I hope it's more than "beautiful child " syndrome..
you know, "creator's enthusiasm" or whatever you might like to call it.
I don't think so, as too many have heard my previous arms and thought they were very good.
This arm varies from previous ones. Previous arms were made using arrow shafts as an arm tube, but they were heavier for a number of reasons.
This one seems more articulate and much more "nimble". Bass is superior to earlier examples, while the sense of "air" and soundstaging capabilities seems better. With the alignment as previously stated the soundstage opened up significantly.
All listening is done with the arm mounted on my old Oracle Alexandria Mkll/PSE III phono stage, passing signal to my McCormack micro-line drive and McCormack DNA 0.5 deLuxe. Speakers used for testing are non-descrip Asian builds, but can be considered to be "B&W"-ish in sound. I haven't tried the Nuforce Icon and fullrangers (planet10-ifi modified Mark Audio CHR-70 in dave's "deci sized enclosure), but expect the results to be quite special. Cartridge is an old Grado Signature 8.
you know, "creator's enthusiasm" or whatever you might like to call it.
I don't think so, as too many have heard my previous arms and thought they were very good.
This arm varies from previous ones. Previous arms were made using arrow shafts as an arm tube, but they were heavier for a number of reasons.
This one seems more articulate and much more "nimble". Bass is superior to earlier examples, while the sense of "air" and soundstaging capabilities seems better. With the alignment as previously stated the soundstage opened up significantly.
All listening is done with the arm mounted on my old Oracle Alexandria Mkll/PSE III phono stage, passing signal to my McCormack micro-line drive and McCormack DNA 0.5 deLuxe. Speakers used for testing are non-descrip Asian builds, but can be considered to be "B&W"-ish in sound. I haven't tried the Nuforce Icon and fullrangers (planet10-ifi modified Mark Audio CHR-70 in dave's "deci sized enclosure), but expect the results to be quite special. Cartridge is an old Grado Signature 8.
Starting to find wire and other necessary bits in anticipation 🙂 .
What's the proper name for those little locking collar jobbies you use Nanook? They seem a neat solution, but I was searching for them without luck.
Was the arrow shaft itself a heavier model or associated hardware that increased mass? I'm surprised bass is superior in the lighter model. Intuitively it seems the heavier arm should ride the larger grooves more accurately.
What's the proper name for those little locking collar jobbies you use Nanook? They seem a neat solution, but I was searching for them without luck.
Was the arrow shaft itself a heavier model or associated hardware that increased mass? I'm surprised bass is superior in the lighter model. Intuitively it seems the heavier arm should ride the larger grooves more accurately.
Proper tracking depends on too many factors.
1.Matching of the arm effective mass,to the cartridge suspension compliance
2.Tracking ability of the cartridge
3.Turntable and arm-cartidge matching
4.Proper loading by the phono preamp,in relation to all the above.
plus a great number of oher delicate details...
B.L
heavier arm tracking better? Nope!
the effective mass of the tonearm and compliance of the stylus cantilever can provide all that's needed for "trackability". This takes the resonant frequency into consideration, which really is the arm/cartridge matching issue.
Consider handling improvements to autos that are easily understood. If one reduces the "sprung" weight (the tire/wheel combination), the suspension can react quicker to modulations in the road surface. If too stiff, a wheel can lift off the pavement (like a 911 taking a fast corner too tightly). Also by reducing the sprung weight, braking can be improved. This makes the assumption that all else is equal.
If the resonant frequency has beed addressed via cartridge/arm matching, and the tracking weight is adjusted using a sensitive scale at an appropriate (as in LP surface) height, then the issues are essentially zero. Even small changes to VTF can affect the tracking weight. If the arm is heavy towards the headshell end, then this can have a beneficial effect. If the compliance is suitable for the arm mass, and the arm is heavy on the head-shell end, an increased amount of force is required to upset or overcome the Inertia of the arm/cartridge as it rides in the groove.
