Hi Jim.
I just posted on
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-tangential-tracking-pivoting-tonearm.373127/page-11with some observations about skating. I don't know if it is relevant to your geometry, which is different to my model but related. It also more explicitly describes the guide mechanism. I am waiting on suitable CF parts to see if it is doable.
Regards
Bon
Jim,
Further testing with your arm? The HFN test records has tracks for visually checking vertical and horizontal resonances. Have you tested it that way?
And maybe LPs? If so, how does it sound? More accurately, how does the cartridge sound on your arm?
Doug
Further testing with your arm? The HFN test records has tracks for visually checking vertical and horizontal resonances. Have you tested it that way?
And maybe LPs? If so, how does it sound? More accurately, how does the cartridge sound on your arm?
Doug
Doug,
I did the resonant frequency tests. Please see here. Both lateral and vertical resonant frequencies are 8-10 Hz. In my opinion, they are very good. I also tested the trackability of the arm. From the results, the cartridge and arm were doing very well. I compared the traces with the same tests on my air-bearing arms. They were very good even slightly better than my air-bearing arms. Here are my thoughts on primary listening.
I took the arm down now because I am modeling an attachment for my SME 20 table. Please see the image. The level adjustment is built in the attachment.
The bass performance of 6B is on par with my air-bearing arms. I only tried Ortofon A90 on the 6B. Perhaps I should try other cartridges as well, especially, low compliance ones. I personally feel a medium compliance cartridge can perform excellently on my 6B. But the level of darkness is not as quiet as my air-bearing arms. The 6B arm takes a lot of space. Once it was installed, two of my air-bearing arms couldn't be played. This makes me hesitant to install the 6B permanently on the table.
Jim
I did the resonant frequency tests. Please see here. Both lateral and vertical resonant frequencies are 8-10 Hz. In my opinion, they are very good. I also tested the trackability of the arm. From the results, the cartridge and arm were doing very well. I compared the traces with the same tests on my air-bearing arms. They were very good even slightly better than my air-bearing arms. Here are my thoughts on primary listening.
I took the arm down now because I am modeling an attachment for my SME 20 table. Please see the image. The level adjustment is built in the attachment.
The bass performance of 6B is on par with my air-bearing arms. I only tried Ortofon A90 on the 6B. Perhaps I should try other cartridges as well, especially, low compliance ones. I personally feel a medium compliance cartridge can perform excellently on my 6B. But the level of darkness is not as quiet as my air-bearing arms. The 6B arm takes a lot of space. Once it was installed, two of my air-bearing arms couldn't be played. This makes me hesitant to install the 6B permanently on the table.
Jim
Last edited:
In my previous post, I designed 6C. Based on 6C, I came up with a new version, 6D. 6C has very small tracking errors, which are neglectable. And, 6D has even smaller tracking errors. The bearings for 6D are highly efficient. I think 6D is the best version of PT arms I have seen so far. I did a tracking error analysis. Here are the results.
On 6D, all the goals have been achieved. It doesn't skate. Its tracking errors are neglectable. The tolerance of the arm may be larger than its tracking error. The structure is the simplest so far.
On 6D, all the goals have been achieved. It doesn't skate. Its tracking errors are neglectable. The tolerance of the arm may be larger than its tracking error. The structure is the simplest so far.
I updated the 6D again. It is 6D MKII now.
I replaced the honeycomb 3D printed arm wand with an 18 mm in diameter and 2 mm wall carbon fiber tube. The honeycomb arm wand looks fancy but it may not do too much. I also replaced the aluminum guide with an 8 mm carbon fiber tube in order to reduce the possibility of noise.
I still don't have any plan to actually make 6D MKII yet because I don't think the PT arm can outperform my air-bearing arms. One day, I may make 6D MKII just for fun.
I replaced the honeycomb 3D printed arm wand with an 18 mm in diameter and 2 mm wall carbon fiber tube. The honeycomb arm wand looks fancy but it may not do too much. I also replaced the aluminum guide with an 8 mm carbon fiber tube in order to reduce the possibility of noise.
I still don't have any plan to actually make 6D MKII yet because I don't think the PT arm can outperform my air-bearing arms. One day, I may make 6D MKII just for fun.
Last edited:
Hi guys, i stumbled across this post, @super10018 are the plans available? i have access to a resin printer and FDM printer and i can build it and use it on my Thorens TD124
Let me have your email address. I will send you the Fusion 360 file. Please read through this thread and let me know which version you want. I recommend that you make either 6B or 6D MKII.
Lucian.chiriac@gmail.com is my email address.
Regarding the version, i guess the last iteration, I'll let you decide 🙂
Regarding the version, i guess the last iteration, I'll let you decide 🙂
Excellent work !! Just curious why did you use so large diameter tonearm wand? Would 8 Mm or 10Mm carbon fiber tube would work here?
Regards
Sachin
Regards
Sachin
I am a believer in heavy-duty arm wands. An 8 mm or 10 mm carbon fiber should work just fine.
Hi @super10018 could you please send me the design files to sachu888@gmail.com
I must try this tonearm.
Regards
Sachin
I must try this tonearm.
Regards
Sachin