|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.18.231.244
In Reply to: Garrard pic of the day posted by J.D. on May 5, 2007 at 11:53:47:
It looks about a mile long...Btw, what are the pros/cons of the long arm approach?
thanks,
Follow Ups:
Yeah, effective length, 309 mm, per Vinylengine's database.Skip this if you saw our last discussion in a User510 thread, but here's my take on the 12 inch tonearm....
'Having tried a couple of arms now with Garrard 301's, I'll add my vote to the 12-Inch appreciation club. Somehow the twelve-inch geometry conveys even more of the un-concerned confidence that the 301's already have.
Seems to me that all pivotted arms are a bit of a compromise (compared to that nonexistent perfect lateral-tracking ideal)... but the longer 12 inch arms are simply less-so of said compromise's negatives.....
Three Inches ? Not much, really --or is it ?
Three inches more is an addition of a full third of the length of the standard nine-inch arm. Not insubstantial.A drop in tracking distortion, even at the limited levels noticeable btwn 9 and 12 inch arms, brings a further feeling of expansiveness to the proceedings... Kind of like stretching out*, feeling uncramped-up. And, as I've mentioned before, puts the armbase further in the right direction from the motor by a substantial three more inches......'
Oh, and the Ikedas and the EMTs look especially long due to their shorter headshells.... so yeah, the arm is a little longer to compensate, tallying up all the same in the end.
J.D.
* This asterisk message removed due to OMalley's maddening tendency to post cryptic and logic-stumping followups........
*
groove
Don't know if the new 997 clones are longer than the originals but I thought the 997 was 297 mm effective length and was EMT's in house replacement for the Ortofon RMA297. I don't know why a different length was chosen to the standard RM series 309mm but it may be the same reason the pin layout was turned through 45 degrees. I understand that the new clones are available with either layout
Hi Andy,Not to be picky but its not a "clone." its made by the same engineer as it always was and with the same jig. Its still a EMT product.
The geometry of this arm is capable of aligning with both the G shell and A shell and can be had in either T mount or international mount pin configuration. It is a 297mm.
Reissue is probably more appropriate. Good to see them back in manufacture.
I think the different lengths of Ortofon arms are to fit the shorter (A-type) and longer (G-type) SPU headshells. Presumably the same goes for EMT, who also seem to have shorter and longer headshell (here I get a bit fuzzy though).My EMT arm has the SME (Ortofon)-style pins, not the diamond-layout EMT pins. I think you can order it either way.
12" (effective length), i believe.biggest pro of a longer tonearm is redux in tracking error/distortion -- in some cases greater than 50% redux in distortion at the point of highest distortion vs a 9" tonearm.
cons? it all depends on the implementation, but generally speaking a longer tonearm weighs more and has more resonance issues (which can be dealt with -- again, it's an implementation thing). also, due to increased weight the longer tonearm may be compatible with fewer modern cartridges.
(i'm quite happy with my 12" tonearm vs prior 10" arms i've owned but, like anything, great sound can be achieved in many ways, and a longer tonearm can be implemented poorly, too.)
I thought the main reason for the 997's length was to be able to play 16" transcription records on the 927's 43cm platter.
The 930 was for records up to 12" and came with (in later years) an appropriate length tonearm - the 929.
It seems that if tracking error had been a significant issue the EMT would have used the 997 on both.
I must admit however that I think 12" tonearms have a visual appeal and the curved arc of the 997's wand is a great design.
the information i have shows the 997 @ 12" effective length, but that could certainly be wrong.tracking error goes down as length increases (to 0 with a linear tracker), but it looks like the largest improvements in redux in tracking error are from 9-12"...the jumps get a bit smaller after that.
> biggest pro of a longer tonearm is redux in tracking error/distortion -- in some cases
> greater than 50% redux in distortion at the point of highest distortion vs a 9" tonearm.Actually, the reduction in tracking error distortion is only 28% at the maximum points for Baerwald's 66/121-mm alignment. It's still significant, but not dramatic.
A major drawback is that effective mass is always significantly higher for a given level of structural integrity in a longer tonearm. This might be the reason why top tonearms from SME and Graham are basically 9-inch tonearms.
Just a thought!
Long arms with high mass do connect me to the music in a way short arms never can and I'm definitely not alone on this. Regardless of what the theorists think. Short, medium mass arms are not ideal sonically unless digital sounds the same as analog to you. This forum is hard to read most of the time.Listeners wanted.
Now that I think about it ------Yeah, who needs it when the "...reduction in tracking error distortion is only 28%..." at the max points of Baerwald and improved throughout the curve as well ???
C'mon, what's that got to do with phono resolution ?
Well John E, looks like you and that one accomplished, reliable, and well-versed disciple lining up proudly on this one.
Guess it's tough when the endorsements are way scarier than the original assertion....
Internet's a funny place, huh ..?
Avg Rms Distortion, per your figures = shortarm o.43% versus o.31% for longer arm .
Oh, twenty-eight percent ? Well, you must want the Quibbling Department -- just down the hall, O'Malley's in charge.
*
groove
You are highly distorted. That will 5 cents, John.
Most tonearm manufacturer's are looking at the sound reproduction of their tonearms as the basis for setting a length. Most customers are looking for a detailed neutral sound reproduction rather than the syrupy thick sound from a high mass tonearm.If 12 inches is good, 16 inches has to be way better. How about 24 inches or 48 inches or heck lets go 10 feet back.
It is very easy to see what you get on a scope and check with your ears.
The new 12 inch and 16 inch tonearms are built for a niche market for people that want the nostalgic route. There is nothing wrong with that. Some cartridges will actually sound much fuller and richer with a high mass tonearm. SPU and Denon Dl 103x models come to mind.
Now if someone wants to claim that a 12 inch arm sounds better than a 9 inch arm, then simply mount the same cartridge on two tonearms fo the exact same effective mass.
Make a CDR and play it back ABX. I doubt you could hear or measure any difference whatsoever.
It's a classic example of dumbing-down.
There's nothing wrong with having all your gear being flexible, everything-exchangeable with everything else.. but there's an unfortunate element of being rounded off to the average that goes along with that outlook.Current nine-inch arms cater to the great, averaged-out, middle-ground of cartridge compliance design, in that '15x 10 6 '-kinda-range.
This is an example of the whole marketplace demonstrating risk-avoidance, as in .... affluent audiophile with big-deal cart wants arm that suits it, and everything else... or .... affluent audiophile with big-deal tonearm wants cartridge to suit it, and everything else......
That leads to No Design Excursions Beyond The Middle Ground.
In the old days, excellent LOMC cartridges like Spu's required a heavy arm and counterweight to track appropriately, like the heavy Sme's or Ortofons. Structural integrity was an integral facet of those designs. Once the swing to lightweight mm tracking took place, no one wanted any of that anymore.
Now no designer wants to tilt to either side in tonearm design, and yet still wants to reserve the right to declare their arm correct for "most cartridges"...
Marketing bullshit, tending toward general dumbing down -- of both arm and cart design.
Absolutely!
nt
...thanks for the info. my memory was playing tricks on me: i had confused 2 numbers...the tracking error distortion for a 9" tonearm at it's maximum (@ 57mm groove) = 1.6%, vs the t.e.d. for a 12" = 1.0% problem was that the value for the 12" was taken at 60mm. it looks like it's ~1.2% @ 57mm... which is, as you state, less than a 28% difference.keep in mind this is the worst it would ever get.
question for you:
"A major drawback is that effective mass is always significantly higher for a given level of structural integrity in a longer tonearm."is greater effective mass always worse? i would think a higher mass that it is less responsive, in theory, to tracing a groove, but i would think that greater effective mass of an arm is not a bad thing in absolute terms. i would think the mass of the cartridge, compliance, and other tracking parameters would be significant here.
> is greater effective mass always worse?Generally speaking, the answer is yes, but it's not quite that simple.
Structural integrity is a good thing and it requires mass. The stronger you make a tonearm, the more massive it becomes. Therefore, you are faced with two opposing parameters---mass and strength. Consequently, there's a compromise or trade-off involved and the medium mass tonearm seems to be the best compromise these days.
Higher mass degrades tracking performance. Lower mass degrades structural integrity. The nine-inch tonearm seems to incorporate the best of both worlds.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: