I have a Mayware Formula IV, though it is in hibernation. It met with an unfortunate accident which resulted in its pivot "nail" being sheared off. Here are a few things I did with mine:
1. reinforced the headshell per an article in Audio Amateur. Mainly this involved epoxying little triangular reinforcements at the bend in the headshell piece and trimming away needless headshell material.
2. firmly attach headshell to the arm tube with LocTite
3. One can somewhat tune the resonant frequency of the arm by using the sliding stylus-force-setting weight and thus changing the arm effective mass and thus its resonant frequency. This requires careful adjustment of the main counterweight to set tracking force. For my Shure V15-V I slid the sliding weight all the way toward the pivot. Some people actually removed it.
4. I replaced the arm wiring with four stands of fine Litz wire (5x44 ?)
I never had problems with tortional motions though it was a pain to get the eccentricity of the counterweight just right to get the 'pitch' of the cartridge just right.
Soncially the arm was good for its day and may still be quite good. However it's been so long since I've used it and the rest of my system has changed so much since then that I really can't make any value judgments.
Speaking of tonearms, does anyone have experience with the Technics EPA-500 arm?
1. reinforced the headshell per an article in Audio Amateur. Mainly this involved epoxying little triangular reinforcements at the bend in the headshell piece and trimming away needless headshell material.
2. firmly attach headshell to the arm tube with LocTite
3. One can somewhat tune the resonant frequency of the arm by using the sliding stylus-force-setting weight and thus changing the arm effective mass and thus its resonant frequency. This requires careful adjustment of the main counterweight to set tracking force. For my Shure V15-V I slid the sliding weight all the way toward the pivot. Some people actually removed it.
4. I replaced the arm wiring with four stands of fine Litz wire (5x44 ?)
I never had problems with tortional motions though it was a pain to get the eccentricity of the counterweight just right to get the 'pitch' of the cartridge just right.
Soncially the arm was good for its day and may still be quite good. However it's been so long since I've used it and the rest of my system has changed so much since then that I really can't make any value judgments.
Speaking of tonearms, does anyone have experience with the Technics EPA-500 arm?
Brian,
concerning the Technics arm ia m not sure they once had a unipivot arm with 500 in its model # so i presume this was the arm youinquire about.
It didn't have a good rep, maybe you consieder to get your Mayware out of hibernation and replace the pivot nail.
A good idea would be to buy a tungsten-carbide-tipped scribing iron and salvage the tip.
concerning the Technics arm ia m not sure they once had a unipivot arm with 500 in its model # so i presume this was the arm youinquire about.
It didn't have a good rep, maybe you consieder to get your Mayware out of hibernation and replace the pivot nail.
A good idea would be to buy a tungsten-carbide-tipped scribing iron and salvage the tip.
Yes, James, that's the arm. I actually have one of those and 1.75 arm wands (one has a broken headshell). It seems a magnfiicent arm, and seems to have a cult following, probably because it is not well known -- even Technics/Panasonics does not know that they ever sold it. It is NOT unipivot but had, I believe, jeweled bearings with the lowest friction ever.
Anyhow, when I finally get around to building my Teres "kit" one or both of these arms will be "enlivened" to facilitate LP playing, though the Ladegaard looks very interesting as well.
(of course, I don't even seem to find time to get anything working so who knows when this will happen
)
If anyone is interested I could go into detail on the unique features of the Technics arm, but then this was supposed to be a Mayware Formula IV thread...
Anyhow, when I finally get around to building my Teres "kit" one or both of these arms will be "enlivened" to facilitate LP playing, though the Ladegaard looks very interesting as well.
(of course, I don't even seem to find time to get anything working so who knows when this will happen
)If anyone is interested I could go into detail on the unique features of the Technics arm, but then this was supposed to be a Mayware Formula IV thread...
unipivot pivot
if you're trying to resurect that arm i have a suggestion for the pivot. carlo morisani (read a review of his tonearm at TNT audio) claims the best sounding "needle" for a unipivot is what he uses in his arms: a gramaphone needle. these are really really cheap and easy to find (if you can't find some i have a link somewhere aroudn here i'll try and dig up for you if you want it), i'd be interested to see how they sound and the very idea of it appeals to me.
later,
jesse
if you're trying to resurect that arm i have a suggestion for the pivot. carlo morisani (read a review of his tonearm at TNT audio) claims the best sounding "needle" for a unipivot is what he uses in his arms: a gramaphone needle. these are really really cheap and easy to find (if you can't find some i have a link somewhere aroudn here i'll try and dig up for you if you want it), i'd be interested to see how they sound and the very idea of it appeals to me.
later,
jesse
Pendulums
Dice 45,
you were disappointed that nobody replied to your post about rotational inertia...
Most unipivots are very badly designed. (Nothing like an uncontentious statement to begin a post.) They place their pivot way above record height. Play an eccentric record, or simply one that uses varigroove, and the arm moves from side to side. If the bearing is above record height, this side to side force twists the arm just like a pendulum.
On the other hand, if the bearing is at record height and centre of gravity is just below record height we don't excite twisting.
I don't agree with increasing rotational inertia. Increasing rotational inertia lowers the frequency of the pendulum. We damp the pendulum's motion with viscous fluid. It takes Q cycles to set up or damp a resonance, so a low frequency pendulum oscillates for longer.
Most unipivots apply their damping badly. We need lots of damping for the rotational pendulum, a little for vertical motion, and rather more for rotational motion.
This is not armchair theorising. I built my (high-mass) unipivot to these principles and it's very resistant (for a unipivot) to rocking whilst tracking a moving coil cartridge. (It's at the "Unipivot pick-up arm" thread.)
Peted
The Mayware is quite a flimsy arm, and at the time it was made people tended to use high compliance Shures or the Entre moving coil. I would be inclined to stick with highish compliance cartridges.
Dice 45,
you were disappointed that nobody replied to your post about rotational inertia...
Most unipivots are very badly designed. (Nothing like an uncontentious statement to begin a post.) They place their pivot way above record height. Play an eccentric record, or simply one that uses varigroove, and the arm moves from side to side. If the bearing is above record height, this side to side force twists the arm just like a pendulum.
On the other hand, if the bearing is at record height and centre of gravity is just below record height we don't excite twisting.
I don't agree with increasing rotational inertia. Increasing rotational inertia lowers the frequency of the pendulum. We damp the pendulum's motion with viscous fluid. It takes Q cycles to set up or damp a resonance, so a low frequency pendulum oscillates for longer.
Most unipivots apply their damping badly. We need lots of damping for the rotational pendulum, a little for vertical motion, and rather more for rotational motion.
This is not armchair theorising. I built my (high-mass) unipivot to these principles and it's very resistant (for a unipivot) to rocking whilst tracking a moving coil cartridge. (It's at the "Unipivot pick-up arm" thread.)
Peted
The Mayware is quite a flimsy arm, and at the time it was made people tended to use high compliance Shures or the Entre moving coil. I would be inclined to stick with highish compliance cartridges.
Just to wade in on JH, despite late date: That is clearly a JH formula IV. Maywares did not have the vertical pin at the back of the arm, whose function I assume is to trap the counterweight. Why this is desireable I don't know. None of the JH's I have seen had the sliding tracking force/mass adjustment weight that all or most of the Maywares had. The JH I have has a very flimsy plastic cartridge carrier, and does not have adjustment slots for overhang, so you need an adjustable base a la SME or an alternative. As far as I knowMaywares had metal cartridge carriers with adjustment slots. The Maywares were noticeably better made than the JH I have. I had an original Mayware years ago, which was built in Japan, and was very nicely done for the price.
I also had a JH turntable once. While it must have been an improved model -- it did have a suspension, if you can call three leaf springs a suspension (and why not? B&O did), but it really was as bad as the previous writer mentioned. I think a stamped steel platter, not even close to dynamically balanced. And the belt was still simply a glued rubber strand. I bought it at Q Audio in Cambrige to get the platter mat they sold on it (I think to give it enough mass to minimise somewhat wow and flutter. I am not sure why Q bothered -- most of the stuff they sold was high quality, but this was not. On the other hand, I think it cost me $25, so it may have been an evaluation piece.
