Try to find some photos of the Aura G1, it uses pin bearings everywhere in the tangential arm.
I don’t think anyone can give the proof STATISTICALLY. All tonearm are different. Some use ball bearings and some of them use pivot bearing. They are not comparable because all the designs are different. Even if someone can compare different tonearms statistically, it is impossible to draw a reliable conclusion based upon small sampling. So, frankly speaking, it is meaningless to ask me to draw my conclusion based upon statistical significance. As long as we can hear the sonic improvement, it is acceptable to draw some conclusions.
Yes. All the tonearms need some kind of resistance. The ideal condition of playing a record is body of cartridge doesn’t move, but its stylus moves. It doesn’t matter it is pivot tonearms or linear tonearms. For pivot tonearms, resistance always exists. Skating force and anti-skating force are both the force of resistance. For linear tonearms, complete resistance free movement is not desirable. So, the problems are what kind of resistance and how to apply resistance.
Ball bearing’s resistance (damping) is not consistent force. Just as niffy pointed it out. It changes. The inconsistent damping is caused by the position of the balls and bearing chatter. On top of that, ball bearing may provide well too much of resistance which is much high than optimum resistance (damping). In the meantime, a heavy carriage may provide better bass, but heavy carriage will increase friction, in other words, will add more damping.
For all the above, this is why I gave up ball bearing tonearm and switched to air bearing. Almost friction less air bearing gives me full control of damping. I can apply any level of damping and consistent damping. The even nicer feature of silicone damping is its damping force is changed based on the speed of movement. Once the paddle moves faster, it gets more resistance (damping).
I think it depends on how inferior the design is. Let’s take a look high end tonearms. There are very very few arms using ball bearings, almost none. Why? I guess the tonearm designers realize all the problems caused by ball bearings.
Jim
This is wonderful test! I have guessed the inconsistency of ball bearing damping but never seen any experiments.
Great work!
By the way, I recently bought a 20 mm air bearing off ebay. It is not expensive, USD$50 with two short shafts. I paid USD$280.00 for my 3/4" air bearing and $100 for a 225 mm long shaft. I am thinking to make air bearing uni-pivot tonearm although I am a firm believer of linear arm. For others, it may be too much trouble. It is not for me because I have a complete compressed air supply. What I have in my mind is to do something like Kuzma 4 point arm but with air bearing as the vertical bearing and two jewel bearings as horizontal bearing. I may experience using silicone damping fluid for anti-skating.
Jim
Attachments
Not a tensioned wire, a shaft with a pin bearing at each end.
But I agree it is not very well made.
Hi,
great reply niffy :up informative and well written.
Jim, my critique wasn't about you drawing a conclusion, but on a statement of general character (If less friction ... than better sound) which -as You admitted- can't be validated if the designs are all different.
And I think that without doubt everybody knows that a technical superiority doesn' t always lead to a sonic imrovement.
Regarding arms with ball bearings ... I think the SME Series 3,4 and 5, the Linn Ekos, Ortofon, certain Clearaudios and some more can truely be regarded as HighEnd arms ... heck, probabely the vast majority of all arms utilize ball bearings.
Not necessarily race bearings, but cup and pin style bearings like in the old Dual, Technics, Pioneer (name any of the japanese big players).
Those only omit with the inner cage of a race bearing and replace it by a pin, but they function after the same physical working principle.
Do all these arms sound inferior?
I doubt it
jauu
Calvin
great reply niffy :up informative and well written.
Jim, my critique wasn't about you drawing a conclusion, but on a statement of general character (If less friction ... than better sound) which -as You admitted- can't be validated if the designs are all different.
And I think that without doubt everybody knows that a technical superiority doesn' t always lead to a sonic imrovement.
Regarding arms with ball bearings ... I think the SME Series 3,4 and 5, the Linn Ekos, Ortofon, certain Clearaudios and some more can truely be regarded as HighEnd arms ... heck, probabely the vast majority of all arms utilize ball bearings.
