tonearm placement
Jay,
just use an alignment protractor and check if something reasonable can be obtained by moving the arm base . To do this just mark out a line from the platter spindle radially. Measure the effective length of the tonearm, and mark that on the radial line. Now all you have to do is push or pull the arm base radially until you can attain a good alignment.
Ballpoint pens can be had here for very little money (it seems the cheaper ones with a fine enough point work best), I think I bought a pack of 5 pens for maybe half a quid or so. £17 seems a little high for parts, except the rewire parts which seem cheap to me. PM me if any initial concerns occur.
Jay,
just use an alignment protractor and check if something reasonable can be obtained by moving the arm base . To do this just mark out a line from the platter spindle radially. Measure the effective length of the tonearm, and mark that on the radial line. Now all you have to do is push or pull the arm base radially until you can attain a good alignment.
Ballpoint pens can be had here for very little money (it seems the cheaper ones with a fine enough point work best), I think I bought a pack of 5 pens for maybe half a quid or so. £17 seems a little high for parts, except the rewire parts which seem cheap to me. PM me if any initial concerns occur.
Stew, it seems that in the UK the pen parts are mostly now being made of plastic.
& the metal ones are becoming scarcer.
I've found a pair of RCA sockets so I can knock off £5.00 of the knock off price lol.
Yes I'll do the protractor & sockets this evening & hopefully their will be music very soon certainly Tomorrow at the latest.
Jay
& the metal ones are becoming scarcer.
I've found a pair of RCA sockets so I can knock off £5.00 of the knock off price lol.
Yes I'll do the protractor & sockets this evening & hopefully their will be music very soon certainly Tomorrow at the latest.
Jay
The Test
Wow what can I say the arm is worth every penny it cost to make......Preforms as well as arms costing 10 Or many many times more...
Its certainly not set up as well IT WILL BE.
The OC5 is not as subtle or as quiet as the OC9 in the RB 300, but the OC5 didn't sound this good in it either.
It certainly has more oomph & it just sounds great.
Methinks the RB needs a definite rewire.....
Now to do a proper job of the Counterweight, Base, Finger rest, & anything else that needs attention, to let this wonderful simple design sing even louder.
Thanks to Altman for showing the way, & Stew (Nonook) for refining it in such an easy cost effective way, That works so Damn Well.
My faith in DIYers is fully restored after so many yrs.
ALL the albums seem to have been given a new lease of life.
Dare I say that even The LP12 sounds better.....well it now does.
once again Stew thanks.
Jay
Wow what can I say the arm is worth every penny it cost to make......Preforms as well as arms costing 10 Or many many times more...Its certainly not set up as well IT WILL BE.
The OC5 is not as subtle or as quiet as the OC9 in the RB 300, but the OC5 didn't sound this good in it either.
It certainly has more oomph & it just sounds great.
Methinks the RB needs a definite rewire.....
Now to do a proper job of the Counterweight, Base, Finger rest, & anything else that needs attention, to let this wonderful simple design sing even louder.
Thanks to Altman for showing the way, & Stew (Nonook) for refining it in such an easy cost effective way, That works so Damn Well.
My faith in DIYers is fully restored after so many yrs.
ALL the albums seem to have been given a new lease of life.
Dare I say that even The LP12 sounds better.....well it now does.
once again Stew thanks.
Jay
Attachments
just glad someone actually made one
Despite my claims, few have actually made one.
The counter-weight should be in the 80 gram range, assuming about a 3" rear overhang of the arm want to the bearing and the weight of the cartridge being used.
A finger lift is easy enough, but a hydraulic arm lift is expensive and one of the reasons that I haven't done much about selling these.
I've compared my arm to my SME 309 (I know, not a 12" arm, but the best I have), both mounted on my Oracle and using the same Grado cartridge, it performs admirably. It's in the "ballpark".
There is nothing wrong with your male bearing mount. Perhaps a wooden one? An arm rest is also quite easy to make. I quite like your headshell.
As far as what sound attributes the "219" has my impressions (sorry, no means for any objective testing) are the following:
Despite my claims, few have actually made one.
The counter-weight should be in the 80 gram range, assuming about a 3" rear overhang of the arm want to the bearing and the weight of the cartridge being used.
A finger lift is easy enough, but a hydraulic arm lift is expensive and one of the reasons that I haven't done much about selling these.