Someplace, Joseph Grado (I think) suggested that the use of "outrigger" weights as close to the record surface as possible could help minimize the effects of forces acting on the cartridge/arm system, simply because the forces required to overcome the Inertia were simply too large. (I think this was printed in an "LA Audiophiles" newsletter in the 1970's)
The locking collars are called "shaft collars" and are sold in various sizes at Princess Auto. Regarding the new tubing vs. the "old" tubing, I think the new tubing is heavier, but the hardware on the old arm was much heavier. Lighter objects can resonate at much lower (fundamental) frequencies. A good dreadnaught guitar will have a thinner sound board than a lesser guitar.
the effective mass of the tonearm and compliance of the stylus cantilever can provide all that's needed for "trackability". This takes the resonant frequency into consideration, which really is the arm/cartridge matching issue.
Consider handling improvements to autos that are easily understood. If one reduces the "sprung" weight (the tire/wheel combination), the suspension can react quicker to modulations in the road surface. If too stiff, a wheel can lift off the pavement (like a 911 taking a fast corner too tightly). Also by reducing the sprung weight, braking can be improved. This makes the assumption that all else is equal.
If the resonant frequency has beed addressed via cartridge/arm matching, and the tracking weight is adjusted using a sensitive scale at an appropriate (as in LP surface) height, then the issues are essentially zero. Even small changes to VTF can affect the tracking weight. If the arm is heavy towards the headshell end, then this can have a beneficial effect. If the compliance is suitable for the arm mass, and the arm is heavy on the head-shell end, an increased amount of force is required to upset or overcome the Inertia of the arm/cartridge as it rides in the groove.
Someplace, Joseph Grado (I think) suggested that the use of "outrigger" weights as close to the record surface as possible could help minimize the effects of forces acting on the cartridge/arm system, simply because the forces required to overcome the Inertia were simply too large. (I think this was printed in an "LA Audiophiles" newsletter in the 1970's)
The locking collars are called "shaft collars" and are sold in various sizes at Princess Auto. Regarding the new tubing vs. the "old" tubing, I think the new tubing is heavier, but the hardware on the old arm was much heavier. Lighter objects can resonate at much lower (fundamental) frequencies. A good dreadnaught guitar will have a thinner sound board than a lesser guitar.
Last edited:
I do understand this - although i took the comment to be in the context of having 1,2&3 sorted and the difference being attributable solely to the increased mass of the arm. Don't quite understand 3 - if arm and cart are matched, the table just needs to spin with sufficient inertia, no?
I know there was a general movement to very light arms in the early days of LPs and then a return to heavier ones - although i have seen it suggested this was partly driven by the development of MC carts (?). But perhaps the higher mass arm might be more highly damped and return to a motionless steady state more readily than a lighter and therefore likely more resonant arm following excitation ?
ok - i got to get a few more posts here so my posts appear in something resembling realtime 🙂
thanks Nanook - i'm sure we have princess auto around here somewhere -
"If one reduces the "sprung" weight (the tire/wheel combination), the suspension can react quicker to modulations in the road surface."
which is good as long as you're not in the back seat when the rebound sends you through the roof 😉
thanks Nanook - i'm sure we have princess auto around here somewhere -
"If one reduces the "sprung" weight (the tire/wheel combination), the suspension can react quicker to modulations in the road surface."
which is good as long as you're not in the back seat when the rebound sends you through the roof 😉
There was an attitude in the late 60's early 70's that as long as the t/table was rotating at 33 1/3,or 45 rpm, everything was ok,and nothing else was of special importance.Over the years that was proven wrong,as use of advanced materials, came into the picture.It was when analogue came to adultery.The approach to the whole mechanical interface,of the disc playing elements,became apparent,due to the Linn revolution.They were a major force in this.The rest is history.
For your second query, Nanook,posted a well documented answer above, so repeating it is pointless.
B.L.
forgive my ignorance -but isn't that about mechanical coupling of the base, rather than the properties of the tone arm part itself - ignoring the obvious issues of weight and suspended decks.
sorry - yes -working with a time delay here as the mods check i am not uttering profanities 😀
There are schools of design,that show good examples,with various iterations of the record playing systems.
