HI,
I thought that the rolling point should not be above the Cart tip, but rather on the same line of the cart tip or below might be even better.
I would not assemble any expensive cart on this TA as it may drop down if the upper magnets fail for some reason, regardless the sounding of this TA.
Rgds
Adelmo
I thought that the rolling point should not be above the Cart tip, but rather on the same line of the cart tip or below might be even better.
I would not assemble any expensive cart on this TA as it may drop down if the upper magnets fail for some reason, regardless the sounding of this TA.
Rgds
Adelmo
Hi, I have studied in depth the overhung geometry but never bothered with the underhung one. Do you have any reference info? Practical examples with dimensions? (spindle-pivot distance, pivot-stylus distance, offset angle (if any), underhang distance, etc...). And last but not least... tracking error values for such contraption. Thanks in advance
You may have a good point here. That's exactly the main selling point for the Supatrac Blackbird TA. It has an innovative (and notably low-tech) design involving an horizontal uni-pivot opposed to the drag force, placed UNDER the record plane. All reviews claim its excellent performance obtained by placing the pivot under the record which makes the drag force generate a downward component that forces the stylus dig deeper into the grooves instead of making it jump out of the groove, as is the case for pivots placed over the record, where the effect is reversed.
It's exactly the same phenomenon as the skating force, only, this time, in the vertical plane. And this time this "skating" is good! It automatically increases the VTF exactly and only when it's needed
Last edited:
Hi Adelmo, congratulations! Looks great. Excellent machining skills. And how does it sound, compared with whatever you used before?
Hi,
I had used several TA. A Rega RB 250 that I still own, but not using at the present. Was not the best match for the Denon DL 103 that I am also currently using.
Followed a Jelco SA 750 L 12 inch that I still have but boxed. I was not much impressed by this one, but I liked the head shell with double locking pin and is easy to set up.
Followed by a DIY wood mahogany TA unipivot 12 inch that I used few years. I boxed and replaced by a Frank Schroeder TA 12 inch clone with arm wand made of bamboo, filled the inner part with balsa. I used it few years and sounded pretty good.
Recently I have made the Supatrac clone that now I am using. Also sound very good, but very sensitive to the settings that need to be done well.
All the TA I have used have the same Pre Phono and Denon cart, therefore have heavy mass.
What next ?. May be a clone of another Frank TA model LT, though I have in my mind how I would like to do, in reality lately have been lazy and focused more on bicycle work, some time riding them too.
From the simplicity of the execution the Supatract is the most simple to be made, provided the basic rules are followed. More tricky the Frank one as need accuracy and well implement of the magnets as well, but it is a great TA. I would dreamed to have an original as final TA.
Pic of Unipivot and Frank Schroeder clone.
Rgds
Adelmo
I had used several TA. A Rega RB 250 that I still own, but not using at the present. Was not the best match for the Denon DL 103 that I am also currently using.
Followed a Jelco SA 750 L 12 inch that I still have but boxed. I was not much impressed by this one, but I liked the head shell with double locking pin and is easy to set up.
Followed by a DIY wood mahogany TA unipivot 12 inch that I used few years. I boxed and replaced by a Frank Schroeder TA 12 inch clone with arm wand made of bamboo, filled the inner part with balsa. I used it few years and sounded pretty good.
Recently I have made the Supatrac clone that now I am using. Also sound very good, but very sensitive to the settings that need to be done well.
All the TA I have used have the same Pre Phono and Denon cart, therefore have heavy mass.
What next ?. May be a clone of another Frank TA model LT, though I have in my mind how I would like to do, in reality lately have been lazy and focused more on bicycle work, some time riding them too.
From the simplicity of the execution the Supatract is the most simple to be made, provided the basic rules are followed. More tricky the Frank one as need accuracy and well implement of the magnets as well, but it is a great TA. I would dreamed to have an original as final TA.
Pic of Unipivot and Frank Schroeder clone.
Rgds
Adelmo
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi Adelmo,
Thanks for the info. Very impressive. Indeed, Frank's LT is a masterpiece but very tricky to replicate by a DIYer. If you don't have (1) high grade machining tools and (2) the original blueprints, which I doubt Frank would provide it's almost impossible to make it work as intended. I have studied and successfully simulated the Reed 5A. But from simulation to actual implementation it's a long way. Any tiny error throws tracking error over the board. I have to read also another thread here called "A tangential tracking pivoting tonearm" created by user Bon. Lots of food for thought there...