I've compared my arm to my SME 309 (I know, not a 12" arm, but the best I have), both mounted on my Oracle and using the same Grado cartridge, it performs admirably. It's in the "ballpark".
There is nothing wrong with your male bearing mount. Perhaps a wooden one? An arm rest is also quite easy to make. I quite like your headshell.
As far as what sound attributes the "219" has my impressions (sorry, no means for any objective testing) are the following:
- very "nimble" sound. Some may suggest the sound lacks weight, but it is the lack of the addition of artifacts from the tonearm that gives it that impression.
- deep bass resolution is on par with the SME and bass depth is reasonably close, with the SME giving slightly more depth, but no more authority.
- beautifully rendered midrange
- good alignment is possible due to the length and the ability to move the base for best alignment
- good compatibility with Grado cartridges, as well as low output Denon and Ortofon h.o. MC types
Last edited:
Stew,
I am surprised that you say not many have been made,
Now that I know that it can & does sound really good & So its definitely worth doing the finishing touches to.
When I make things it is with form & function always in mind.
The headshell is thicker than most in order to Not have the bolt heads above the line of the cartridge holder, as it wer. I would like to Not have nuts or even bolts. its also smooth & curved not too angular so its form flows into the arm tube. I also think its much stronger & less likely to absorb & vibrate from the cartridge, but rather pass on the vibes into the tube.. does this make sense
The counter-weight is in the order of 139 grams. I was a bit surprised about this, though due to the limited space behind & to the side of the deck.
Ive always thought that the further the weight from the pivot point, The more Inertia their would be; & so put much more stresses on the stylus.
I know that when I made a hydraulic lift many yrs ago it wasn't easy, & I wouldn't bother again !
I'm happy with the finger lift as it is.
but it does need an Arm rest .
& the weight to be de-coupled.
As for the main bearing as is, I was thinking more along the lines of a heavy deadening mass loading to the bearing pivot. lead, sand, & Oil for the pivot itself.
I will do a Pod design for the Arm, Motor & TT on a sand type table, So Mass loading might be best.but thats a bit further down the road but not to far, as i have the bug again.....
I am surprised that you say not many have been made,
Now that I know that it can & does sound really good & So its definitely worth doing the finishing touches to.
When I make things it is with form & function always in mind.
The headshell is thicker than most in order to Not have the bolt heads above the line of the cartridge holder, as it wer. I would like to Not have nuts or even bolts. its also smooth & curved not too angular so its form flows into the arm tube. I also think its much stronger & less likely to absorb & vibrate from the cartridge, but rather pass on the vibes into the tube.. does this make sense
The counter-weight is in the order of 139 grams. I was a bit surprised about this, though due to the limited space behind & to the side of the deck.
Ive always thought that the further the weight from the pivot point, The more Inertia their would be; & so put much more stresses on the stylus.
I know that when I made a hydraulic lift many yrs ago it wasn't easy, & I wouldn't bother again !
I'm happy with the finger lift as it is.
but it does need an Arm rest .
& the weight to be de-coupled.
As for the main bearing as is, I was thinking more along the lines of a heavy deadening mass loading to the bearing pivot. lead, sand, & Oil for the pivot itself.
I will do a Pod design for the Arm, Motor & TT on a sand type table, So Mass loading might be best.but thats a bit further down the road but not to far, as i have the bug again.....
The simplest arm rest I know of...
is as used by well Tempered Labs.
Basically just a big piece of dowel to hold the arm. Two sided tape can be used to stick it to the top of any turntable, or if you prefer rubber cement can be used (or clear RTV silicon). A base for the arm can be attached semi-permanently in the ame manner with little chance of damage to the turntable.
Jay, don't over-complicate things.!
is as used by well Tempered Labs.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Basically just a big piece of dowel to hold the arm. Two sided tape can be used to stick it to the top of any turntable, or if you prefer rubber cement can be used (or clear RTV silicon). A base for the arm can be attached semi-permanently in the ame manner with little chance of damage to the turntable.
Jay, don't over-complicate things.!
Last edited:
Stew,
I will be off to a folk festival this long holiday weekend, but when i get back i will set up the deck & arm so that each will be more able to give their best, as the set up is at the moment, it's not really fair to the "219"! & RB hasn't had any of its settings checked in yrs, well at least a yr....so a good sort out is required.