Audio was more fun then...
Doesn't the Graham arm have lateral weights at the pivot point (and aren't they perpendicular to the cartridge in order to minimise yaw when tracking warps). This seems a good idea, but it requires more parts than the eccentric counterweight that the Formula IVs have -- and look at the price difference!
I also had a JH turntable once. While it must have been an improved model -- it did have a suspension, if you can call three leaf springs a suspension (and why not? B&O did), but it really was as bad as the previous writer mentioned. I think a stamped steel platter, not even close to dynamically balanced. And the belt was still simply a glued rubber strand. I bought it at Q Audio in Cambrige to get the platter mat they sold on it (I think to give it enough mass to minimise somewhat wow and flutter. I am not sure why Q bothered -- most of the stuff they sold was high quality, but this was not. On the other hand, I think it cost me $25, so it may have been an evaluation piece.
Audio was more fun then...
Doesn't the Graham arm have lateral weights at the pivot point (and aren't they perpendicular to the cartridge in order to minimise yaw when tracking warps). This seems a good idea, but it requires more parts than the eccentric counterweight that the Formula IVs have -- and look at the price difference!
Brilliant! This thread is still running almost 2 years later! I haven't looked in for a while or subscribed - loads of good stuff come in here - many thanks to all. Time to update my site... (and obviously get the thing back into service which would be really cool - there's just sooooo much of that round flat black stuff out there).
Cheers
Pete
Cheers
Pete
Nut for Mayware
Hi,
Am modifying an AR XA TT with a Mayware Formula 4. To do so, I need a second nut that goes over the large threaded that attaches the arm to the AR T-bar suspension. Have had no luck finding this M20x100 (thread) bolt. Anyone who has mounted a Mayware possibly have this bolt as a spare? Willing to sell or trade?
Dave
Hi,
Am modifying an AR XA TT with a Mayware Formula 4. To do so, I need a second nut that goes over the large threaded that attaches the arm to the AR T-bar suspension. Have had no luck finding this M20x100 (thread) bolt. Anyone who has mounted a Mayware possibly have this bolt as a spare? Willing to sell or trade?
Dave
Mayware arm
Sorry this is a late arrival at the discussion. I have used Maywares (Mk III and V) for a long time and they are very good. They are actually compatible with a wide range of cartridges because the playing weight adjustment system automatically gives variable effective mass - higher for low compliance/high playing weights and lower for high compliance/lower playing weight. Also, for a very low compliance cartridge, you can position the rider weight right behind the headshell to give maximum effective mass (adjust playing weight using the counterweight).
Points to note:
at the base of the arm pillar there is a locking screw which can be done and undone to adjust the height. However there is also a small grub screw and once the arm height is correctly set, it is important to also tighten this little grub screw, so that the arm is firmly held in '3 point contact'. Don't tighten any screws too tightly, because the arm is aluminium and you can strip the threads.
The MkIII has a thin spring steel finger lift which is handy but colours the sound. For best sound it should be removed. However the MkIV and MkV have cast alumium finger lifts which are fine.
I can confirm that the Mayware moving coil cartridges are excellent. I use the MC7V High Ouptut, which feeds my amplifier phono stage directly. However Mayware also made excellent step up transformers for their low output MCs.
I have a spare MC7VIII High Output cartridge, if anyone is interested in making a sensible offer for it.
Sorry this is a late arrival at the discussion. I have used Maywares (Mk III and V) for a long time and they are very good. They are actually compatible with a wide range of cartridges because the playing weight adjustment system automatically gives variable effective mass - higher for low compliance/high playing weights and lower for high compliance/lower playing weight. Also, for a very low compliance cartridge, you can position the rider weight right behind the headshell to give maximum effective mass (adjust playing weight using the counterweight).
Points to note:
at the base of the arm pillar there is a locking screw which can be done and undone to adjust the height. However there is also a small grub screw and once the arm height is correctly set, it is important to also tighten this little grub screw, so that the arm is firmly held in '3 point contact'. Don't tighten any screws too tightly, because the arm is aluminium and you can strip the threads.
The MkIII has a thin spring steel finger lift which is handy but colours the sound. For best sound it should be removed. However the MkIV and MkV have cast alumium finger lifts which are fine.
I can confirm that the Mayware moving coil cartridges are excellent. I use the MC7V High Ouptut, which feeds my amplifier phono stage directly. However Mayware also made excellent step up transformers for their low output MCs.
I have a spare MC7VIII High Output cartridge, if anyone is interested in making a sensible offer for it.
Mayware arm PS
I notice that a previous correspondent sounded off about unipivots having rocking problems and the Mayware being flimsy. This sounds like standard generalisations about unipivots rather than specific knowledge of the Mayware, which was very carefully designed. The counterweight is a large diameter flat disc (to give high rotational inertia) and this combined with the efficient pivot damping gives rock-steady tracking. As for flimsy? Well some unipivots were (and the early Maywares may have been - I don't know) but the Mark III was perfectly solid, despite very low effective mass (with cast aluminium headshell) and capable of doing credit to a wide range of catridges. The MkIV and MkV have larger diameter arm tubes and more substantial bearing housings and are even better.
The fact is the Mayware is a very effective, clean sounding, versatile arm, with no real minus points and seems to have had a 'better sorted' design than most other unipivots. The MkIV and MkV are best but the MkIII is pretty good. One of the best features of a good unipivot is that there is really nothing to go wrong with it - the bearing cannot seize up, work loose, get stiff or rattle. In theory a well lubricated jewelled unipivot like the Mayware could almost go on for ever!
Alasdair Beal
I notice that a previous correspondent sounded off about unipivots having rocking problems and the Mayware being flimsy. This sounds like standard generalisations about unipivots rather than specific knowledge of the Mayware, which was very carefully designed. The counterweight is a large diameter flat disc (to give high rotational inertia) and this combined with the efficient pivot damping gives rock-steady tracking. As for flimsy? Well some unipivots were (and the early Maywares may have been - I don't know) but the Mark III was perfectly solid, despite very low effective mass (with cast aluminium headshell) and capable of doing credit to a wide range of catridges. The MkIV and MkV have larger diameter arm tubes and more substantial bearing housings and are even better.
The fact is the Mayware is a very effective, clean sounding, versatile arm, with no real minus points and seems to have had a 'better sorted' design than most other unipivots. The MkIV and MkV are best but the MkIII is pretty good. One of the best features of a good unipivot is that there is really nothing to go wrong with it - the bearing cannot seize up, work loose, get stiff or rattle. In theory a well lubricated jewelled unipivot like the Mayware could almost go on for ever!
Alasdair Beal
Mayware Formula IV cartridges
Actually an arm with quite a lot of potential. I always enjoyed the music with them. My suggestions:
cartridge - stick with high-compliance stuff, like any of the Grados. If you have the budget, the MusicMaker might be wonderful with it.
arm - I epoxied all the joints, rather than rely on the teensy set-screws. Crazy glue is great for this. I also put Cardas wire in, which is always a good move.
If you need help setting it up, email me. It takes about a half hour, but there's nothing difficult about it.
BTW, I once mounted one on an AR turntable, and the results were astonishingly good. I differ with those who say that unipivots and suspended turntables are a problem.
Actually an arm with quite a lot of potential. I always enjoyed the music with them. My suggestions:
cartridge - stick with high-compliance stuff, like any of the Grados. If you have the budget, the MusicMaker might be wonderful with it.
arm - I epoxied all the joints, rather than rely on the teensy set-screws. Crazy glue is great for this. I also put Cardas wire in, which is always a good move.
If you need help setting it up, email me. It takes about a half hour, but there's nothing difficult about it.
BTW, I once mounted one on an AR turntable, and the results were astonishingly good. I differ with those who say that unipivots and suspended turntables are a problem.
Dear Billy,
What bits of your Mayware have you glued together? Assuming you still want to be able to adjust tracking weight and arm height, the only bit I can think of is the headshell.
On the question of compatible cartridges, you are wrong to assume that the Formula IV arm is only compatible with high compliance moving magnets. Because the arm is a low mass unipivot, people often assume this but they are wrong.
