Hi, Over the weekend I read through a very interesting blog on another site about setting your tonearm up for Under-Hang that does not need any anti-skating to be applied
I tried in on with my Temaad 10.5'' arm & yes they are correct. No anti-skating & no mis-tacking of any kind. Very quick & easy to set up it you have enough spare length in your H/Shell slots or you can easily move you arm.
What I noticed from my initial listening is that base output significantly improved & front to back imaging as will. No distortion was heard either on my set up.
So form the info so far posted I made up a setting up chart for arm from 7'' to 16''. try it out you may be very suppressed how good the results are.
Cheers
I tried in on with my Temaad 10.5'' arm & yes they are correct. No anti-skating & no mis-tacking of any kind. Very quick & easy to set up it you have enough spare length in your H/Shell slots or you can easily move you arm.
What I noticed from my initial listening is that base output significantly improved & front to back imaging as will. No distortion was heard either on my set up.
So form the info so far posted I made up a setting up chart for arm from 7'' to 16''. try it out you may be very suppressed how good the results are.
Cheers
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Under Hang measurements for different Length Arms | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Arm length Inch | 7 | 7.5 | 8 | 8.5 | 9 | 9.5 | 10 | 10.5 | 11 | 11.5 | 12 | 12.5 | 13 | 13.5 | 14 | 14.5 | 15 | 15.5 | 16 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 177.8 | 190.5 | 203.2 | 215.9 | 228.6 | 241.3 | 254 | 266.7 | 279.4 | 292.1 | 304.8 | 317.5 | 330.2 | 342.9 | 355.6 | 368.3 | 381 | 393.7 | 406.4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Under Hang mm | -18 | -17.41 | -16.82 | -16.23 | -15.64 | -15.05 | -14.46 | -13.87 | -13.28 | -12.69 | -12.1 | -11.51 | -10.92 | -10.33 | -9.74 | -9.15 | -8.56 | -7.97 | -7.38 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 0.59 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I don't know what blog is saying that. It is nonsense.
If you have an underhang arm, the arm may have three possible locations as in the diagram, yellow, red, and purple arrows. If the arm is in the yellow arrow position, and it is above the Thales circle. The arm skates towards the outside. If the arm is precisely on the Thales circle, the arm doesn't skate. If the arm is below the Thales circle, the arm skates towards the inside.
In addition, do you need null points? Null points make sense only if the arm has an overhang.
Underhang will not get rid of skating at all. Skating is caused by friction between the groove and the stylus. Neither overhang nor underhang is the reason to cause skating. A pivot arm will skate toward the inside of the record if it has an overhang. A pivot arm may skate toward the inside or outside of the record if it has an underhang.
If you have an underhang arm, the arm may have three possible locations as in the diagram, yellow, red, and purple arrows. If the arm is in the yellow arrow position, and it is above the Thales circle. The arm skates towards the outside. If the arm is precisely on the Thales circle, the arm doesn't skate. If the arm is below the Thales circle, the arm skates towards the inside.
In addition, do you need null points? Null points make sense only if the arm has an overhang.
Underhang will not get rid of skating at all. Skating is caused by friction between the groove and the stylus. Neither overhang nor underhang is the reason to cause skating. A pivot arm will skate toward the inside of the record if it has an overhang. A pivot arm may skate toward the inside or outside of the record if it has an underhang.
Yes, That's what a lot of guy's were saying in the other blog.
Question is, Why are 6 well reviewed high end tone arm manufacturers using this system with their arms?
Cheers
Question is, Why are 6 well reviewed high end tone arm manufacturers using this system with their arms?
Cheers
I am not aware 6 tonearm manufacturers are using such nonsense to make tonearms. If they do, they should get out of the tonearm-making business. I know a Japanese tonearm manufacturer makes pivot arms without offset angle based on their own theory. But I don't know what their theory is and certainly won't accept their theory.
Another internet blog of misinformation eh?
I get amused at such blog discussions.
Geometry rules, makes perfect sense, and has been followed for decades because it's the logical way to do things.
With that said, any pivotal arm has its own lateral compromises, some small, some large.
But to keep those lateral compromises to a minimum, some simple techniques should be followed.
First, a record's grooves are nothing more than a spiral with changing circumference and rotational speed..
And with that said, a cutting machine creates that long groove with a linear cutting arm.
