 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.204.157.211
This could be the solution! A new turntable from the German company, Ballfinger. Looks interesting.
Follow Ups:
nt
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
Incredible.
enjoy,
mark
well, ALL the points are null with a linear. i would love to see a video of this tt in action and the price $9400.
...regards...tr
Sorry tr, but as I suggested below, a tangental tracking arm should have the stylus tip at a precise distance from the base (bar it moves along) to allow it to pass through the center of the spindle (if moved that far inward). Otherwise it will not be in tangency at ANY point along its travel.
"The piano ain't got no wrong notes." Thelonious Monk
tim, that's EXACTLY what i meant by that oblique comment. by now, you know how i am. i was only able to post that because i got one arm out of my straitjacket here at the state ASYLUM.
...regards...tr
... there's a strong resemblance to the 212/312 series.
well, ALL the points are null with a linear. i would love to see a video of this tt in action and the price too.
...regards...tr
.
reelsmith's axiom: Its going to be used equipment when I sell it, so it may as well be used equipment when I buy it.
Opus 33 1/3
I know you were just kidding here, but I'm getting a bit nervous as he hasn't posted in a few days. Not like him. Hopefully, he's OK or just taking a break. Where are you John?
Sorry to hear of his passing!
I don't know. He was an asset to this site and will surely be missed!
nt
Opus 33 1/3
He just posted on the 7th. I think Opus is funning us.
Nt
.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
"pivot to spindle distance"! That remains critical with a linear tracker, only then overhang is no longer considered.
No concern for skating force or tracking angle? OK, anti-skating may no longer be needed but tracking angle should still be considered if one is concerned with optimizing sonics.
"The piano ain't got no wrong notes." Thelonious Monk
This will be a big improvement and won't cost too much.
Yes. I think it makes sense to get a good setup but after spending time with large collections and seeing how the center hole in the vinyl is not very consistently located, I've come to the conclusion that as long as you're not getting distortion you are probably aligned well.
I've been using a Souther linear tracker since 1984. :)
What I found more interesting was a link on that page to a new VPI table, The Titan - with magnetic platter isolation like the Clearaudio Statement (another table using a Souther derived linear arm).
Hi
I hear you... wouldn't it be nice to have a "perfect" no setup effort system? Well that was called CD in its day! The only other turntable that is ALMOST fuss free is the ELP laser turntable.
That link certainly points to an unusual bit of engineering albeit quite expensive!! Unfortunately, those "offensive" words still apply even to this arm :) This arm as with conventional linear tracking arms still require the words "offset" and "overhang" to be considered and will be just as vulnerable to errors in both those parameters (which for LT arms should be zero for both parameters of course!). With my MCs (of which I have several), only 2 out of the 8 I own actually have the motor assembly aligned squarely with respect to the body. So if I were to try and mount those in this arm, I would still have to work out the compensating twist. Also the specification for stylus distance with respect to the mounting holes differs from cartridge to cartridge, so one still needs to use an Alignment tool (oops I just used the A word!!!). So unfortunately there is no getting around the futzing.....
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
So for those of us less versed in the technical refinements here, please explain how and if you feel this table is an improvement on the traditional linear tracker. KEEP IT SIMPLE!
OK! Point taken sorry :)
Well the short answer is that I don't think it is any different to a normal pivoted arm in terms of "difficulty" in setup. Perhaps you might get a more accurate setup quicker than a pivoted arm.
A conventional linear tracker has the same issue. However, if you get the setup right, this arm should in principle (in my opinion) be better than a linear tracker and have the best of both worlds - ideally zero tracking error and a lower effective mass equivalent to a normal pivoted arm (Translation: you should get better results when playing warped records and less problems with woofer pumping with cartridges that like lower VTF.)
All arms require you to set an angle of the cartridge and at a specific position within the headshell slots. You actually don't save on anything with this arm. I wear glasses and I can't see things sharp closer than about half an arms length away. So I have to use a USB microscope to see what I'm doing. Even then, there is still plenty of scope (pun intended!) for error.
To setup a linear tracker you still need the equivalent of an arc protractor - the difference is it is a straight line vs a curve. You still need to twist the cartridge to align the cantilever to a grid on the line.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Thanks, that helps. I read additional pieces about linear trackers vs. conventional tonearms and there seems to be pros and cons to both, though clearly the conventional arm is preferred by most. It's apparently much more difficult and time consuming to set up a linear tracker.
I'm wondering though, if this new table, is a solution in search of a problem. The conventional arms today are so excellent, do we really need another alternative to achieve audio bliss? Of course, refinements in any field are inevitable and desirable but I guess the question will always remain how far up the ladder one has to climb to reach their personal audio Valhalla. As for me, I already out of breath!
I would say that it is solving an "issue" (not really a problem) with Linear Trackers, by providing the advantages of the pivoted arm, giving you greater flexibility over your choice of cartridge and combining that with the theoretical advantage of the LT arm in terms of the theoretical elimination of tracking error.
Your question over whether there is any advantage over a conventional pivoted arm is an interesting one. The answer I believe is "Only if you get it right!". Otherwise you just get a "fixed" tracking error over the whole record and you may well end up with greater tracking distortion on the inner grooves compared to a pivoted arm.
Now the next part regarding whether the error we get with the arms today are in fact audible, again I would answer "Only if you get it right!".
The simple version is - yes you DO want to fuss over the alignment IF you want to have an inaudible level of distortion on the innermost grooves and you want to be able to play any record and not instantly know which part of the record is being played. It is possible to achieve that. However, I couldn't hand on heart say I have set the EXACT offset angle and overhang. All I can say is that I can achieve it with a sufficiently small error that I can't hear obvious tracking related distortion.
All the obsessing and arguing we do over "best geometry" is really more about satisfying our desire to ensure that we did the best job possible.
So the short answer is, I don't really think you will get any benefit from that new arm except the admiration of other enthusiasts.
My ELP has essentially perfect tracking and yet I don't hear the reduction in tracking distortion compared to my pivoted arm at all.
OK Stop reading now if you aren't interested in what I think the smallest realistic errors really are in setting the arm geometry.
Given what I said before about skewed cantilevers and the difficulty in aligning a relatively short cantilever (say 8mm), which is on a different plane, to the grid and you soon realise that it is VERY challenging to achieve perfection (as in "zero" error). I'm sure you will get people on this forum that will insist that they have no difficulty in aligning the cantilever "perfectly". I would challenge them to PROVE that they have achieved an error of "zero" (which is impossible) and ask them to clearly identify all the sources of error. I have access to extremely high precision and accurate ( <10um uncertainty) traceable equipment to minimise those errors, but based on my studies on repeatibiltiy, I wouldn't be able to say I do better than ±0.1mm for overhang and probably no better than ±0.35° for offset. This error gives a maximum deviation off the centreline of 0.05mm for an 8mm cantilever. Who here believes they can see this error by eye? Anyone doing this by eye on an arc protractor assuming that there arm has ZERO error in the mounting position is deluding themselves if they reckon they can achieve this level of accuracy. However, does it matter? Actually NO! You can tolerate surprisingly large errors except at the innermost grooves. Arguing over "best geometry" is pointless from a practical point of view as most people can't achieve anything close to the claimed theoretical tracking distortion anyway without accurate tools and high magnification (despite what they may believe!).
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Good explanation. Appreciate your honesty and insight.
...that turntable is interesting.
-Steve
After writing this lead in, I was tempted to follow it with a non-sequiter: "Just pour yourself a Dewar's."
Then I remembered the story by the great humorist, Peter DeVries, "The Cat's Pajamas" in which he tells the story of Hank Tattersall, an academic who quits his faculty job to become an ad man. Tattersall invents what he calls "commercials of the Absurd": "Are you tired of detergents that don't get your wash really white? Light up a Kent." "Are you sick of the performance of your present car? Does it burn so much oil you're beginning to think the damn thing is part Diesel? Is there so much sludge in your crankcase you can hear the bearings groan inside it? Pour yourself a drink of Cutty Sark, the man's Scotch."
Table, arm and cart. Three screws. Done
Jeff
"Decaf is for cowards."
Jack Kevorkian
I'm with you. Love my RP6 and Exact. Makes things much simpler and at this age, I need simple.
Other than pivoting when the stylus is off the record, how is it different from other linear trackers? Am I missing something?
That's how it differs from a conventional linear tracking tonearm. I only wonder how the pivot point is driven along its diagonal axis.
I like that the design permits use of a headshell with no offset angle, which allows for zero skating force, if the whole thing really does work as advertised.
Schroeder makes a tonearm that achieves the same goal but operates differently, the LT. Yet another smart bit of German engineering.
The only part that looks different to me is that the linear track is positioned diagonally, basically rotating the mechanism clockwise a bit. I'm pretty sure some of the fancier '80s linear trackers had microprocessors, but they may not have used them to the extent this does.
But the arm and the track are or must be disengaged at the pivot point where there must be a bearing. I suppose that the angle between the track and the arm wand could be frozen a la a more typical linear tracker, but it sure looks like there's a bearing at the juncture between the two. If the arm wand and the track were frozen in the orientation shown, as the arm moves along the track it would drag the stylus out of tangency. At least I think so.
I think the only difference is that there's a full horizontal pivot even though I imagine the automation will always try to keep it in its center position. Many linear trackers allow for some degree of horizontal pivot and use it to trigger the arm servos.
and so is the Goldmund T3 (TF3?), which is just a glorified Rabco. The Souther type depends upon a slightly dished platter or maybe a slanted carrier, so the stylus carriage travels inward partly due to gravity. All others I know about are air-bearing types that depend upon near zero friction at the rigid junction between the arm wand and the carrier. Many argue that the Rabco approach actually depends upon generating some tracking angle error in order to trigger the servo and therefore is only intermittently at tangency. Some also think the servo itself is noisy. I don't see that this tonearm has any electronics at the pivot that might indicate such a servo mechanism. Yes, that's what I was thinking... a full horizontal pivot. It would be fun to see a video of this thing in operation. Maybe on Youtube???
The low end linear trackers generally had a simple forward/reverse system where the arm would trigger sensors when it deflected to the right or left and this would turn on the servo motor so they repeatedly introduced some small degree of angle error but what's probably more important is how gently the arm was nudged in response.
No, not especially "sick" of hearing about setting VTA, azimuth Baerwald v. Lofgren tangents etc ... particularly not in comparison to the much wider, and ever expanding, universe of jargon and techie chatter associated with the digital side of audio. Unless you are one of the analog tweakers constantly fiddling with SRA, changing from one record to another depending on gram / thickness, then cart alignment is mostly "run basic set up routine, fine adjust a bit, then leave it alone and listen to music".
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