In the meantime, Im still thinking about the rest of the TT build, but still the thorny problem of the bearing.
Reading some of the other threads. It doesn't seem that much of a conclusion has been reached.
In my case I am going to have to make it myself. So am leaning towards the 'Well Tempered' type, with nylon pads around the Linn LP 12 shaft / sub platter, I no longer have the original outer bearing.
Do you know if anyone has come up with a better idea?
I will be off to a folk festival this long holiday weekend, but when i get back i will set up the deck & arm so that each will be more able to give their best, as the set up is at the moment, it's not really fair to the "219"! & RB hasn't had any of its settings checked in yrs, well at least a yr....so a good sort out is required.
In the meantime, Im still thinking about the rest of the TT build, but still the thorny problem of the bearing.
Reading some of the other threads. It doesn't seem that much of a conclusion has been reached.
In my case I am going to have to make it myself. So am leaning towards the 'Well Tempered' type, with nylon pads around the Linn LP 12 shaft / sub platter, I no longer have the original outer bearing.
Do you know if anyone has come up with a better idea?
further listening tests
All components shared:
TT LP 12 38 yr old
RB 300
AT OC9 20 yr old
QED Reference Silver interconnect 10 yr old ish
Musical Fidelity Preamp moded power supply
Musical Fidelity Power Amp (class A) valve like sound, both 30 ish yr old
BBC LS/35A 40 yr old DIY
BBC AB/I 20 yr old DIY (much better made)
This speaker combination is the only one that has ever worked, & is quite simply musical, & lovely to listen to.
Vs 219 with Litz copper wire & cheep RCA non gold phono's with AT OC5. Into the QED etc..
The '219' with AT OC5 a Very similar cartridge, the most notable difference is that the OC5 has a conical styli & the OC9 is elliptical, so naturally the OC9 will bring out more subtleties in the music.
Oh & the cost. OC5 £100 new. OC9 £600 new.
A whole range of music was played swapping from one arm to the other, I started to make notes but it became clear that what was happening, was, that I was hearing only the slight & subtle differences in the cartridges themselves !
So what does this tell us?
Well, given that in the above setup the with the RB 300 the OC5 was soundly trounced by the OC9 in EVERY respect, so it hasn't been used until recently in the '219', just to see how or if my DIY attempt would work.
It tells us:
That a DIY '219' can take and elevate a £100 MC cartridge & make it sound very, very similar to a £600 MC from the same company & play music beautifully.
It also tells us that this arm has a lot more to give.
I would like to say that perhaps it might be a bit like the LS/35A (itself made with cheep KEF drivers) the better the equipment you partner it with the better it will continue to sound. Many prominent revues ers have said the same.
I have heard the LS/35A partnered with valve amps & other TT equipment that cost £ 20-30,000 Per component & your jaw just drops.....
So I now have to refine the counterweight etc & build the new TT So it can hold the different arms properly.
Once again thanks to Stew.
And to All of you that said that they were making a '219' get them made. show us what they look like, try & gauge how they sound to you.
It really is quite an easy exercise.
You really don't know what your missing, unless you already have a very expensive high end Arm.
Conclusion; It's a Bloody good arm.
Jay
All components shared:
TT LP 12 38 yr old
RB 300
AT OC9 20 yr old
QED Reference Silver interconnect 10 yr old ish
Musical Fidelity Preamp moded power supply
Musical Fidelity Power Amp (class A) valve like sound, both 30 ish yr old
BBC LS/35A 40 yr old DIY
BBC AB/I 20 yr old DIY (much better made)
This speaker combination is the only one that has ever worked, & is quite simply musical, & lovely to listen to.
Vs 219 with Litz copper wire & cheep RCA non gold phono's with AT OC5. Into the QED etc..
The '219' with AT OC5 a Very similar cartridge, the most notable difference is that the OC5 has a conical styli & the OC9 is elliptical, so naturally the OC9 will bring out more subtleties in the music.
Oh & the cost. OC5 £100 new. OC9 £600 new.
A whole range of music was played swapping from one arm to the other, I started to make notes but it became clear that what was happening, was, that I was hearing only the slight & subtle differences in the cartridges themselves !
So what does this tell us?
Well, given that in the above setup the with the RB 300 the OC5 was soundly trounced by the OC9 in EVERY respect, so it hasn't been used until recently in the '219', just to see how or if my DIY attempt would work.
It tells us:
That a DIY '219' can take and elevate a £100 MC cartridge & make it sound very, very similar to a £600 MC from the same company & play music beautifully.
It also tells us that this arm has a lot more to give.
I would like to say that perhaps it might be a bit like the LS/35A (itself made with cheep KEF drivers) the better the equipment you partner it with the better it will continue to sound. Many prominent revues ers have said the same.
I have heard the LS/35A partnered with valve amps & other TT equipment that cost £ 20-30,000 Per component & your jaw just drops.....
So I now have to refine the counterweight etc & build the new TT So it can hold the different arms properly.
Once again thanks to Stew.
And to All of you that said that they were making a '219' get them made. show us what they look like, try & gauge how they sound to you.
It really is quite an easy exercise.
You really don't know what your missing, unless you already have a very expensive high end Arm.
Conclusion; It's a Bloody good arm.
Jay
Finally someone has done a comparison! (other than myself)
Your system is one that I have always thought should sound "right" and musical. I have some LS 3/5A clones that use the correct drivers in a slightly larger enclosure, and a different X-over. I am planning on trying a 1.5 Watt/ch single-ended tube amp that is being rescued to try something similar to your system.
My current system is as follows:
This puts the "219" at a disadvantage regarding the cartridge, but is as close to a reasonable comparison as one could expect.
Which suggests that the "219" does not suffer from sins of omission and is generally neutral in character, as you elude to ...
But please don't over-cook the recipe. The arm does not require the addition of dampening materials, etc. The "219" is basically a refinement on the original "joke arm' designed by Charles Altmann.
To have my creation mentioned in comparison to the revered LS 3/5A is a source of some pride for me. Thank you for the compliment.
Yes, build details can always be nicer in terms of fit and finish. This is one of the reasons I have yet to make the arms commercially. The devil is in the details; most folks want an arm lift and a well built mount, and a means to adjust the height, etc. Unfortunately purchasing these items from an outside supplier is very expensive. I have been working on an arm lift for a while now and have come up with a satisfactory solution.
It seems that your thoughts are very similar to mine and offer some validation from an outside source regarding them. Sometimes one wonders if it is the "builder's fantasy" that skews our perceptions of what is real or imagined. Thanks to Jay for his kind words.
Your system is one that I have always thought should sound "right" and musical. I have some LS 3/5A clones that use the correct drivers in a slightly larger enclosure, and a different X-over. I am planning on trying a 1.5 Watt/ch single-ended tube amp that is being rescued to try something similar to your system.
My current system is as follows:
- CM Labs MOSFET preamp (with a great phono stage in it)
- a McCormack DNA 0.5 deLuxe power amp
- Sugden Connoisseur re-plinthed, "219" arm with Grado Sig 8 MCZ
- Oracle Alex MkII, SME 309, Grado Sig 8 MCZ
- additional "219" arm with Ortofon MC3 Turbo (H/O MC cartridge)
- Castle Durham 900 speakers
- Arx A1b loudspeakers (real humdingers, please see my review here and here)
- arm wiring is DIY silver plated multi-stranded copper, DIY cartridge clips, salvaged reasonable quality male RCA plugs
- various interconnects, speaker cable, etc.
This puts the "219" at a disadvantage regarding the cartridge, but is as close to a reasonable comparison as one could expect.
Which suggests that the "219" does not suffer from sins of omission and is generally neutral in character, as you elude to ...
But please don't over-cook the recipe. The arm does not require the addition of dampening materials, etc. The "219" is basically a refinement on the original "joke arm' designed by Charles Altmann.
To have my creation mentioned in comparison to the revered LS 3/5A is a source of some pride for me. Thank you for the compliment.
Yes, build details can always be nicer in terms of fit and finish. This is one of the reasons I have yet to make the arms commercially. The devil is in the details; most folks want an arm lift and a well built mount, and a means to adjust the height, etc. Unfortunately purchasing these items from an outside supplier is very expensive. I have been working on an arm lift for a while now and have come up with a satisfactory solution.
again thanks to Stew.
And to All of you that said that they were making a '219' get them made. show us what they look like, try & gauge how they sound to you.
It really is quite an easy exercise.
You really don't know what your missing, unless you already have a very expensive high end Arm.
Conclusion; It's a Bloody good arm.
Jay
It seems that your thoughts are very similar to mine and offer some validation from an outside source regarding them. Sometimes one wonders if it is the "builder's fantasy" that skews our perceptions of what is real or imagined. Thanks to Jay for his kind words.
Been watching the thread over the last few weeks. I think I should now post some pictures as I have fabricated an effective (undamped-you don't need damping anyway!) arm lift as well as a simple way of support and height adjustment-think 'The Wand' from New Zealand. Cost is minimal-and it looks good into the bargain.
I'll post something before the weekend
I'll post something before the weekend
I've been following this thread for a while now, and built a unipivot arm a while ago, and now I'm interested in building this one. Are the kits still available? If not, is there a materials list page that someone can direct me to for the latest and greatest?
Plowing through 40 plus pages of this thread is a bit daunting, hopefully someone will take pity on me and point me in the right direction!
thanks all
Plowing through 40 plus pages of this thread is a bit daunting, hopefully someone will take pity on me and point me in the right direction!
thanks all
kits?
I never really offered a kit. I could put kits together though. PM me if you feel this is something that interests you. I will say that I prefer that any that want kit parts should pre-pay shipping via Canada Post from my location to yours (via the internet) or similar. That way I'll end up with a shipping tag and not have to deal with previous issues that I have had.
I never really offered a kit. I could put kits together though. PM me if you feel this is something that interests you. I will say that I prefer that any that want kit parts should pre-pay shipping via Canada Post from my location to yours (via the internet) or similar. That way I'll end up with a shipping tag and not have to deal with previous issues that I have had.
Not over thinking this Stew but.....
Most of us It seems when we build DIY arms seem to fall into the trap of the ''underslung counterweightht".
So is this actually a good idea or just for simplicity of building sake?
1, It can often look better. ie form & function....more important to some than others..
2, it does seem to help with tracking stability, IMHO...
3, It drastically shifts the centre of gravity below the stylus...Anyone know the current thinking on this...
4, it can make setting bias / azimuth very easy...
Q, would it best to have the bulk of the weight in line with the stylus or only very slightly under the line of the stylus ?
Which would result in Counterweights being longer & or a composite of lead, to try & cut down the bulk...
Many of the high end arms are still using a more inline counterweight.
Can WE DO BETTER for less?
Not wanting to change the thread but lets say this is a refinement.
Any thoughts anyone
Most of us It seems when we build DIY arms seem to fall into the trap of the ''underslung counterweightht".
So is this actually a good idea or just for simplicity of building sake?
1, It can often look better. ie form & function....more important to some than others..
2, it does seem to help with tracking stability, IMHO...
3, It drastically shifts the centre of gravity below the stylus...Anyone know the current thinking on this...
4, it can make setting bias / azimuth very easy...
Q, would it best to have the bulk of the weight in line with the stylus or only very slightly under the line of the stylus ?
Which would result in Counterweights being longer & or a composite of lead, to try & cut down the bulk...
Many of the high end arms are still using a more inline counterweight.
Can WE DO BETTER for less?
Not wanting to change the thread but lets say this is a refinement.
Any thoughts anyone
underhung counter-weight thoughts
I prefer an underhung counter-weight, but this may not always be possible, depending on the material and the length of the "stub end" of the arm shaft. If the tonearm shaft is essentially symmetrical about the centre of the arm tube, and the headshell is in the order of magnitude in mass as the carriage, it can be thought that the CofG is close to the centre of the shaft as it extends towards the stylus and the surface of the record. This can make refining tracking force a bit of a problem and can put the arm near a constant state of upset. This is assuming that adding mass to the headshell is not an option.
I prefer an underhung counter-weight, but this may not always be possible, depending on the material and the length of the "stub end" of the arm shaft. If the tonearm shaft is essentially symmetrical about the centre of the arm tube, and the headshell is in the order of magnitude in mass as the carriage, it can be thought that the CofG is close to the centre of the shaft as it extends towards the stylus and the surface of the record. This can make refining tracking force a bit of a problem and can put the arm near a constant state of upset. This is assuming that adding mass to the headshell is not an option.