|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.140.141.219
In Reply to: emt 997 is... posted by analog guy on May 5, 2007 at 15:16:15:
> 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!
Follow Ups:
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: