Baerwald straight tonearm alignment - the alignment people should have chosen 50 years ago.

[Temaad]

I am a brief visitor to the site, but was quite amazed that none hear have discussed Under hang alignment. There are a few threads of the Viv labs arm, which is good. but there are at least 6 other arms out there that use this alignment and the number is climbing. I started a couple of threads on other sites a couple of years ago and if people had been here where I lived I would have been linched.
But over time things calmed down & one adversary of U/H, posted a doc the showed that Baerwald had borrowed anther theorists paper, as he did with Lofgen.

This paper mathematically showed that a straight tonearm was very much useable, but like the off-set theory, none (at least as far as I can fine out) of the theorists actually had an arm made up.

So far I have made 5 U/H arms including the recommended 15.5'' as advised in the paper. The shortest arm I have done is an 8.25'' arm (to match the V/Labs 7'')

They do all work perfectly, the 12'' & 15.5'' giving a far superior sound than when set up with Lof B alignment. A total of 7 different carts have been used on all arms with no tracking problems from any.
There have even been quite a few Supra arm made for U/H, which the users also reported to sound superior when set to U/H.

Cheers Derek

 

[mtemur]

A simple question, why?
What’s the benefit of underhung design over overhung?

 

[Temaad]

The advantages are numerous
- Huge sound improvement, more spatial & deeper more impactful bass.
- Improved low level detail retrieval
- More natural sound across the whole LP
- Easier set up, less than 2 minutes.
- No A/Skating, so no bent stylus

note : I had previously used 12'' arms so the A/S advantage is from what others have advised me

Cheers

 

[mtemur]

The advantages are numerous
- Huge sound improvement, more spatial & deeper more impactful bass.

Sound quality, bass impact, and similar traits have nothing to do with geometry. They depend on factors like tonearm material, resonance control, and—most importantly—the bearing type and quality. So underhung geometry offers no advantage over overhung geometry in that regard.

bass.
- Easier set up, less than 2 minutes

Easy setup isn’t the goal if you’re after sound quality. So again, no real advantage there.

No A/Skating, so no bent stylus
Cheers

Unfortunately, that’s not correct. Underhung geometry also produces skating force, so underhung tonearms require anti-skating mechanisms as well. Because the direction of the skating force reverses after the null point, these designs demand a more complex anti-skating system to maintain proper compensation.

Consequently, there are no demonstrated advantages of underhung tonearms over conventional overhung designs; on the contrary, they tend to exhibit higher tracking error.

 

[Temaad]

Hi, I see we have firm none believer. So you have not read any of the reviews on the Viv Labs arm, take a browse.
Mr. Fremer has on the well know Stereophile mag
'
''My take is that the Rigid Float—either because of its underhung geometry, or its non-grounded bearing system, or both has a singularly smooth, lush sound that some listeners will instantly crave. Those folks should drop a ViV Lab Rigid Float into their system ASAP and find out for themselves.''


- ''Sound quality, bass impact, and similar traits have nothing to do with geometry. They depend on factors like tonearm material, resonance control, and—most importantly—the bearing type and quality. So underhung geometry offers no advantage over overhung geometry in that regard.''

However every users of the U/H arm has reported this fact from a multitude of different arms, constructed from wood, Aluminum, carbon fiber, Titanium, Stainless steel, Magnesium & finally a Ceramic tube wand. All arms were 1st used in standard alignment, then changed to Under Hang. As I said a 2 minute job.

- ''Unfortunately, that’s not correct. Underhung geometry also produces skating force, so underhung tonearms require anti-skating mechanisms as well. Because the direction of the skating force reverses after the null point, these designs demand a more complex anti-skating system to maintain proper compensation.'''

Not correct, The skating action of U/H as been proven to skate inwards to the Null point (normally 90mm from center spindle). After the Null point the skating reverses & the stylus sees an outward skating force, so the two cancel the effect on the stylus out.

