Joe
pfm Member
Even if you’re close, it’s a lot of money. I can’t help feeling that the money would be better spent in developing a parallel tracker, .
I can't help felling that it would be better spent curing third world debt at that price.
Even if you’re close, it’s a lot of money. I can’t help feeling that the money would be better spent in developing a parallel tracker, .
Even if you’re close, it’s a lot of money. I can’t help feeling that the money would be better spent in developing a parallel tracker, where the arm is about 10mm long. At least you’d get rid of the tracking error, which remains non-insignificant with any other arm type, no matter how expensive.
I can't help felling that it would be better spent curing third world debt at that price.
Goodness, there is so much lack of understand of basic structures being guffed here. The usual confusion between strength and stiffness, suggesting a tube is good wrt to stiffness to weight in a bending case compared to other shapes, etc. Some basic reading would help some - this is particularly good example of the genre :-
I don't know whether to get angry or just laugh; best do the latter.
PS Oh, and if something 'doesn't flex' you have infinite stress when you apply load. Q: is that a good thing ?
Just out of interest, are you of the opinion that tonearm length per se doesn’t matter? Shirley the reason people ‘prefer’ 12” arms is the (reduced) tracking error. Or is that completely buried in the other factors?It is true about getting rid of the tracking error by using parallel tracking. However, the pivoted tonearm whether 9", 10", 10.5" and 12", are only tracking perfectly with zero tracking distortion at two null points on the record. I defy anyone to be able to tell exactly when they hear these two null points when listening to the record, like, there it is just there! The reality is that you can't tell by listening where these points are exactly, so I wouldn't get too hung up on parallel tracking vs pivoted tonearms. Parallel tracking arms certainly do have a characteristic sound, but there are so many other factors at work with tonearms, like design, length, materials used, mass etc. Thats why they call them "Tonearms"...
Not relevant to the subject of this thread, but what about the enormous amounts of money being used to go to the Moon, Mars and other farcical ventures when we are not only destroying our own planet but also a significant number of people living on it. I will say that Bill Gates is an example of what someone with wealth can do to help.
Not relevant to the subject of this thread, but what about the enormous amounts of money being used to go to the Moon, Mars and other farcical ventures when we are not only destroying our own planet but also a significant number of people living on it.
Just out of interest, are you of the opinion that tonearm length per se doesn’t matter? Shirley the reason people ‘prefer’ 12” arms is the (reduced) tracking error. Or is that completely buried in the other factors?
Just out of interest, are you of the opinion that tonearm length per se doesn’t matter? Shirley the reason people ‘prefer’ 12” arms is the (reduced) tracking error. Or is that completely buried in the other factors?
Sadly, the superb performance of this deck kind of tramples on that theory.
Sadly, the superb performance of this deck kind of tramples on that theory.
And, no, I don't claim to understand how or why it works so well!
The Karajan record of Shostakovich 10 has the scherzo (loud, fast with woodwind very high in the register and enthusiastic use of percussion including cymbals) at the end of the first side. It makes it very clear why I have a Terminator arm, you really can tell when the alignment is not spot on.the first thing I’d do if confronted with one is to dig out a 28 minute side of an opera (or similar) with a loud closing stage
What is that TT???
It needs as much anti-skate as any other non-tangential tracking arm. Although it may need anti-anti-skate, it's hard to see what the relative lengths are.I guess the logic is to lose the need for anti-skate, which is a destructive force,
If it's 10" long and has an overhang of 1mm and an offset angle or 1degree then average tracking distortion is 5.4%. I guessed some numbers and abused an alignment calculator... The reality probably isn't better.but I’d have thought the tracking error would be terrible! Any idea where on the record the null-point lies (I assume there can only be one)? I guess if it is right at the end of side it might not be too horrific.
It needs as much anti-skate as any other non-tangential tracking arm. Although it may need anti-anti-skate, it's hard to see what the relative lengths are.
If it's 10" long and has an overhang of 1mm and an offset angle or 1degree then average tracking distortion is 5.4%. I guessed some numbers and abused an alignment calculator... The reality probably isn't better.
The anti-skating thing confused me as I couldn’t see why it wasn’t needed, but this kind of arm doesn’t ever seem to have it.
As I understand it the zero offset approach started in the DJ world as apparently it’s harder to yeet the cartridge right out of the groove when aggressively back-cueing or scratching. I was surprised to see a highly credible, traditional and clearly engineering-led company such as Yamaha adopting it on high-end home audio kit. I don’t understand it. I know there has been another high-end audiophile arm from Japan built on similar principles/lack thereof. Can’t remember the name but it is obviously straight and may even be a unipivot.