Now, being of a constantly-changing diameter, thus speed, from the spindle, the all important high frequency modulations are closer spaced towards that spindle as opposed to the begining of the record.
That is a known fact.
The modulations in general are more crammed togther near the label.... understand?
Say a 10 kHz tone near the label.... per inch/cm at a given rotational speed, it's tighter than near the edge of the record.
THAT is where it's most critical to have the proper alignment of the stylus and it's coils at 90 degrees to the groove. - particularly with an elliptical stylus shape.
Because it's more forgiving to be 'off angle' at the record edge, with it's much looser modulations.
So to me, and it makes sense, the bottom line would be to insure that 90 degree angle at the end of the record is the way to go, and forget all the hype and misinformation blurted around the internet by so-called experts.
And forget that 2-point nonsense too.
I align this way, and find that it shows no issues.
See drawing.
I get amused at such blog discussions.
Geometry rules, makes perfect sense, and has been followed for decades because it's the logical way to do things.
With that said, any pivotal arm has its own lateral compromises, some small, some large.
But to keep those lateral compromises to a minimum, some simple techniques should be followed.
First, a record's grooves are nothing more than a spiral with changing circumference and rotational speed..
And with that said, a cutting machine creates that long groove with a linear cutting arm.
Now, being of a constantly-changing diameter, thus speed, from the spindle, the all important high frequency modulations are closer spaced towards that spindle as opposed to the begining of the record.
That is a known fact.
The modulations in general are more crammed togther near the label.... understand?
Say a 10 kHz tone near the label.... per inch/cm at a given rotational speed, it's tighter than near the edge of the record.
THAT is where it's most critical to have the proper alignment of the stylus and it's coils at 90 degrees to the groove. - particularly with an elliptical stylus shape.
Because it's more forgiving to be 'off angle' at the record edge, with it's much looser modulations.
So to me, and it makes sense, the bottom line would be to insure that 90 degree angle at the end of the record is the way to go, and forget all the hype and misinformation blurted around the internet by so-called experts.
And forget that 2-point nonsense too.
I align this way, and find that it shows no issues.
See drawing.
I admire you have the guts to declare the classical 2-null point theory as nonsense without fully understanding the classical theory.
Let's take Graham arm as an example.
Your so-called one null point alignment IS the inner null point of classical two null points alignment. In the classical two null points theory, the stylus is perpendicular to the spindle at both null points. THIS IS YOUR SO-CALLED 90-DEGREE AT 2.5". There are 4 popular alignment methods, i.e. Lofgren A, Lofgren B, Stevenson, and Uni-D. Different methods put different degrees of emphasis on the inner groove. The inner null for Steveson is 60 mm which is even shorter than yours, 2.5" (63 mm). The inner null for Lofgren A is 66 mm which is longer than yours, 63 mm. Therefore, your null point is a custom inner null point. You may choose whatever null points you like to fit your taste. I simply don't see any of your innovation here.
In order to accurately align the cartridge, you need to meet two conditions. Aligning on just one inner null is not enough. Please see the following diagram.
1, Adjust the cartridge so the tip of the cartridge away locates on the arc line, the magenta line in the diagram, and one of the null points.
2, Adjust the cartridge on both inner and outer null points. There are green lines in the diagram.
If you only adjust the cartridge on the inner null point, it is not enough to ensure accurate alignment.
Sure. Even if you don't do any cartridge alignments, you will hear the sound.
Last edited:
@super10018 "I admire you have the guts to declare the classical 2-null point theory as nonsense without fully understanding the classical theory."
I've been a serious professional audio/video service technician over 4 decades now, and extensive experience with turntables of all types.
So please don't attempt to assume that I "don't fully understand".
And yes, there is an 'outer' null point with my desription.... but you've neglected to understand my basis for the lone inner 90 degree point.
Read it again, understand why modulations at the inner center of the record are more important than at some outer null point.
Put aside for a minute your 'teachings' about those various 2-point alignments.
Oh, and refrain from the 3 to 5 trivial millimeter stuff at the inner circumference, I dislike trivialities, particularly ones that cannot be heard.
That diagram of yours is from that obsession-laden website that gives me gas.
I've been a serious professional audio/video service technician over 4 decades now, and extensive experience with turntables of all types.
So please don't attempt to assume that I "don't fully understand".
And yes, there is an 'outer' null point with my desription.... but you've neglected to understand my basis for the lone inner 90 degree point.
Read it again, understand why modulations at the inner center of the record are more important than at some outer null point.
Put aside for a minute your 'teachings' about those various 2-point alignments.
Oh, and refrain from the 3 to 5 trivial millimeter stuff at the inner circumference, I dislike trivialities, particularly ones that cannot be heard.
That diagram of yours is from that obsession-laden website that gives me gas.
The original RIAA specification sets the minimum inner diameter of the grooved area 4 3/4". That is 60.325 mm, but it is hardly ever recorded so much material on a disc*. In reality it is varying between 65 to 70 mm, sometimes more. If you set the inner null at 60.325 mm, there will be offset on most records' real inner grooves. However, if you set the inner null at e.g. 66 mm, you will be some offset on some rare records' 60-ish mm inner grooves, but very little offset at most records more common inner groove radius.
* That is about 7.15 mm distance of the inner groove from the runout groove. I think I have one such disc in my collection, I have to measure it.
* That is about 7.15 mm distance of the inner groove from the runout groove. I think I have one such disc in my collection, I have to measure it.
A few mm here or there is trivial indeed. This is why I don't understand those fierce debates about the optimum null radii: 120.65 mm OR is good, but 120.0 mm is BAD BAD BAD. Same for IR. Records don't have a fixed IR.
Again, the bottom line is that those last few grooves, at whatever they are located at (66, 60,MM etc) need the best 90 degree alignment possible.
So when aligning the stylus and its cantilever for that 90 degree tangent at that point, it's really absurd to worry about any outer grooves.
I hardly need a lecture from anyone that believes that I "don't understand" good turntable setup and use.
So when aligning the stylus and its cantilever for that 90 degree tangent at that point, it's really absurd to worry about any outer grooves.
I hardly need a lecture from anyone that believes that I "don't understand" good turntable setup and use.
So, within consideration of this discussion, is that why some of my records have a large amount of blank space towards the spindle? In fact, easily enough space to have cut one or two more tracks? Just curious about this.
And if there is truth in what I mentioned above, then might there be a 'best' cartridge alignment assuming that all of your discs were made this way?
And if there is truth in what I mentioned above, then might there be a 'best' cartridge alignment assuming that all of your discs were made this way?
Seems that it is relevant in the sense that these records don't even have inner track recorded grooves. My question would be about the importance of alignment for those grooves that do not have information on them to begin with, and perhaps the alignment could be adjusted more for the outer grooves.
@Ixnay
The importance of THOSE grooves that you mention are obviously further out from the most critical last grooves of other records.
To nit-pick over something like that only appears to show me that your concerns are overblown and as I previously mentioned irrevelent.
Because as I already mentioned, the modulations are more relaxed the farther from the spindle.
The importance of THOSE grooves that you mention are obviously further out from the most critical last grooves of other records.
To nit-pick over something like that only appears to show me that your concerns are overblown and as I previously mentioned irrevelent.
Because as I already mentioned, the modulations are more relaxed the farther from the spindle.
I'm not really worried about thunder.
I just don't understand some arguments and/or questions about stuff that doesn't apply to the fundamental message that I spoke about.
About that 2-point protractor alignment stuff mentioned and worshipped by obsessed audiophiles...
See photo..... which shows MY inner groove discussions, and that "exta" yet worshipped outer groove alignment.
WHICH..... is not necessary to even worry about.
And for jeebus sakes, if someone insists on a perfect alignment throughout the record, get a damn linear-tracker like I have.
I just don't understand some arguments and/or questions about stuff that doesn't apply to the fundamental message that I spoke about.
About that 2-point protractor alignment stuff mentioned and worshipped by obsessed audiophiles...
See photo..... which shows MY inner groove discussions, and that "exta" yet worshipped outer groove alignment.
WHICH..... is not necessary to even worry about.
And for jeebus sakes, if someone insists on a perfect alignment throughout the record, get a damn linear-tracker like I have.
Last edited:
Hi, Yes, I to had wondered about the reasoning for the position of the arm being biased about 60% across the LP in the Uner-Hang set up. Just listed to Walters - Amused to Death & there is very little music after the 60% point. Still it is quite easy to change position & experiment with this system as set up is a breeze. I may try going out further, say 14.4mm & see how it sound.
Cheers
Cheers