I am just relating my experiences over the years,and what it seems right for my priorities,and accepted physics,related to the subject
That doesn't mean,though,that they are the ONLY way to follow.🙂
B.L.
lol. Your experiences I'll trust –but using physics …I mean physicists just make up a different set of rules for every situation…..well, A+B=C……oh no – I didn’t realize you meant that A and B were really really big -…then its different, A+B=D ... when they’re really really small….well, A+B=sqr of pi…whaddy mean its inconsistent!…
And of course it's well know that the rules of physics governing audio reproduction are compleeetly different from those governing the rest of the universe – all on line audio sites are living proof of that 😉
er, there is only one set of rules in the Physics...
we just haven't the resources required to verify a unified theory if one can be calculated.
A particle accelerator with a path similar in size to the orbit of Saturn about the sun would be required to prove the unified theory. Until then Physics breaks micro and macro behaviours into smaller more manageable pieces, not because different rules exist, but it is all we can understand at this point in time with any certainty.
The end point I am trying to make is that simpler is often better. So a platter with either adequate mass or adequate torque being applied to it (or both) will have sufficient inertia in the platter/drive system to become stable.
In terms of tonearms, there is a fine line between having enough inertia to resist small forces acting on the stylus cantilever/suspension and having too much where the arm resists the (essentially) lateral forces completely and therefore does not allow the cartridge system to track the record without doing irreparable damage to the record groove. The idea of having a mass towards the headshell end of the arm is to help stabilize the arm/cartridge system from lateral forces acting on it, while still allowing the arm to pivot and the stylus to trace the groove.
The idea of reducing the unsprung weight is to help keep the stylus tip in contact with the record grooves. The cartridge's compliance and tonearm mass, help keep any "rebound" in control which is (I think) the point to arm/cartridge matching.
This does not answer concerns regarding electrical loading, etc. Here I am considering the mechanical systems not the electrical. A complete treatise would be required to completely discuss the loading requirements and how that may affect the output of a particular cartridge, and is beyond my scope in this project. Just know that a reduction in mass of both the "sprung" and "unsprung" weight, if properly "suspended" by a suitable cartridge's "compliance" will not result in any backset drivers' being tossed about.
we just haven't the resources required to verify a unified theory if one can be calculated.
A particle accelerator with a path similar in size to the orbit of Saturn about the sun would be required to prove the unified theory. Until then Physics breaks micro and macro behaviours into smaller more manageable pieces, not because different rules exist, but it is all we can understand at this point in time with any certainty.
The end point I am trying to make is that simpler is often better. So a platter with either adequate mass or adequate torque being applied to it (or both) will have sufficient inertia in the platter/drive system to become stable.
In terms of tonearms, there is a fine line between having enough inertia to resist small forces acting on the stylus cantilever/suspension and having too much where the arm resists the (essentially) lateral forces completely and therefore does not allow the cartridge system to track the record without doing irreparable damage to the record groove. The idea of having a mass towards the headshell end of the arm is to help stabilize the arm/cartridge system from lateral forces acting on it, while still allowing the arm to pivot and the stylus to trace the groove.
The idea of reducing the unsprung weight is to help keep the stylus tip in contact with the record grooves. The cartridge's compliance and tonearm mass, help keep any "rebound" in control which is (I think) the point to arm/cartridge matching.
This does not answer concerns regarding electrical loading, etc. Here I am considering the mechanical systems not the electrical. A complete treatise would be required to completely discuss the loading requirements and how that may affect the output of a particular cartridge, and is beyond my scope in this project. Just know that a reduction in mass of both the "sprung" and "unsprung" weight, if properly "suspended" by a suitable cartridge's "compliance" will not result in any backset drivers' being tossed about.
I see your point.But let me ask you this,since you took it to a whole different level.
What is more challenging,
1.Design a perfect turntable system,by the known and accepted data so far,
or,
2.Send a rocket to the moon?
B.L.
maybe I should have added more of these guys 😛🙂😉😀😱
I thought my last sentence suggested the context of my 'statements' 🙂 - not too serious
Nanook wrote:
"er, there is only one set of rules in the Physics..."
actually i'm not sure there are any rules - just a series of descriptions of observed behaviour under very specific circumstances 😉
"The end point I am trying to make is that simpler is often better. So a platter with either adequate mass or adequate torque being applied to it (or both) will have sufficient inertia in the platter/drive system to become stable. "
that was kinda my point too
"Just know that a reduction in mass of both the "sprung" and "unsprung" weight, if properly "suspended" by a suitable cartridge's "compliance" will not result in any backset drivers' being tossed about. "
i think you might get a lot of people arguing a heavier arm is still better than a very light one, even with compliance matching
"and is beyond my scope in this project."
way beyond my scope in any project🙂 ...a little more seriously - i never understood why these calculations make no allowance for the material of the arm. Surely a 28g wood versus 28g lead arm + the exactly the same compliance cart will behave differently - energy storage etc etc
That said, i wait with the quiet hope that the 219 will torpedo the arm on my very lo-fi Thorens table -in my very subjective judgment of course 😛
I thought my last sentence suggested the context of my 'statements' 🙂 - not too serious
Nanook wrote:
"er, there is only one set of rules in the Physics..."
actually i'm not sure there are any rules - just a series of descriptions of observed behaviour under very specific circumstances 😉
"The end point I am trying to make is that simpler is often better. So a platter with either adequate mass or adequate torque being applied to it (or both) will have sufficient inertia in the platter/drive system to become stable. "
that was kinda my point too
"Just know that a reduction in mass of both the "sprung" and "unsprung" weight, if properly "suspended" by a suitable cartridge's "compliance" will not result in any backset drivers' being tossed about. "
i think you might get a lot of people arguing a heavier arm is still better than a very light one, even with compliance matching
"and is beyond my scope in this project."
way beyond my scope in any project🙂 ...a little more seriously - i never understood why these calculations make no allowance for the material of the arm. Surely a 28g wood versus 28g lead arm + the exactly the same compliance cart will behave differently - energy storage etc etc
well apparently we have already done one, but not the other 😛 ....part of the problem there might be defining the endpoint. getting to the moon pretty obvious -the tonearm...i don't often (ever?) see people displaying measured frequency output of their new tonearm/cart combo and showing how it much it improves over the old-although it has to be said, i don't get out much 🙂
That said, i wait with the quiet hope that the 219 will torpedo the arm on my very lo-fi Thorens table -in my very subjective judgment of course 😛
you suck!
OK, not really cansid. Nice tables. I got rid of a Thorens when I got my Oracle. I think in the end, the Thorens would have given me more pleasure, with waaayyyyyy more records to listen to.
If using the 219 on your Thorens, a separate means to mount the tonearm will be required. Perhaps a stand-alone mount (which I originally did on my Oracle) or a mounting plate that will extend the extra 3" or so required to fit the arm to your Thorens. Perhaps a constrained layer type using thin aluminium (almost "foil") and 3mm Baltic Birch.
OK, not really cansid. Nice tables. I got rid of a Thorens when I got my Oracle. I think in the end, the Thorens would have given me more pleasure, with waaayyyyyy more records to listen to.
If using the 219 on your Thorens, a separate means to mount the tonearm will be required. Perhaps a stand-alone mount (which I originally did on my Oracle) or a mounting plate that will extend the extra 3" or so required to fit the arm to your Thorens. Perhaps a constrained layer type using thin aluminium (almost "foil") and 3mm Baltic Birch.
Hi Nanook
yeah a little tongue in check 🙂. I like my Thorens very much, but currently on a certain Canadian audio website that i'm sure you are familiar with there is a thread listing peoples vinyl rigs - suffice it to say i could buy many of my tables for the price of one of those listed 🙁
Initially I do intend to use off board mounting with the 219, but the TD-150 is destined for a re-plinth (a small pile of half inch ply currently sitting in my hallway) which i am sizing to accommodate a 12" arm.
yeah a little tongue in check 🙂. I like my Thorens very much, but currently on a certain Canadian audio website that i'm sure you are familiar with there is a thread listing peoples vinyl rigs - suffice it to say i could buy many of my tables for the price of one of those listed 🙁
Initially I do intend to use off board mounting with the 219, but the TD-150 is destined for a re-plinth (a small pile of half inch ply currently sitting in my hallway) which i am sizing to accommodate a 12" arm.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.