Not necessarily race bearings, but cup and pin style bearings like in the old Dual, Technics, Pioneer (name any of the japanese big players).
Those only omit with the inner cage of a race bearing and replace it by a pin, but they function after the same physical working principle.
Do all these arms sound inferior?
I doubt it
jauu
Calvin
Hi Calvin,
Well, I do agree that technical superiority doesn’t always lead to a sonic improvement. But I don’t understand the logic why a designer doesn’t use a technology while he knows clearly it is a better technology. If the designer uses less superior technology because its cost or marketing reasons, I am not going to discuss it.
As I said before, I never think “If less friction…then better sound”. What I think is the less friction, the better control you may have. Tonearm design is all about controlled force interaction. So, for linear tonearms, the first gaol of building a linear arm is to adopt the medium which has minimum friction.
Regards,
Jim
Well, I do agree that technical superiority doesn’t always lead to a sonic improvement. But I don’t understand the logic why a designer doesn’t use a technology while he knows clearly it is a better technology. If the designer uses less superior technology because its cost or marketing reasons, I am not going to discuss it.
As I said before, I never think “If less friction…then better sound”. What I think is the less friction, the better control you may have. Tonearm design is all about controlled force interaction. So, for linear tonearms, the first gaol of building a linear arm is to adopt the medium which has minimum friction.
Regards,
Jim
Hi,
well, cost or required effort is as legal a reason to choose a possibly inferior technical solution as any other specification.
And typically those designs are best that find a fine balance between often contradicting requirements and not those that concentrate on and optimize a single parameter.
The Tonearms from the beginning of this thread for example probabely couldn't even be made with pivot bearings.
Yet I wouldn't dare to claim that their sonic performance is inferior to a air bearing tangential arm.
jauu
Calvin
btw. I wonder why You showed the blue air bearing in the same thread You plead for lowest friction
... the necessity of a air supplying hose -which stiffens under air pressure- contradicts Your claim
Also, it's drag upon the slider isn't constant between outer and inner groove.
Clearly that can't sound decent at all
well, cost or required effort is as legal a reason to choose a possibly inferior technical solution as any other specification.
And typically those designs are best that find a fine balance between often contradicting requirements and not those that concentrate on and optimize a single parameter.
The Tonearms from the beginning of this thread for example probabely couldn't even be made with pivot bearings.
Yet I wouldn't dare to claim that their sonic performance is inferior to a air bearing tangential arm.
jauu
Calvin
btw. I wonder why You showed the blue air bearing in the same thread You plead for lowest friction
... the necessity of a air supplying hose -which stiffens under air pressure- contradicts Your claim Also, it's drag upon the slider isn't constant between outer and inner groove.
Clearly that can't sound decent at all
Hi
I don’t think so at all. Now you can do some simple statistical work. Let’s see what is the percentage of arms which use ball bearings.
For tonearm manufactories, what you said makes sense. But for us here, we are discussing tonearm technology. It doesn’t make sense for us to involve such topics.
It is merely your opinion. I respect it. I am not going to argue with you. But after trying 4 versions of ball bearing linear arms, two different kinds of air bearing arms with three versions of each style and many trial and error, I know what I am talking about.
Showing the new air bearing was a friendly side chat with niffy. There were no other reasons if you are curious. Yes. Air tubing does produce certain level of damping on this kind of air bearing arm. My air tubing choose is probably the most flexible available. It is 1/16” latex tubing. Latex tubing can’t resist high pressure. However, it doesn’t contradict my opinion at all.
I won’t comment on imagination.
Anyway, if you think ball bearing is superior to pivot bearing. It is fine with me. If you think air bearing arm can’t sound decent at all. It is fine with me, too. I have intention to change your mind. I have clearly stated my opinions. My opinions are firmly based upon my own experience. We had fun and frank exchange. I think it is valuable for me.
Regards,
Jim
I don’t think so at all. Now you can do some simple statistical work. Let’s see what is the percentage of arms which use ball bearings.
For tonearm manufactories, what you said makes sense. But for us here, we are discussing tonearm technology. It doesn’t make sense for us to involve such topics.
It is merely your opinion. I respect it. I am not going to argue with you. But after trying 4 versions of ball bearing linear arms, two different kinds of air bearing arms with three versions of each style and many trial and error, I know what I am talking about.
Showing the new air bearing was a friendly side chat with niffy. There were no other reasons if you are curious. Yes. Air tubing does produce certain level of damping on this kind of air bearing arm. My air tubing choose is probably the most flexible available. It is 1/16” latex tubing. Latex tubing can’t resist high pressure. However, it doesn’t contradict my opinion at all.
I won’t comment on imagination.
Anyway, if you think ball bearing is superior to pivot bearing. It is fine with me. If you think air bearing arm can’t sound decent at all. It is fine with me, too. I have intention to change your mind. I have clearly stated my opinions. My opinions are firmly based upon my own experience. We had fun and frank exchange. I think it is valuable for me.
Regards,
Jim
Last edited:
What Type Bearings?
Hi all,
In my opinion the linear tracking configuration for a tonearm is superior to a conventional pivoted design. Of course this doesn't mean all linear trackers are better than all pivoted designs. How well the design is implemented is of prime importance. The main advantage of using a linear design is that it allows for much shorter arm tubes, or better still the elimination of the arm tubes altogether. Most of the colouration of tonearms is due to the bending modes inherent in a long tube. When designing my carriage my primary goal was to push the fundamental resonant frequency as high as possible, hopefully out of the audio bandwidth above 20khz. I managed to get it to over 19khz, well above my personal limit of 16khz. Any reduction in lateral tracking error that I may have achieved along the way is a bonus. I did not chase a high resonant frequency blindly but keep a close eye on effective masses, tracking force variations and warp wow. Having, what is in audible terms, a completely resonance free arm is a real ear opener. (another of the why hasn't anyone tried this approach before questions. Arch?). Linear tracking is better than pivoted. My opinion and I'm sticking to it until someone proves me wrong.
Ok, so I've decided to go linear tracking. Next question passive or active? To my mind active or servo control is just to complex. There are extra sources of noise, the carriage has to be much more complicated to incorporate sensors etc, the whole system has to be incredibly sensitive to even work let alone work well and my electronics skills are definitely not up to the task. So passive linear tracking it is.
The two main types of bearings use commercially are air and ball race and there are many configurations of each.
There are those that separate the vertical and lateral bearings, such as the souther ball race design and the terminator air bearing design. I think that all of the material/mass of the carriage that moves should also be used to stiffen/improve the resonant character of said carriage. By separating the carriage into two separate articulated parts you are not using your mass budget optimally.
I believe that a design where both the vertical and lateral movement of the carriage is accommodated by the same bearings is the most elegant solution. All of the designs and fabulous creations showcased in this 200page thread have been of this type so I'm probably preaching to the converted. We now have three different types of bearing to choose from. Ball race, air and pin bearings. (I discounted linear race bearings as the friction in even the best of these is to high).
In my testing I have compared ball race to pin bearings. I have kept the differences between the two designs that I have listened to as small as possible so the only difference is the bearings. The rails are almost identical and I'm using the same carriage. So far I have concluded that the pin bearings do sound better but, as Calvin asked, I do not as yet know how they will perform in the long-term.
Jim has compared ball race to air bearing. If you look at his designs you will see that his general construction between the two types is similar making the major difference the bearing type. Due to the very different technologies involved it would have been difficult to make them more similar. I'm mainly looking at the moving bearing design for this comparison. Jim has concluded that the air bearing is superior to the ball race is sound quality.