I'm sharing my Reed 5A simulation and its tracking error which is pretty good at a max. 0.04 degrees!
Cheers
Thanks for the info. Very impressive. Indeed, Frank's LT is a masterpiece but very tricky to replicate by a DIYer. If you don't have (1) high grade machining tools and (2) the original blueprints, which I doubt Frank would provide
it's almost impossible to make it work as intended. I have studied and successfully simulated the Reed 5A. But from simulation to actual implementation it's a long way. Any tiny error throws tracking error over the board. I have to read also another thread here called "A tangential tracking pivoting tonearm" created by user Bon. Lots of food for thought there...I'm sharing my Reed 5A simulation and its tracking error which is pretty good at a max. 0.04 degrees!
Cheers
Hi Consty,
I would not even dare to think to ask any printing to Frank as would not be respectful to his work and genius implementation, not mentioning the patent. I am here for merely personal fun. Agree with you that the LT is pretty tricky to be cloned well, but this is the fun for the poor DIYrs as myself. On the other hands Frank have been generous in many occasion providing hints and suggestion to this forum including some hint regarding the bearings that are important for the LT TA. From my side I believe the reed is also complex if not more complex from the manufacturing precision point of view. Anyhow, in about a week time I shall load my bicycle in the car heading to holiday in Sardina island, therefore everything postponed to the next autumn/winter.
Anyhow, theory is important, technical data more important, but ears pleasure is also very important and perhaps the most.
Tks for sharing your developments, sounds very promising.
Rgds
Adelmo
I would not even dare to think to ask any printing to Frank as would not be respectful to his work and genius implementation, not mentioning the patent. I am here for merely personal fun. Agree with you that the LT is pretty tricky to be cloned well, but this is the fun for the poor DIYrs as myself. On the other hands Frank have been generous in many occasion providing hints and suggestion to this forum including some hint regarding the bearings that are important for the LT TA. From my side I believe the reed is also complex if not more complex from the manufacturing precision point of view. Anyhow, in about a week time I shall load my bicycle in the car heading to holiday in Sardina island, therefore everything postponed to the next autumn/winter.
Anyhow, theory is important, technical data more important, but ears pleasure is also very important and perhaps the most.
Tks for sharing your developments, sounds very promising.
Rgds
Adelmo
It's not... if you read this thread many many people have done it already. My Reference clone is pictured in post 1525 over the page.
Yes you will need machine tools or know someone who has them but that would be the case with any tone arm that you try to make.
Hi,Hi deadhead,
I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding here. Me and Adelmo were talking about the other great (or should I say THE greatest) TA invented by Frank. The LT (meaning Linear Tracking)
I recall also the LT tone arm have been cloned already and was posted in this forum.
Rgds
Adelmo
Hi DNic,
I know you are a fervent proponent of UH TAs and indeed, I had a look at that thread.
The whole idea of OH TAs is to shift the arc described by a pivoted arm so that the |TE| (absolute tracking error) gets halved compared to a UH TA where the arc only touches the ideal path at one point, being 99% of the record surface way worse in terms of tracking error. At the same time, the OH TAs "fathers" noticed and mathematically proved, that applying an offset angle to the cartridge also helps.
I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings but all of the above make me lean towards the nay-sayers camp.
At the same time I can't ignore the yea-sayers who claim that the much larger tracking error of the UH TAs is not perceived as detrimental to the overall sound quality.
Who knows... Maybe the human hearing physiology and the absence of the offset angle mutually compensate and subjectively hide that huge objective tracking error. You know that Murphy law: If something works from the first run, you definitely did two mistakes that mutually cancel their effects
I know you are a fervent proponent of UH TAs and indeed, I had a look at that thread.
The whole idea of OH TAs is to shift the arc described by a pivoted arm so that the |TE| (absolute tracking error) gets halved compared to a UH TA where the arc only touches the ideal path at one point, being 99% of the record surface way worse in terms of tracking error. At the same time, the OH TAs "fathers" noticed and mathematically proved, that applying an offset angle to the cartridge also helps.
I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings but all of the above make me lean towards the nay-sayers camp.
At the same time I can't ignore the yea-sayers who claim that the much larger tracking error of the UH TAs is not perceived as detrimental to the overall sound quality.
Who knows... Maybe the human hearing physiology and the absence of the offset angle mutually compensate and subjectively hide that huge objective tracking error. You know that Murphy law: If something works from the first run, you definitely did two mistakes that mutually cancel their effects
Consty,
Gold to know you own a Reed 5A. I built a Birch-style tonearm a while ago. Please see the following link.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-5a-tangential-tracking-pivot-tonearm.373984/
My initial purpose to build a Birch-style tonearm was to see if a Birch-style tonearm skates. It ended a full-blow working Birch-style tonearm. In the process of building the tonearm, I found some critical information about Birch-style tonearm. For a Birch-style tonearm, the balance of the tower is the determining factor if the Birch-style tonearm skates or not. However, the skating isn't embedded in the geometry of Birch-style tonearms. This is why nobody adds anti-skating devices for Birch-style tonearms. In the meantime, all the Birch-style tonearm manufactories don't realize that except Frank Schroeder. The balance of the tower is also a critical factor for sonic performance. On the Frank Schroeder LT arm, there is a mechanism to adjust the balance of the tower. However, not on Reel 5A. In my opinion, such a mechanism is necessary for a Birch-style arm. It is problematic not having one.
I would like to ask you a couple of questions.
Do you have problems using the tonearm regarding skating?
If possible, I would appreciate it very much if you could perform my blank disc test on your Reel 5A. If you are interested, I will let you know how to perform the blank disc test.
Last edited:
Hi super10018,
I'm sorry my wording was not clear enough. I don't own a Reed 5A, although I would have liked to own one. I said "my Reed 5A SIMULATION". The simulation is mine, not the TA. Regarding the so called "skating" of such a tonearm, keeping the bearing axis perfectly vertical is a trivial, even if hard to attain, condition. Because that is not skating. It's simply gravitational attraction. Have you ever lived in a house where a door or a window kept stubbornly opening or closing when left unattended? Well, it was "skating" because the axis of the hinges was not perfectly vertical. The same happens with such a TA if it's not perfectly vertical. Someone said somewhere on this site, that this issue can be even used to compensate for any observed REAL skating that may appear. But not actually owning this TA, I'm sorry I cant help you except my two cents.
Cheers,
Consty
I'm sorry my wording was not clear enough. I don't own a Reed 5A, although I would have liked to own one
. I said "my Reed 5A SIMULATION". The simulation is mine, not the TA. Regarding the so called "skating" of such a tonearm, keeping the bearing axis perfectly vertical is a trivial, even if hard to attain, condition. Because that is not skating. It's simply gravitational attraction. Have you ever lived in a house where a door or a window kept stubbornly opening or closing when left unattended? Well, it was "skating" because the axis of the hinges was not perfectly vertical. The same happens with such a TA if it's not perfectly vertical. Someone said somewhere on this site, that this issue can be even used to compensate for any observed REAL skating that may appear. But not actually owning this TA, I'm sorry I cant help you except my two cents.Cheers,
Consty
Anyway, to their credit, Reed 5A has a bubble level embedded at the top of the main tonearm tower. Assuming the tonearm base is flush with the turntable plinth, the leveling can be then adjusted using the turntable adjustable feet. Of course, this is only valid when the TA is mounted on the TT plinth. Having multiple level adjustments in the same functional unit is like having two watches. You'll never know what time is it
In my experience, a bubble level is not sensitive to adjusting the level. First, nobody can say for sure his table is perfectly leveled. There is almost no perfect leveled table by only looking at the bubble level with his own eyeballs. Furthermore, a very tiny adjustment on the tower of a Birch-style arm will cause the arm to skate inward or outward. Such tiny adjustments won't reflect on the bubble level. On my 6B Birch-style arm, I used a high-quality bubble level. Its quality is much better than the one Reel Audio uses on its 5A arm. However, in my experience, it is still not good enough.Anyway, to their credit, Reed 5A has a bubble level embedded at the top of the main tonearm tower. Assuming the tonearm base is flush with the turntable plinth, the leveling can be then adjusted using the turntable adjustable feet. Of course, this is only valid when the TA is mounted on the TT plinth. Having multiple level adjustments in the same functional unit is like having two watches. You'll never know what time is it
My experience tells me that a bubble level helps with rough adjustments, but not enough for fine adjustments..
Last edited: