Fremer says 9" arms are inherently superior?

[Ron Resnick]

I find websites and the digital “editions” of print magazines annoying. I read or scan every page of every issue of the print editions of Stereophile and of TAS.

Of course Analog Planet is digital only so I read that thoroughly on-line.

 

[NorthStar]

Michael Fremer, expert audio reviewer and professional writer and much much more...from Analog Planet, Stereophile (Analog Corner - In Heavy Rotation) briefly appeared here @ WBF in the past (March 2014):
• http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...sit-With-Mikey&p=253727&viewfull=1#post253727

Michael, some of the high end audiophiles here are using a 12" tonearm; it's a subject of high interest, not only for me but to all of us.

With the highest respect, in retrospective from your vast experience: What are the main differences between 9" and 12" that all analog turntable lovers ought to know in order to obtain the highest level and best listening altitude of happiness?

Yours truly,
Robert A. C. (Bob)

P.S. My memory is still good in my sixties. And I hope it remains in my nineties.

 

[Tango]

9” 12” even 14” if it doesn’t take you to climax. No use.

Tang

 

[ddk]

Regarding 9” arms. I stated my OPINION based upon both theory and listening. Most tone arm manufacturers with whom I’ve spoken admit that they believe that considering all of the trade-offs, 9” arms are preferable for the reasons I cited in that review and that they manufacture longer arms because of customer demand not because they think they perform better dynamically in the groove.

That’s the position of Marc Gomez who has degrees in both materials sciences and mechanical engineering (one is a graduate degree). He now makes 12” arms to meet customer demand.
I am not an engineer but I listen well to those who are and I listen for myself of course. And in my opinion based on theory and listening I believe that 9” arms are preferable.

I go to audio shows around the world with 96/24 files of the same record recorded using a 9” SAT (or previously 9”
COBRA on the Continuum Caliburn that you ABSURDLY declared obsolete or outdated or whatever ridiculous and gratuitous assertion you made without any backup) and using a well designed tangential tracker. I use a symphonic recording that ends with a heavily modulated finale right where distortion maxes out ( Lofgren not Stevenson) and I ask people to say which is which. NO ONE has ever heard a distinctive difference in terms of distortion.


Tracking error ( with proper set-up and BTW set up errors are greatly magnified on longer arms) is an overstated issue IMO. The rest of your system will produce more distortion. Marc Gomez’s 9” arm proved that to me.

I have a problem with this generalization. I've been around this hobby and business as long as anyone I know and specially the analog side of it. I Owned, sold, setup enough turntables, tonearms and cartridges and talked to plenty of designers to know which end is up and never heard that 9" is ideal length up to this point. I don't have a problem with anyone optimizing their designs for a particular wand length but claiming they did it because it's the ideal length is a different matter. My own experience is totally the opposite of that with a dozen or so tonearms that I've come away liking, the 12" version was always audibly superior in every parameter and I never heard their producers ever say anything to the contrary, on or off the record (no pun intended). Borrowing from your post declaring 9" as the universally ideal or superior length for tonearms without any backup and mostly based on 9" tonearms that never had a 12" versions to compare to is ABSURD. There is decades of documented history to the contrary. Opinions are fine and it might not bother you much but tracking errors of 9" arms are a fact and easily measured as is the resulting distortion and heard. Yes there's distortion in other parts of the system but that's no reason to compound it with suboptimal geometry, besides distortion of your system what exactly did Marc's 9" prove to you?

As to some manufacturers telling you they only make inferior longer arms because there's a market basically means that the customer is too dumb to know any better and he's going to stick it to them as hard and as deep as he can while it lasts! Unfortunately there's too much of that going on in our industry! Isn't using some manufacturer's inability to design a better long tonearm as proof of The Super 9" also absurd?

david

 

[Folsom]

I have no doubt there are manufacturers that do believe they don't have a particular reason to make longer arms that 9". Whether they are right or wrong, I don't know. What I can tell you is when things get engineered there are always factors outside of the engineers purview, and assumptions from them. Sometimes things get discovered and change products forever, sometimes no one ever has an explanation, and sometimes engineers are wrong because their imagination couldn't go any farther to find the differences. So I cannot see a reason why it isn't possible for a slew of results with different arms, and a slew of opinions.

 

[PeterA]

Not all resonance is bad unless you like the music completely stripped of its soul. Active isolation does this.

Christian, I though active isolation platforms like the Herzan only attenuate some, not all, vibrations/resonances. This is why they are modified with constrained layer dampening to address a broader range of frequencies.

 

[TLi]

I am glad Michael Fremer has jointed this discussion which I find more and more interesting. Audiophiles are very often self-centered, it is the nature of this hobby. Everyone listening impression is different.

It seems to me that there are die hard fans for both 9" and 12" camps. This is good because we can have meaningful discussion based on our experiences, just be polite and gentle to each other.

Recently I was involved in a similar debate concerning the use of stepup transformer SUT in vinyl, again very heated and there are fans on both camps. I used to favour the use of SUT, I used one for many years, but recently I changed. I find not using SUT give better details and resolution. When SUT in place, the sound is more dynamic, more lively and midrange is more mellow. I bring this up because similar situation occurs with 9" and 12" debate. Shorter arms are better in giving higher resolution and longer arms are more resonance.

There is no correct answer, my opinion is 9" is more accurate and 12" is more musically. You can take whatever you like.

 

[DaveyF]

I disagree with these sentiments. I consider the senior reviewers and writers at Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, some of the British and other countries' magazines (I am not familiar with them, but I mean people like Ken Kessler) to be professional reviewers. I think the writings and opinions of such people deserve respect and deserve a presumption of knowledge, experience, correct subjective evaluations, integrity and deference.

I also think that some of these presumptions are rebuttable. In my personal view the ethical problems of "long-term loans" make some of these presumptions rebuttable for me personally. Michael Fremer buys his major equipment components.

I think that professional reviewers should hold the view that their writings and opinions deserve to be held in higher esteem than the writings and opinions of the walking public -- just as would be the case in any professional endeavor. I might not agree with a professional's pronouncement but I certainly accord it greater weight and deference than the opinion of some random person.

I think a political science professor [fill in any professional in any field] who has devoted his or her entire life to the study of some narrow subject deserves greater deference and respect than the opinion of a member of the walking public who writes a letter to the editor. I think this concept of deference and respect applies to professional high-end audio reviewers as well.

-1

I certainly do not agree that we need to 'automatically' hold all reviewers in higher esteem than the experienced a'phile, or for that matter anyone who has a decent knowledge of music. Personally and IMHO, there are plenty of so -called 'reviewers' in this hobby that simply do NOT have that much experience, never mind actual credentials. What would those credentials be? Well for starters, perhaps a degree in journalism, perhaps a working knowledge of electrical engineering, experience with various types of music and so on. So that I am absolutely clear, I am in no way saying that all reviewers in this hobby are not qualified or are not capable in what they do. But to say that they all need to be held in reverence, sorry that just doesn't meet muster,again IMHO.
Your example of a political science professor is flawed; last time I looked, a political science professor had to have years of schooling in that particular field to become qualified to teach, not so with the high end reviewer. Professional or otherwise.


BTW, MF, from the 'guy' who queried you about the 'compatibility' of the Kuzma 4Point on a Linn LP12... I ask this: do you happen to own a LP12 and have mounted this particular arm on said table? ( or have you actually heard for yourself the LP12/Kuzma 4point9 combo?) Do you happen to know that the arm wiring connection scheme is compatible ( I use that term again as it seems quite appropriate here) with the sub-chassis and spring suspension of the 'little fruit box'. Unfortunately, with the LP12, it's not just about the weight compatibility of the arm with the table, it also has to work well with the sub-chassis and arm wiring protocol that the table requires. If the wiring interferes in any way with the 'bounce'--there goes the SQ. How do I know this, LOL.....

 

[ddk]

Shorter arms are better in giving higher resolution and longer arms are more resonance.

This is based on what? Which arms did you compare with one another? When you speak in absolute terms about resonance you need some data because it's measurable, and how do you differentiate between good & bad resonance, you might be killing resolution trying to defeat resonance.

There is no correct answer, my opinion is 9" is more accurate and 12" is more musically. You can take whatever you like.

Of course there's a correct answer, put a long and short version of a properly designed arm on the same table and listen, best you can do is prefer one over the other but you can't universal declarations of accuracy and resolution.

david

 

[TLi]

This is based on what? Which arms did you compare with one another? When you speak in absolute terms about resonance you need some data because it's measurable, and how do you differentiate between good & bad resonance, you might be killing resolution trying to defeat resonance.



Of course there's a correct answer, put a long and short version of a properly designed arm on the same table and listen, best you can do is prefer one over the other but you can't universal declarations of accuracy and resolution.

david

David, you have a point. Our prospective are different. You are very arm/model specific,like is SME 3012R better than 3009R, or 9" SAT better than 12" SAT?

I am more generalise, like is 8" bass driver better than 12" bass driver? 8" driver usually gives faster and tighter bass while 12" driver is more powerful, but of course there are exceptions.

Arm length is only one of the many parameter that we consider when choosing a tonearm. If you are in the market to buy a new arm and you have a preferred model, like Graham Elite. How do you choose the length? I hope our discussion can be constructive in this manner.

Thomas

 

[awsmone]

It’s nice MF is contributing,

I am still unclear as DDK is on his reasoning

12 inch arms have less distortion and tracking error whether you think it’s significant difference or not
12 inch arms which have fixed offset angles and overhang such as some SME models and others, will not be subject to setup error, and thus the issue of bigger set up errors in 12 in arms is mitigated

Both 12 and 9 inch arms have fundamental resonances as they are pivoted

In general these will be a lower frequency in 12 inch arms over 9 inch

We cannot escape that arms resonant and with the same material and design and different length a 9 inch arm will be more rigid

But most properly designed 12 inch arms will not just be scaled up versions of 9 inch arms, though there are some.

12 inch arms will generally have higher moving mass, and therefore more inertia
Although this may be an issue for warped records in the vertical plane , the opposite issue may be true for trackability in the horizontal plane
Also we have to consider that stylus damping by the cartridge tonearm interface plays a role in frequency reproduction of the cartridge , and the loading of the cartridge will effect the stiffness of the system

Finally, we have the fairly overwhelming observations of many serious experienced audiophiles, and some tonearm manufacturers over many decades that the 12 inch sound better, not withstanding the apparently wonderful SAT 9 inch

 

[ddk]

David, you have a point. Our prospective are different. You are very arm/model specific,like is SME 3012R better than 3009R, or 9" SAT better than 12" SAT?

I am more generalise, like is 8" bass driver better than 12" bass driver? 8" driver usually gives faster and tighter bass while 12" driver is more powerful, but of course there are exceptions.

Arm length is only one of the many parameter that we consider when choosing a tonearm. If you are in the market to buy a new arm and you have a preferred model, like Graham Elite. How do you choose the length? I hope our discussion can be constructive in this manner.

Thomas

Hi Thomas,
You're right in this case I don't make assumptions my conclusions are based on direct experience with specific tonearms which includes my favorites the SMEs and in every instance I prefer the longer version by a lot. I don't have an opinion about the SAT, the 12" is brand new and I haven't heard it.

I have a checklist, designs, brands and materials to avoid or pay attention to when looking for new arms which doesn't begin with the length but if available I'll probably opt for the longer version once I check it's geometry. Throughout the years I've done plenty of installations for clients and friends and have experience with many different tonearms and yet haven't come across any 9" models that are superior or equal to my favorite 12" arms.

david

 

[Stacore]

Wand vibration acts as resonator. It vibrates with the music. Longer the arm, the more resonance. It can be a good thing to some people, but it will reduce the resolution.