Unfortunately we have no direct comparison between pin bearings and air bearing. Even if we could sit Jim's deck next to mine and compared we could draw no conclusions as our constructions and decks are so very different. It is unfortunate that we are unlikely to ever achieve this as Jim's system looks like one I'd love to play with. Dam that Atlantic ocean. I did seriously consider air bearings for my arm. My main reasons for not going air bearing were cost and accommodating an air pump (waf). I personally really like the airtangent design approach though I think they fumbled the ball by making the armtube way too long.
The ball race design is definitely the easiest and cheapest to make and can give superb results.
My pin bearings are more costly and more difficult to make but do have definite advantages.
Air bearings are by far the most expensive and difficult to make but may well be the best sounding.
These are of course just my own biased opinions.
Niffy
Hi all,
In my opinion the linear tracking configuration for a tonearm is superior to a conventional pivoted design. Of course this doesn't mean all linear trackers are better than all pivoted designs. How well the design is implemented is of prime importance. The main advantage of using a linear design is that it allows for much shorter arm tubes, or better still the elimination of the arm tubes altogether. Most of the colouration of tonearms is due to the bending modes inherent in a long tube. When designing my carriage my primary goal was to push the fundamental resonant frequency as high as possible, hopefully out of the audio bandwidth above 20khz. I managed to get it to over 19khz, well above my personal limit of 16khz. Any reduction in lateral tracking error that I may have achieved along the way is a bonus. I did not chase a high resonant frequency blindly but keep a close eye on effective masses, tracking force variations and warp wow. Having, what is in audible terms, a completely resonance free arm is a real ear opener. (another of the why hasn't anyone tried this approach before questions. Arch?). Linear tracking is better than pivoted. My opinion and I'm sticking to it until someone proves me wrong.
Ok, so I've decided to go linear tracking. Next question passive or active? To my mind active or servo control is just to complex. There are extra sources of noise, the carriage has to be much more complicated to incorporate sensors etc, the whole system has to be incredibly sensitive to even work let alone work well and my electronics skills are definitely not up to the task. So passive linear tracking it is.
The two main types of bearings use commercially are air and ball race and there are many configurations of each.
There are those that separate the vertical and lateral bearings, such as the souther ball race design and the terminator air bearing design. I think that all of the material/mass of the carriage that moves should also be used to stiffen/improve the resonant character of said carriage. By separating the carriage into two separate articulated parts you are not using your mass budget optimally.
I believe that a design where both the vertical and lateral movement of the carriage is accommodated by the same bearings is the most elegant solution. All of the designs and fabulous creations showcased in this 200page thread have been of this type so I'm probably preaching to the converted. We now have three different types of bearing to choose from. Ball race, air and pin bearings. (I discounted linear race bearings as the friction in even the best of these is to high).
In my testing I have compared ball race to pin bearings. I have kept the differences between the two designs that I have listened to as small as possible so the only difference is the bearings. The rails are almost identical and I'm using the same carriage. So far I have concluded that the pin bearings do sound better but, as Calvin asked, I do not as yet know how they will perform in the long-term.
Jim has compared ball race to air bearing. If you look at his designs you will see that his general construction between the two types is similar making the major difference the bearing type. Due to the very different technologies involved it would have been difficult to make them more similar. I'm mainly looking at the moving bearing design for this comparison. Jim has concluded that the air bearing is superior to the ball race is sound quality.
Unfortunately we have no direct comparison between pin bearings and air bearing. Even if we could sit Jim's deck next to mine and compared we could draw no conclusions as our constructions and decks are so very different. It is unfortunate that we are unlikely to ever achieve this as Jim's system looks like one I'd love to play with. Dam that Atlantic ocean. I did seriously consider air bearings for my arm. My main reasons for not going air bearing were cost and accommodating an air pump (waf). I personally really like the airtangent design approach though I think they fumbled the ball by making the armtube way too long.
The ball race design is definitely the easiest and cheapest to make and can give superb results.
My pin bearings are more costly and more difficult to make but do have definite advantages.
Air bearings are by far the most expensive and difficult to make but may well be the best sounding.
These are of course just my own biased opinions.
Niffy
Has anyone tried to power an air bearing using an auxiliary high pressure air tank? Filling a 5 gallon portable tank up with a remote air compressor, then hooking it up to a line feeding the arm. Would 5 gallons of air at a storage pressure of 80 psi yield enough "energy" to power a low pressure air bearing for at least one, two-sided LP?
I did contemplate this approach. I thought that an aqualung might be a great tank to use. They are designed for very high pressure, over 3000psi, so should offer very long continuous operation. A good regulator should give a constant output pressure. The main advantage of this idea is the elimination of pump noise. How safe a 3kpsi tank in a domestic environment is is a completely different question.
Niffy
FYI.
Yes, first build the (your) air bearing TA @ instal a (very) good compressor (oil & condens & dust free) for your home test .....
I run (in the cellar basement) a "dentist" second hand heavy compressor: tank 50liter (19,21 Gallon), pressiostat @ 8Bar (safe). Air line, via reduction valve, to air bearing TT & air bearing TA ....
Enough constant air-flow for vinyl-set ...
(even by compressor restart ... no audio quality diffenrence).
It's music ... I like it
Karel
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Attachments
A scuba tank should be totally safe, and will contain on the order of 70 to 80 cu ft of air. To get on filled, it is required to have been tested in the last few years for internal rust (annual visual examination), and every 5 years a hydrostatic stress test). As long as it is not dropped on the valve, you should be good to go. I used one for years to power an air brush. Lasted many hours.
Niffy’s post involved serval important topics about tonearms. I would like to express my thoughts here as well.
1. Linear vs. Pivot.
For me, using pivot arm is not logic in theory. As we all know how LP is made, the cutting head moves in straight line but playing back a record does differently. There is no theoretical base for that. The only reason for pivot arm is its practicability.
Sonically, I have no doubt that linear arm is superior to pivot arm. The clarity you can get from a linear arm may never achieve through a pivot arm. I have seen a lot of people complained that bass performance on a linear arm is not as good as it on a pivot arm. This is completely misleading. The linear arm these people talked about must be some of poorly designed linear arm. Bass performance on a linear arm can be vastly better than it on a pivot arm. By saying that, I don’t mean a well implemented pivot arm can’t sound good. But there are very very few good pivot arms can sound as good as linear arm and linear arm is the shortcut to sonic nirvana.
I have both Graham 2.2 and VPI JMW tonearm. My current air bearing arms are vastly better than these two pivot arms using same cartridges and same table.
So, what are the reasons for linear arm outperforming pivot arm? Niffy thinks one of reasons is shorter arm wand. I agree that it may be one of reasons. However, I feel it may not be as critical as we may think. My personal feeling is tracking error plays a major part. Everything is in the tracking error. A well implemented pivot arm minimizes the negative impact of tracking error. A poorly implemented pivot arm amplifies such impact.
In reality, adjustment of cartridge on a linear arm is very simple and straightforward. It is not same on a pivot arm. This adds more uncontrollable variable into the equation of linear vs. pivot.
2. Air bearing vs. others.
Niffy thinks a design where both the vertical and lateral movement of the carriage is accommodated by the same bearings is the most elegant solution. I can’t agree more. Air bearing meets such requirement. For ball bearing arms, in my opinion, some meet this requirement while some don’t because ball bearing movement is directional. Let me take Cantus arm and Clearaudio’s arm as example. Clearaudio’s arm meets this requirement because they use convex ball bearings. I can’t say the same for Cantus arm. Cantus arm does not meett this requirement 100%.
I would like to take this chance to express my opinions about two kinds of air bearing arms.
THE TERMINATOR TONEARM
The bearing is not stiff enough and it has too many loose parts. A good designed arm should be compact, simple and rigid.
