with some springiness from the bearings and gravity which does its thing on the horisontal plane... Rather than search for the most perfect rod - maybe add more bearings? Not all of them will be in contact with the rod at any given time - at a maximum 4 (might be disputable - I'll agree...)
. A lot of dimensions to catch here.
Brgds
Last edited:
Rod - hollow or not of any material...
How would one better it? How is it done out there in industry?
A round flat bit of glass is simple - you just as randomly as possible let the outer rim let the outer rim of your piece get outside the rim of the tool with preferably only gravity as the presure against the tool. In time you get a perfectly spherical surface. How would this be tuned to 2D?
I really can't see how after thinking about it for several days... I have some ideas how but there is no simple (cheap) solution. The machinery would be quite complex to get rid of periodical imperfections. I still stand behind the idea to build V.A.'s design as is and then experiment as wild as you wish I know, I will - the rest is thoughts.
Brgds
How would one better it? How is it done out there in industry?
A round flat bit of glass is simple - you just as randomly as possible let the outer rim let the outer rim of your piece get outside the rim of the tool with preferably only gravity as the presure against the tool. In time you get a perfectly spherical surface. How would this be tuned to 2D?
I really can't see how after thinking about it for several days... I have some ideas how but there is no simple (cheap) solution. The machinery would be quite complex to get rid of periodical imperfections. I still stand behind the idea to build V.A.'s design as is and then experiment as wild as you wish
I know, I will - the rest is thoughts.Brgds
Last edited:
Actually not on a simple plane as I got mixt up thinking of internally - but on a convex plane with some springiness from the bearings and gravity which does its thing on the horisontal plane... Rather than search for the most perfect rod - maybe add more bearings? Not all of them will be in contact with the rod at any given time - at a maximum 4 (might be disputable - I'll agree...)
A lot of dimensions to catch here. We'll loose in weight by shure is one obstacle...
Brgds
I want to add this:
A lot of dimensions to catch here ;-) will you be able to arrange them in a perfect horisontal plane? There will be errors at some point but how much will they affect the whole? How much will they affect vta or skating forces?.
Brgds
Last edited:
Another one due to the administrators decisions:
Probably there is a need to search outside our needs? How would our music sound for a bat? Or a snail... What perfection are we searching for? The obvious path is to follow V.A's design as closely as possible - then experiment and communicate your findings.
Brgds
Last edited:
Build as described, try it......you may like it as is. I do.
Make improvements, that's your perogative, once you
start to build it, it becomes something you own, and can
tweak as you like........
Build as described, try it......you may like it as is. I do.
Make improvements, that's your perogative, once you
start to build it, it becomes something you own, and can
tweak as you like........
Yepp, now we are talking...
Brgds
PDR,
Thank you, minus the rambling from myself this is what I wanted to say. Before we get ahead of ourselves there needs to be a reference, in this case the design offered as is would be the reference. Bill thus far is ahead of the game, he has built this design and is looking at other options, but he has a reference to compare with. Who knows, there could be a much better solution out there mechanically, there may not, there may be strengths in one area and weaknesses in others. While not perfect I have have achieved what I feel is the best combination of compromises since there is no perfect idea as a whole.
Colin
Thank you, minus the rambling from myself this is what I wanted to say. Before we get ahead of ourselves there needs to be a reference, in this case the design offered as is would be the reference. Bill thus far is ahead of the game, he has built this design and is looking at other options, but he has a reference to compare with. Who knows, there could be a much better solution out there mechanically, there may not, there may be strengths in one area and weaknesses in others. While not perfect I have have achieved what I feel is the best combination of compromises since there is no perfect idea as a whole
.Colin