It depends on what do you mean by "more resonance". At least 3 things come to my mind when comes to the wand itself:

1) The amount of resonant frequencies that matter. This depends on the shape and in both cases 9" and 12" the shape is the same - a circular tube. So I wouldn't expect 12" to exhibit a richer resonant spectrum

2) Frequencies of the resonances. The rule is that frequency drops with linear dimension (longer wavelength can fit). So 12" will have the resonant frequencies shifted wrt to 9" lower

3) Quality of the resonances (or in other words the damping). The amplitude of vibrations at the resonances. Indeed the longer the arm the less rigid. But using proper materials (e.g. metals, esp hard ones like steel), I very much doubt there would be any considerable difference between 9" ans 12".

Cheers,

 

[TLi]

It depends on what do you mean by "more resonance". At least 3 things come to my mind when comes to the wand itself:

1) The amount of resonant frequencies that matter. This depends on the shape and in both cases 9" and 12" the shape is the same - a circular tube. So I wouldn't expect 12" to exhibit a richer resonant spectrum

2) Frequencies of the resonances. The rule is that frequency drops with linear dimension (longer wavelength can fit). So 12" will have the resonant frequencies shifted wrt to 9" lower

3) Quality of the resonances (or in other words the damping). The amplitude of vibrations at the resonances. Indeed the longer the arm the less rigid. But using proper materials (e.g. metals, esp hard ones like steel), I very much doubt there would be any considerable difference between 9" ans 12".

Cheers,

The resonance I referred to is the vibration of wand upon excitation by the music. This vibration pollutes the music, some say this is colouration. All wand materials have their own sonic signature, aluminium will have a brighter sound, wood will be softer and titanium will be more dynamic. Even different kind of wood have different sound. This is because of different resonance characteristics of the material. Longer the wand, the more colouration will occur. That's why I said 9" is more accurate.

 

[Stacore]

Longer the wand, the more colouration will occur. That's why I said 9" is more accurate.

I understand what you state, but what I'm missing is why this should be so.
Cheers,

 

[TLi]

I understand what you state, but what I'm missing is why this should be so.
Cheers,

My explanation is fairly layman, as I am not a physicist nor engineer.

Longer wand of the same material will naturally be less rigid. The increased flexibility will enhance the amplitude of any vibration, hence stronger colouration.

 

[Stacore]

My explanation is fairly layman, as I am not a physicist nor engineer.

Longer wand of the same material will naturally be less rigid. The increased flexibility will enhance the amplitude of any vibration, hence stronger colouration.

Yes, this is also what I'd bet on shall there be any difference. But what I'm sceptical about is that at those length differences there would be any
change in rigidity apart from a purely academic one. I'm wondering if any MF has tried to measure that.

Cheers,

 

[PeterA]

It’s nice MF is contributing,

I am still unclear as DDK is on his reasoning

12 inch arms have less distortion and tracking error whether you think it’s significant difference or not
12 inch arms which have fixed offset angles and overhang such as some SME models and others, will not be subject to setup error, and thus the issue of bigger set up errors in 12 in arms is mitigated

Both 12 and 9 inch arms have fundamental resonances as they are pivoted

In general these will be a lower frequency in 12 inch arms over 9 inch

We cannot escape that arms resonant and with the same material and design and different length a 9 inch arm will be more rigid

But most properly designed 12 inch arms will not just be scaled up versions of 9 inch arms, though there are some.

12 inch arms will generally have higher moving mass, and therefore more inertia
Although this may be an issue for warped records in the vertical plane , the opposite issue may be true for trackability in the horizontal plane
Also we have to consider that stylus damping by the cartridge tonearm interface plays a role in frequency reproduction of the cartridge , and the loading of the cartridge will effect the stiffness of the system

Finally, we have the fairly overwhelming observations of many serious experienced audiophiles, and some tonearm manufacturers over many decades that the 12 inch sound better, not withstanding the apparently wonderful SAT 9 inch

I agree with much of this but the SME overhang is not fixed. There is one ideal measurement, and it is easily found, but one can be off and not set it properly. The arm moves in the sled and I know from aligning my cartridges and arm with the MINT protractor that the overhang is adjustable. Cartridge Zenith is also slightly adjustable because the mounting holes in the headshell are slightly larger than the cartridge mounting screws. Inertia can be adjusted by using different counter weights and moving the mechanism closer or farther away from the pivot point.

We do also know that VTA variations are less due to record thickness with longer arms. We also know that anti skate forces are less because the offset angle is less in longer arms. I agree with ddk, one should just mount both 9" and 12" examples of a particular arm and listen. I did this with the SME V and V-12. They sounded different, with all other components the same. Some people prefer the more incisive and energetic sound of the 9" arm. I prefer the higher resolution, more nuanced, more natural, grander sound of the 12" version.

I don't know this for sure, but one guy told me that the V-12 is not just a V with 3" added to the thinner/cartridge end of the armtube, but rather a newly designed arm with most relevant areas like the bearing and arm tube scaled up and made more robust to increase stiffness. He told me that comparing these two arms is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have been hoping that Michael Fremer and Stereophile (and Andre Jennings at TAS) would review the SME 30/12 with V-12 arm and preferably directly compare this to the 9" version of the arm on the same table. I contacted both Stereophile and TAS years ago and both editors told me that they had no plans for such a review. MF did review the 20/12 with the 12" 312S arm years ago. I think I recall the conclusion was that the 12" 312S arm provided the benefits of lower tracking distortion with none of the drawbacks like increased vibrations or decreased stiffness of using a longer arm. That is an interesting conclusion considering the current discussion.

 

[rockitman]

Christian, I though active isolation platforms like the Herzan only attenuate some, not all, vibrations/resonances. This is why they are modified with constrained layer dampening to address a broader range of frequencies.

OT....not the appropriate thread for discussion...The problem with active isolation...it tries to attenuate all vibrations with a counter force to the sensed vibration. How are we to know what vibration/resonance is good for the sound of a particular TT and what is not ? The active tables are indiscriminant with their opposing force(s) being applied to any and all vibration it senses.

The reason my AF1 seemed to benefit, imo ? I have an HRS shelf the TT sits on that sits directly on the TS140 (acts as a vibration buffer). In essence, the HRS isolated the TT from the herzan and the active countermotions (platter spinning vibration) so it didn't kill the sound like it did when I set a TT directly on the Herzan plate.

I suspect this is part of the reason the Taiko tana modded herzans use panerholz attached to the top plate. It minimizes the vibrations coming from the TT being sense by the Herzan so that the Herzan can focus on attenuating vibration coming from the floor and air...not the TT itself. This is my theory.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I suspect this is part of the reason the Taiko tana modded herzans use panerholz attached to the top plate. It minimizes the vibrations coming from the TT being sense by the Herzan so that the Herzan can focus on attenuating vibration coming from the floor and air...not the TT itself. This is my theory.

I have 4 of these Taiko Tana/Herzan devices now.

the panzerholtz 10mm top layer (1) dampens higher frequencies than the (almost exclusively under 200hz effective) Herzan active isolation. the Tana LPS units (especially the 'evo spec' LPS's) (2) eliminate the negative effect of the SMPS's on system noise, and (3) improve the performance of the active device. so there are three different separate benefits of the full 'Tana' mods to the Herzan. then if you add the Taiko Daiza with a thin rubber gasket between the 10mm panzerholtz top layer and the Daiza (4) it further dramatically improves higher frequency damping.....giving you ideal top to bottom frequency attenuation of resonance.