Ok...
Since this thread seems to have hovered/gravitated towards a partially recorded record album, something that's only an occasional pressing, compared to the typical LP, I'm done with trying to explain any more stylus/arm alignments for an unusual pressing.
Because this now borders on obsessive behavior that another website seems to enjoy.
I indeed like the enjoyment of records, and good sound, but I'm certainly not going down the rabbit hole of rediculousness about playing a half-recorded recording and worrying about if I should shift my cartridge for one stinking side of it, just to 'perfect' it's reproduction.
I leave that for the nitpickers.... and the ones who insist on nano-measured fractions of a millimeter of a stylus.
I'm outa here.
Since this thread seems to have hovered/gravitated towards a partially recorded record album, something that's only an occasional pressing, compared to the typical LP, I'm done with trying to explain any more stylus/arm alignments for an unusual pressing.
Because this now borders on obsessive behavior that another website seems to enjoy.
I indeed like the enjoyment of records, and good sound, but I'm certainly not going down the rabbit hole of rediculousness about playing a half-recorded recording and worrying about if I should shift my cartridge for one stinking side of it, just to 'perfect' it's reproduction.
I leave that for the nitpickers.... and the ones who insist on nano-measured fractions of a millimeter of a stylus.
I'm outa here.
Just an interesting fact:
I digged up my longest LP: this is a film music Powaqqatsi composed by Philip Glass, released in 1988 on LP, cassette and CD.
Side One: 33'27", diameter of the last groove is about 126 mm
Side Two: 34'35", diameter of the last groove is about 121 mm
No lack of dynamics, bass etc. The mastering engineer did know something.
I digged up my longest LP: this is a film music Powaqqatsi composed by Philip Glass, released in 1988 on LP, cassette and CD.
Side One: 33'27", diameter of the last groove is about 126 mm
Side Two: 34'35", diameter of the last groove is about 121 mm
No lack of dynamics, bass etc. The mastering engineer did know something.
I did miss a point. Tracking error exists almost no matter where you set it to be correct. My intended point was a bit off topic, but I do have albums that are intentionally left blank about halfway in, hence my question as why they chose to do that. It required stamping an extra disc, so yes it was intentional. Regardless of that fact, accurate cartridge set up is still in the mix. The debate then is where is best to set that point of 90 degree tangency in the first place.
I will assume that you move the base of the tonearm to achieve underhang. However, I just can't imagine how you set the arm to minimize tracking errors. Here is the calculation I did for you. I wasn't able to set a negative value for overhang. The minimum value I could enter was a 1 mm overhang. You can see the maximum distortion jumps from 0.638 to 13.616. Average RMS distortion increases from 0.411 to 6.819. I just can't imagine how big these distortions values will be if the arm has an underhang.
This topic has been discussed to death. The underlying theory is a completely mature calculation and doesn't need anyone to modify it. Here is a nice article
https://www.analogplanet.com/content/uni-din-versus-löfgren-b-just-clarify
I personally like Lofgren A and Uni-Din because these two take a more balanced approach. However, it is a personal choice after all. It depends on your playback equipment as well. There is no right or wrong. If you like, you may even pick your custom null points. Certainly, we don't need underhang playing back and wiseoldtech's one-point alignment.
Hi, Reading trough the article, I am not sure what UniDin actually is. However it did not seem to be suitable for setting up a tonearm for the Under-Hang alignment, unless I missed something.
Cheers
Cheers
The yellow curve in the image is Uni-Din. Its null points are inner null=63.3 mm and outer null=112.5 mm. You may see Uni-Din method moves the inner null to 63.3 mm. It puts more emphasis on the inner groove than Lofgren A, blue line, while its tracking errors in other areas of record are relatively low. Lofgren A, blue line, inner null=66 mm, and outer null=121 mm.
No. These alignment methods should not be used for a tonearm with underhang at all. This was why I asked you how did you deal with cartridge alignment with an underhang. I have no idea what to use to align the cartridge with the underhang. A regular pivot arm should never be used with an underhang. A regular pivot is designed to work with an overhang only.
As to underhang, here is a drawing from one of straight arms manufacturers VIV LAB. The same drawing with explanation was on RS LABS site several years before (for now their straight arm discontinued and all information about it disappeared from their site). Few other manufacturers of expensive tonearms continue making and offering very similat arms. The problem is, if to apply school geometry and physics to build vectors of forces of straight arm with underhang and compare them with such of traditional arm (with offset angle and overhang), there is questionable advantage in the decrease of skating force with straight arm. On the drawing we can see three positions of arm: 1) On outer groove, there will be inside skating force close to that of normal arm, and gradually decreasing as going to 2) Second position closer to inner groove, and there really will not be any of skating force existing, 3) Third position, from that point going inside there will be very small outside skating force. To be honest, I must admit what skating forces with straight arm are smaller (or absent) for the inner half of recorded diameter of LP, than those with traditional arms. And for outer half it is rather similar.
Attachments
Last edited:
I am not surprised if they are out of business. These companies make tonearm based on their own theory and are entirely wrong.
This is not true. All the straight arms don't skate only at ONE point at which it is perpendicular to the spindle. All the rest areas, a straight arm skates. In the following diagram, blue lines indicate the positions of straight arms. The red lines indicate the positions of a regular pivot arm with offset angle and overhang.
Is the skating force for a straight arm smaller than a regular pivot arm? I don't think so. The average tracking errors for a regular pivot arm must be smaller than the average tracking errors for a straight arm. Therefore, the skating force for a straight arm may not be necessarily smaller than the skating force for a regular pivot arm. However, further study is needed.
In addition to the skating force, what about tracking errors? The goal is to minimize tracking errors by introducing offset angle, and overhang. For the straight arms, how does it minimize the tracking errors? If the effective lengths are the same, I have no doubt that regular pivot arms will have less tracking errors. If the skating force for a regular pivot arm is larger than a straight arm, no problem, increasing the anti-skating force may solve the problem. But for a straight arm, how do you apply anti-skating force? The skating force for a straight arm isn't in one direction.
Hi, That is completely untrue. I have set my arm at the current time & the is no skating or mis-tracking at all. Yes there is more tracking error, but the designers (6 arms released so far, all by different manufacturers) claim that it is less detrimental that caused buy badly adjusted and designed anti-skating methods.
And as you know there are manufactures that produce well reviewed arms that have not effective anti-skating, with normal alignment. in fact the majority of 12'' arms produced will not have anti skating. Not all the companies producing Under-Hang arms are boutique, Yamaha have just released their new 5000 T/T with an Under-Hang arm & it has received great reviews.
And as you know there are manufactures that produce well reviewed arms that have not effective anti-skating, with normal alignment. in fact the majority of 12'' arms produced will not have anti skating. Not all the companies producing Under-Hang arms are boutique, Yamaha have just released their new 5000 T/T with an Under-Hang arm & it has received great reviews.
I don't care what they say. A tonearm, straight or not, doesn't skate if and only if the line between the tip of the cartridge and the pivot is tangential to the groove. If not, the tonearm skates. The offset angle has nothing to do with skating at all.
Well of course you are welcome to your view, so happy listening to you. I always try before I decry.
Cheers
Cheers
I understand you are talking about DJ Tonearm now. Some DJ tonearms are straight. Why? I don't know. It may tack better when the DJ starts to scratch the record. I haven't seen a single high-end tonearm straight. Yamaha is not a high-end tonearm maker.
Hi,
Does one have to wear a MASK when listening to a tone arm with "under-hang"??
Sincerely,
Ralf
Does one have to wear a MASK when listening to a tone arm with "under-hang"??
Sincerely,
Ralf
I understand that, the engineers who design tone arms with "under-hang", are under-hung, no?
Sincerely,
Ralf
Sincerely,
Ralf
Hi,
Both "over-hang" and "under-hang" are the most frivolous expressions I ever heard. How the hell would one measure that and for what purpose?
There are tone arms that don't even allow themselves to be swung far enough for that purpose. As far as I am concerned a tone arm has no business hanging around at that location anyway.
Sincerely,
Ralf
Both "over-hang" and "under-hang" are the most frivolous expressions I ever heard. How the hell would one measure that and for what purpose?
There are tone arms that don't even allow themselves to be swung far enough for that purpose. As far as I am concerned a tone arm has no business hanging around at that location anyway.
Sincerely,
Ralf
Hi, Yes you may be correct, as far as I know the manufactures supply a simple set up template. However my Temaad arm has no problem, so it's the easiest way to set up, less than 2 minutes.
Cheers
Cheers
There is a very simple way to measure with the oscilloscope and test record both output levels of right and left channels and out of phase disbalance (as a result of angular mistake) of traditional and straight arms, and compare the results. There can be clearly seen how change in antiskate force affects L and R output balance. By the way, absence of proper antiscating results of uneven wear of stylus (see photo). Unfortunately, I do not have oscilloscope or fosgomemer now. Measurement results would be very convining, if put here on this thread...
From the pure engineering point of view, straight arm with underhang seems to bee a completely wrong way to go. The same story, as with tube single ended amps with zero feedback (they measure terrible) against even chipest low-fi solid state ones.
From the pure engineering point of view, straight arm with underhang seems to bee a completely wrong way to go. The same story, as with tube single ended amps with zero feedback (they measure terrible) against even chipest low-fi solid state ones.