Because it is reasonably rigid and its tracking weight system gives it variable effective mass, The Formula IV is actually perfectly compatible with low compliance cartridges. I use a moving coil with a tracking weight of 1.8g and a compliance of 10 compliance units in the final version of the arm (the Formula V) and it works beautifully. How did I know it would work? Well, I looked at the name on the front of it: it is a Mayware (a lovely MC7VIII high output model with ruler-flat response, excellent tracking and a nude Vital stylus). Mayware's cartridges were always low compliance moving coils, so of course they made sure that their own arm was compatible with them. The idea that unipivot arms are only compatible with compliant moving magnet cartridges is a myth.
Happy listening!
Alasdair
What bits of your Mayware have you glued together? Assuming you still want to be able to adjust tracking weight and arm height, the only bit I can think of is the headshell.
On the question of compatible cartridges, you are wrong to assume that the Formula IV arm is only compatible with high compliance moving magnets. Because the arm is a low mass unipivot, people often assume this but they are wrong.
Because it is reasonably rigid and its tracking weight system gives it variable effective mass, The Formula IV is actually perfectly compatible with low compliance cartridges. I use a moving coil with a tracking weight of 1.8g and a compliance of 10 compliance units in the final version of the arm (the Formula V) and it works beautifully. How did I know it would work? Well, I looked at the name on the front of it: it is a Mayware (a lovely MC7VIII high output model with ruler-flat response, excellent tracking and a nude Vital stylus). Mayware's cartridges were always low compliance moving coils, so of course they made sure that their own arm was compatible with them. The idea that unipivot arms are only compatible with compliant moving magnet cartridges is a myth.
Happy listening!
Alasdair
Oops, I made a mistake - although the brochure for the MC7VIII gave its compliance as 10mm/N, the instruction sheet with the cartridge gives it as 25mm/N, which I think is more likely to be correct, so this cartridge has actually quite a high compliance.
However the cartridge Mayware sold in the heyday of the popular MkIII arm, the MC2C, was definitely low compliance. I remember the MkIII instructions recommended sliding the sliding weight for adjusting tracking force right up behind the headshell when using low compliance moving coils. This increases the effective mass of the arm from about 5g to about 12g.
Alasdair
However the cartridge Mayware sold in the heyday of the popular MkIII arm, the MC2C, was definitely low compliance. I remember the MkIII instructions recommended sliding the sliding weight for adjusting tracking force right up behind the headshell when using low compliance moving coils. This increases the effective mass of the arm from about 5g to about 12g.
Alasdair
Mayware Formula 4 Unipivotarm
PPS I recently bought a Denon DL-103 cartridge (definitely a low compliance cartridge) and mounted it in my Mayware Formula V arm. I moved the cursor weight to just behind the headshell, as recommended by Mayware and the sound is absolutely excellent -splendid basis, rock solid stereo and clean midrange and treble. So yes, i can now say for definite that the Mayware does work with low compliance cartridges. (I have it mounted on a Walker CJ61 suspended subchassis turntable.)
The Denon is as good as people say it is - quite remarkable given that the design dates from 1963. However you do have to be careful to give it the correct electrical loading: it needs to see 1 k ohm or less. With a higher loading (e.g. a 47k input with a 1:10 stepup transformer gives 4.7k) it sounds a bit brash.
PPS I recently bought a Denon DL-103 cartridge (definitely a low compliance cartridge) and mounted it in my Mayware Formula V arm. I moved the cursor weight to just behind the headshell, as recommended by Mayware and the sound is absolutely excellent -splendid basis, rock solid stereo and clean midrange and treble. So yes, i can now say for definite that the Mayware does work with low compliance cartridges. (I have it mounted on a Walker CJ61 suspended subchassis turntable.)
The Denon is as good as people say it is - quite remarkable given that the design dates from 1963. However you do have to be careful to give it the correct electrical loading: it needs to see 1 k ohm or less. With a higher loading (e.g. a 47k input with a 1:10 stepup transformer gives 4.7k) it sounds a bit brash.