Cheers

​

 

[mtemur]

Hi, I see we have firm none believer. So you have not read any of the reviews on the Viv Labs arm, take a browse.
Mr. Fremer has on the well know Stereophile mag
'
''My take is that the Rigid Float—either because of its underhung geometry, or its non-grounded bearing system, or both has a singularly smooth, lush sound that some listeners will instantly crave. Those folks should drop a ViV Lab Rigid Float into their system ASAP and find out for themselves.''


- ''Sound quality, bass impact, and similar traits have nothing to do with geometry. They depend on factors like tonearm material, resonance control, and—most importantly—the bearing type and quality. So underhung geometry offers no advantage over overhung geometry in that regard.''

However every users of the U/H arm has reported this fact from a multitude of different arms, constructed from wood, Aluminum, carbon fiber, Titanium, Stainless steel, Magnesium & finally a Ceramic tube wand. All arms were 1st used in standard alignment, then changed to Under Hang. As I said a 2 minute job.

- ''Unfortunately, that’s not correct. Underhung geometry also produces skating force, so underhung tonearms require anti-skating mechanisms as well. Because the direction of the skating force reverses after the null point, these designs demand a more complex anti-skating system to maintain proper compensation.'''

Not correct, The skating action of U/H as been proven to skate inwards to the Null point (normally 90mm from center spindle). After the Null point the skating reverses & the stylus sees an outward skating force, so the two cancel the effect on the stylus out.

Cheers

​

I’m talking about facts, mathematics, and mechanics — not opinions or the kind of always-positive reviews we often see.

That said, from an audiophile perspective, I care about sound quality in properly executed systems — ones where every aspect has been carefully studied and optimized. Those are usually from the upper echelon. I’m not referring to setups where cables are lying on the floor, components are stacked on top of each other, and speakers are sitting directly on the carpet. Reviewers’ systems are constantly changing — there’s always something in for review. Their setups function more like a business machine than a system carefully built by a hobbyist for pleasure. That’s why they don’t qualify in that respect.

So, nothing from the reviews you shared really matters in that context.

By the way, I’ve read those reviews and even wrote to Stereophile to correct Michael Trei’s mistakes in his piece — but they chose to stay silent.

If you’re happy with your underhung arm and believe everything written in those reviews, that’s fine — enjoy it. But please don’t present those reviews as ultimate facts. They’re far from it. I’d suggest doing a bit more research before claiming the superiority of underhung geometry, because it’s misleading.

 

[Temaad]

Hi, we who have heard & bought U/H arms have conclusively heard the massive upgrade in S/Q that can be achieved from an 8.25'' arm to a 15.5'' arm (Baerwald PPROVED & recommended set up)

- The question is are you just sitting in your arm chair, criticizing without actually even listening to an U/H arm. (SHAME ON YOU)

- Or have you heard one in your system & just don't like the sound. (ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM)
I don't like the sound of the Supra U/H arm. But the 5 others variants I have used & listened to are out of this world superior to any other arm I had heard.

So lets see were you sit.

And please enlighten us to hear what you advised Mr Fremer.

Cheers

 

[mtemur]

Whatever you heard as an improvement can be totally misleading — ears can be mistaken. Your preference for underhung arms isn’t an absolute fact and doesn’t prove anything.

I’ve heard a couple of underhung arms at shows (Yamaha and ViV, if I remember correctly), but not in my own setup. I haven’t compared a Rega Planar 1 against my La Platine Verdier either to know that the Verdier is better — just like I don’t need to race a Toyota Corolla against an Audi RS6 to know which one is faster. In short, I don’t need to jump off a cliff to know I’ll fall.

Overhung vs. underhung is just as simple as those above, it's pure mathematics. If there’s anything that overrides that and gives underhung geometry an advantage, please share it with us. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. We already discussed that anti-skating is also required for underhung geometry.

Check the ViV thread — I shared what I wrote to Stereophile there.

 

[Temaad]

Of course it's just mathematics & Baerwald's theories, both mathematical systems are correct systems. but he never tried either out.
However Off set was a disaster when LP's came along, so people tried to hobble a fix, in the form of anti-skating. Most arms now do a poor job & even more people cannot set it up correctly, making the system even worse. That sprouted another industry of gizmos, to allow people too.

For many years I manufactured & sold direct tonearms that were 12.5'' long, specifically so I did not have to include A/S. My arms received many, many great reviews from the press & customers. As soon as I tried U/H for the 1st time, also being a skeptic, I was hooked. To me the difference was huge, as if I was upgrading from a good $2000 cart to a $5000 one.

Now I have retired, I am working on refining the U/H set up. There is an unproven theory that Under-Hang causes 2nd harmonic distortion, which most people like to hear, as Nelson Pass has found out it is an advantage. It is correct, maybe not. Is it enjoyable to listen to. 90% of people say a very big yes. However Nelson has confirmed from his studies that about 10 to 15% of people cannot hear 2nd harmonic distortion in music.

There are currently over on Lenco Heaven a group of say 20 enthusiasts have made & are upgrading their U/H arms, from that group of 20, two have advised that the U/H arm sound to be no different to off-set.

In the last year of production of my arms I advised customers to try U/H, my arm could do both alignments by just moving the arm base. Again 80% of customers advised that they judged U/H set up superior to Lof B.

I have now tested my recommended 15.5'' U/H against a very good Japanese 8.25'' U/H arm using identical cartridges. There is a difference, but it is so small without direct A/B switched between the two, nobody could tell the difference.

So I would put it to you 80% of listeners cannot be wrong.


Cheers

 

[djsina2]

I had a ViV and to me it was clearly superior to 3012R, 3010R, FR-64x, Thales Simplicity, Kuzma 4Point. Now whether that was because of U/H or something else I don’t know.

 

[tony22]

I had a ViV and to me it was clearly superior to 3012R, 3010R, FR-64x, Thales Simplicity, Kuzma 4Point. Now whether that was because of U/H or something else I don’t know.

What did you move on to from the ViV?

 

[djsina2]

What did you move on to from the ViV?

Audio Tekne

 

[Temaad]

Audio Tekne

Hi, Can you please advise model No.

Cheers

 

[djsina2]

Hi, Can you please advise model No.

Cheers

The arm is specifically made for their ACP-8801 turntable system. You can’t buy it or use it separately. It is not an U/H arm.

 

[mtemur]

However Off set was a disaster when LP's came along, so people tried to hobble a fix, in the form of anti-skating.

Offset angle isn’t the cause of skating — overhang is. That’s why the opposite geometry, underhung arms, also produce skating force. The offset angle on an overhung arm actually helps reduce tracking error.

There is an unproven theory that Under-Hang causes 2nd harmonic distortion, which most people like to hear, as Nelson Pass has found out it is an advantage.

That’s absurd. If underhung geometry caused second-harmonic distortion, then overhung geometry would too. Are you sure you can actually visualize the difference between the two geometries?

There are currently over on Lenco Heaven a group of say 20 enthusiasts have made & are upgrading their U/H arms, from that group of 20, two have advised that the U/H arm sound to be no different to off-set.

What people do isn’t always right. They ditched vinyl for CDs in the ’80s, and now they’re switching back to vinyl.

More importantly, the opposite of underhung geometry is overhung geometry — not offset angle.

It’s honestly shocking to see people who lack a basic understanding of pivoted tonearm geometry actually manufacturing tonearms.

 

[Temaad]

Hi Guys, Well I have spent the last couple of days listening to the two arms, my 15.5'' with base level wire & a S/Steel Japanese 8.25'' (beautifully manufactured arm of unknown origin) I have used two Denon 107 MM carts through a switcher into my op-amp upgraded phono amp.
So after many hours of listening I have come to the conclusion, they give or take very small differences, SOUND the SAME.

Yes the 15'' arm gives a tad lower bass & in S/Steel arm is a little bit more forward. But that is grasping at straws.

So it seems MY Baerwald was WRONG. You can successfully implement an U/H arm shorter than 15''.

Cheers