MG-1 By Advanced Analog
The bearing on this arm isn’t stiff, either. The mass of its carriage is too low. To my experience, ideal mass for a air bearing arm should be 70-110 grams.
Although I expressed my opinions about these two arms, they may still sound good to some people.
3. Active vs. Passive.
For active arm, I think the key is its tracking system. If the tracking system is too precisely as for ELP Laser turntable, it will be against the principle how a cartridge works. If its tracking too loosely, it won’t do the job right. And, active tracking is always post-tracking. There are also noise problem, etc. I saw there was an active arm on this year’s High End Audio Show. It looked nice though. I think if it is well implemented, it may sound nice, too.
Some of you may know I bought a Rabco active arm from eBay. The arm was in working condition. The arm is very poorly designed by today’s standard. I completely lost my confidence to further mod the arm. So, I sold the arm.
1. Linear vs. Pivot.
For me, using pivot arm is not logic in theory. As we all know how LP is made, the cutting head moves in straight line but playing back a record does differently. There is no theoretical base for that. The only reason for pivot arm is its practicability.
Sonically, I have no doubt that linear arm is superior to pivot arm. The clarity you can get from a linear arm may never achieve through a pivot arm. I have seen a lot of people complained that bass performance on a linear arm is not as good as it on a pivot arm. This is completely misleading. The linear arm these people talked about must be some of poorly designed linear arm. Bass performance on a linear arm can be vastly better than it on a pivot arm. By saying that, I don’t mean a well implemented pivot arm can’t sound good. But there are very very few good pivot arms can sound as good as linear arm and linear arm is the shortcut to sonic nirvana.
I have both Graham 2.2 and VPI JMW tonearm. My current air bearing arms are vastly better than these two pivot arms using same cartridges and same table.
So, what are the reasons for linear arm outperforming pivot arm? Niffy thinks one of reasons is shorter arm wand. I agree that it may be one of reasons. However, I feel it may not be as critical as we may think. My personal feeling is tracking error plays a major part. Everything is in the tracking error. A well implemented pivot arm minimizes the negative impact of tracking error. A poorly implemented pivot arm amplifies such impact.
In reality, adjustment of cartridge on a linear arm is very simple and straightforward. It is not same on a pivot arm. This adds more uncontrollable variable into the equation of linear vs. pivot.
2. Air bearing vs. others.
Niffy thinks a design where both the vertical and lateral movement of the carriage is accommodated by the same bearings is the most elegant solution. I can’t agree more. Air bearing meets such requirement. For ball bearing arms, in my opinion, some meet this requirement while some don’t because ball bearing movement is directional. Let me take Cantus arm and Clearaudio’s arm as example. Clearaudio’s arm meets this requirement because they use convex ball bearings. I can’t say the same for Cantus arm. Cantus arm does not meett this requirement 100%.
I would like to take this chance to express my opinions about two kinds of air bearing arms.
THE TERMINATOR TONEARM
The bearing is not stiff enough and it has too many loose parts. A good designed arm should be compact, simple and rigid.
MG-1 By Advanced Analog
The bearing on this arm isn’t stiff, either. The mass of its carriage is too low. To my experience, ideal mass for a air bearing arm should be 70-110 grams.
Although I expressed my opinions about these two arms, they may still sound good to some people.
3. Active vs. Passive.
For active arm, I think the key is its tracking system. If the tracking system is too precisely as for ELP Laser turntable, it will be against the principle how a cartridge works. If its tracking too loosely, it won’t do the job right. And, active tracking is always post-tracking. There are also noise problem, etc. I saw there was an active arm on this year’s High End Audio Show. It looked nice though. I think if it is well implemented, it may sound nice, too.
Some of you may know I bought a Rabco active arm from eBay. The arm was in working condition. The arm is very poorly designed by today’s standard. I completely lost my confidence to further mod the arm. So, I sold the arm.