Linear Tracking versus Pivoted Tonearms: A discussion

[Another Johnson]

agree.

agree that in both these cases the music was very good and the recording very good, so the digital recording and mastering was not fatal. agree both include many demo quality tracks that have stood the test of time.....assuming you like the music.

the question is what did MFSL do? in that decade from 2008-2018 as far as mastering for these releases? did they use the original digital masters or further muck them up? i do have the MFSL 45rpm pressing of Brother's In Arms. i'd have to revisit it to say. cannot recall how it compares to my earlier pressings. did that particular title better previous versions?

I never felt compelled to buy the MFSL releases. I’d already decided that MFSL was the answer to a question I’d not asked. I have quite a few of them starting with their earliest. But I nearly always preferred the original release. Obviously, this was my taste and does not impact anyone else’s.

 

[PHAA_]

Per the video…

I fall into the category of “I can hear inner-groove distortion and it, also, particularly bothers me” so much so that the compromises I may be making in other areas do not bother me anywhere near as much..

I do think trying to use stylus tangential-ness or lack thereof in relation to the cantilever, as a reason that negates the gains made by a LT tonearm was disingenuous. A misaligned stylus by the stylus assembly and/or cartridge manufacturer would have negative effects when used on any form factor of tonearm. A reasonable person would assume this to be an “all things being equal” assessment.

Who is getting the “true” sound and who is getting it wrong? I don’t know. I do know some audiophiles prefer gear that is miles away from the form and function of the gear that many mastering engineers use to assess their masters and finalize their masters, not to mention completely different listening environments/rooms.

Could the things they mentioned in the video actually be negatives to the end goal of “perfect” vinyl playback? I do not doubt it. Could there be real compromises? I would not doubt that, either. However, the question is “to what degree” and “how important is it to the listener’s overall experience and enjoyment”?

Reasons why my air-bearing, LT remains my preferred arm:

- vanishingly low tracking angle error, especially mitigating inner-groove distortion
- sameness of sound from beginning of a side through to the end of a side, so much so that many times I forget that the last song on a side is playing, even on LP’s I know well
- every cartridge I have tried in the LT, subjectively, sounds better than when used in the pivoted arm (MM & MI’s w/VTF </= 3 grams)
- if the bass is being attenuated to some degree and the soundstage artificially widened… as of the past 10 yrs or so, I guess I have preferred that signature

My daily, in-house points of reference are not uber high end (Trans-Fi T3 Pro Terminator (Ladegaard inspired) and the stock magnesium arm tube of the Technics SL1200G tonearm.

Having said that, I would expect, say, an SAT LM-12 or a Tri-Planar U-12 or a Schroeder LT tonearm to trounce my T3 Pro. Given the cost, I would be highly disappointed if those arms could not significantly out perform, in measurements and in terms of sonic satisfaction, my less than $2K T3 tonearm.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Per the video…

I fall into the category of “I can hear inner-groove distortion and it, also, particularly bothers me” so much so that the compromises I may be making in other areas do not bother me anywhere near as much..

I do think trying to use stylus tangential-ness or lack thereof in relation to the cantilever, as a reason that negates the gains made by a LT tonearm was disingenuous. A misaligned stylus by the stylus assembly and/or cartridge manufacturer would have negative effects when used on any form factor of tonearm. A reasonable person would assume this to be an “all things being equal” assessment.

Who is getting the “true” sound and who is getting it wrong? I don’t know. I do know some audiophiles prefer gear that is miles away from the form and function of the gear that many mastering engineers use to assess their masters and finalize their masters, not to mention completely different listening environments/rooms.

Could the things they mentioned in the video actually be negatives to the end goal of “perfect” vinyl playback? I do not doubt it. Could there be real compromises? I would not doubt that, either. However, the question is “to what degree” and “how important is it to the listener’s overall experience and enjoyment”?

Reasons why my air-bearing, LT remains my preferred arm:

- vanishingly low tracking angle error, especially mitigating inner-groove distortion
- sameness of sound from beginning of a side through to the end of a side, so much so that many times I forget that the last song on a side is playing, even on LP’s I know well
- every cartridge I have tried in the LT, subjectively, sounds better than when used in the pivoted arm (MM & MI’s w/VTF </= 3 grams)
- if the bass is being attenuated to some degree and the soundstage artificially widened… as of the past 10 yrs or so, I guess I have preferred that signature

My daily, in-house points of reference are not uber high end (Trans-Fi T3 Pro Terminator (Ladegaard inspired) and the stock magnesium arm tube of the Technics SL1200G tonearm.

Having said that, I would expect, say, an SAT LM-12 or a Tri-Planar U-12 or a Schroeder LT tonearm to trounce my T3 Pro. Given the cost, I would be highly disappointed if those arms could not significantly out perform, in measurements and in terms of sonic satisfaction, my less than $2K T3 tonearm.

Ah, greetings fellow Terminator owner. Always very happy to speak to someone with the same impeccable taste as me, lol.

 

[Anton D]

Anton, how would you describe the differences in sound?[/ispoiler]

Pure subjectivity here:

The OP, to me, has more 'up front' imaging, the Mo Fi more laid back. There is a touch more sensation of 'excitement' with the OP.

I think the OP had a bit more bass emphasis...nothing outlandish, and not really out of balance with the mix, but I find the bass more 'included' on the OP. That sounds silly, but the bass feels more like it was invited to the party, so to speak.

The Mo Fi does seem to have some better articulation of midrange details.

(I was joking about the digital part. The original is actually a digital recording, so that was just fooling around.)

 

[PeterA]

Pure subjectivity here:

The OP, to me, has more 'up front' imaging, the Mo Fi more laid back. There is a touch more sensation of 'excitement' with the OP.

I think the OP had a bit more bass emphasis...nothing outlandish, and not really out of balance with the mix, but I find the bass more 'included' on the OP. That sounds silly, but the bass feels more like it was invited to the party, so to speak.

The Mo Fi does seem to have some better articulation of midrange details.

(I was joking about the digital part. The original is actually a digital recording, so that was just fooling around.)

Thank you for that description. The few MoFi recordings I’ve heard seem to emphasize certain frequencies for a kind of enhanced sound, a bit bright and thin, and they lacked nuance and ambience and a bit of life and energy.

 

[microstrip]

Thank you for that description. The few MoFi recordings I’ve heard seem to emphasize certain frequencies for a kind of enhanced sound, a bit bright and thin, and they lacked nuance and ambience and a bit of life and energy.

Can we know which MoFi recordings you own or are addressing? Your description suggests a miserable sounding recording. I only have a dozen, but in my system none has such sound.

If we search for opinions and reviews on MoFi recordings previous to 2022 we can summarize them as "Most MoFi's are seriously great, though there are a few that aren't so stellar " . Do you consider that such opinions come from "non serious audiophiles" or people have systems with poor tonal balance? Or you were unlucky and just listened to "non stellar recordings" ?

 

[MRubey]

I recently purchased the MoFi One Step of Sketches of Spain. I have the 2012 mono replica 6 eye which I love. It’s one of my favorite albums. I bought the One Step just to see what they did, hoping it was more vivid without EQ shenanigans. And it is. It’s excellent with only one issue. On Solea there is a persistent rim shot that is a little too prominent, it sounds like a scratch in the record unless you know better. But over all it’s very well done. The EQ sounds right to me. My only other One Step is Fragile which is amazingly wonderful. It really expresses the sonic architecture that Eddy Offord created. I have a few other MoFi releases with typical EQ enhancements. I rarely play them unless requested.
This thread was about linear tracking arms. I have the Holbo air bearing system, table and arm. It’s a keeper. I am very happy with it. I’d purchase it again in a heartbeat. Maybe for 15x the price you can do better. Maybe. Also, it’s not overly complicated.
I talked to Rhapsody about a VYGER. They told me if I didn’t live in close proximity to a dealer, don’t do it. Last thing any of us needs is more stress.

 

[Atmasphere]

I owned and modified a Rabco SL8E back in the 1970s and 80s. The mods were to replace the tonearm 'tube' with carbon fiber and to improve the servo operation by using opamps. The opamp mod included a timing constant so the arm could vary its speed across the LP to match the groove spacing.

There were a lot of problems with that arm, in particular the gimbal bearings and the track from which the arm was suspended. The track was resonant and the wheels within that allowed the arm cage to move were not well machined, being plastic.

But it had advantages over any air bearing arm as the lateral and vertical mass was the same (air bearing arms often have a lateral mass that is a multiple of the vertical mass). That prevented the cantilever of the cartridge from bending even a tiny bit in order to move the arm assembly across the LP. If the cantilever bends, it becomes the tracking angle error! On that account alone, a really good radial tracking arm can have less tracking angle error than a number of air bearing arms.

I designed an arm based on solving the problems I encountered, using a motion track from TKD that had zero slop in its bearings. I was not able to get the kind of Timken bearings I wanted for the arm gimbal since you need a security clearance to get them (they make the hardest steel points made) and the only source I know of that has them is Triplanar, who is a bit precious about letting something like that out.

 

[PHAA_]

But it had advantages over any air bearing arm as the lateral and vertical mass was the same (air bearing arms often have a lateral mass that is a multiple of the vertical mass). That prevented the cantilever of the cartridge from bending even a tiny bit in order to move the arm assembly across the LP. If the cantilever bends, it becomes the tracking angle error! On that account alone, a really good radial tracking arm can have less tracking angle error than a number of air bearing arms.

It has been explained by people more studied than I, why the horizontal and vertical mass of an air bearing LT need not match, Kuzma being one of them:

Kuzma Air Line tonearm Manufacturer's Comment | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Manufacturer's Comment Editor: I was pleased to read in the August issue that MF believes that the Air Line tonearm could be "the finest tonearm ever built." MF raised, however, a few points that I would like to address:

www.stereophile.com

 

[hb22]

I owned and modified a Rabco SL8E back in the 1970s and 80s. The mods were to replace the tonearm 'tube' with carbon fiber and to improve the servo operation by using opamps. The opamp mod included a timing constant so the arm could vary its speed across the LP to match the groove spacing.

There were a lot of problems with that arm, in particular the gimbal bearings and the track from which the arm was suspended. The track was resonant and the wheels within that allowed the arm cage to move were not well machined, being plastic.

But it had advantages over any air bearing arm as the lateral and vertical mass was the same (air bearing arms often have a lateral mass that is a multiple of the vertical mass). That prevented the cantilever of the cartridge from bending even a tiny bit in order to move the arm assembly across the LP. If the cantilever bends, it becomes the tracking angle error! On that account alone, a really good radial tracking arm can have less tracking angle error than a number of air bearing arms.

I designed an arm based on solving the problems I encountered, using a motion track from TKD that had zero slop in its bearings. I was not able to get the kind of Timken bearings I wanted for the arm gimbal since you need a security clearance to get them (they make the hardest steep points made) and the only source I know of that has them is Triplanar, who is a bit precious about letting something like that out.

Are you saying that a bearing with 300+ balls work and play better than an air bearing?

 

[Atmasphere]

Are you saying that a bearing with 300+ balls work and play better than an air bearing?

No. A good number of gimbaled arms do not have ball bearings- simply a point and a cup. FWIW the Rabco didn't have any ball bearings in it at all.

There are two issues at play. The first is lateral mass addressed below. The second is slop- play in the bearing, which is why increased pressure in air bearings causes the arm to sound better. In a proper turntable there must be no play whatsoever between the platter surface and the mount of the cartridge. If there is coloration and mistracking can manifest. The engineering problem has a lot in common with the steering of a car where any looseness can cause the car to be unnerving and/or dangerous to drive.

It has been explained by people more studied than I, why the horizontal and vertical mass of an air bearing LT need not match, Kuzma being one of them:

Kuzma Air Line tonearm Manufacturer's Comment | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Manufacturer's Comment Editor: I was pleased to read in the August issue that MF believes that the Air Line tonearm could be "the finest tonearm ever built." MF raised, however, a few points that I would like to address:

www.stereophile.com

It might help to have some personal hands-on experience with this! The reason to keep lateral mass down is to prevent (as I said before) the cantilever moving left to right in response to the groove velocity in order to move the arm across the LP.

Again, if it does deflect, it becomes the tracking angle error. A typical 9" radial tracking arm might have a 1.5 degree tracking angle error; but if this were confined to the cantilever you'd never be able to see it! I've seen much greater deflection than that in air bearing arms (you could see the cantilever move) where the cantilever compliance matched the vertical tracking mass but not the lateral . This issue is not addressed at the link you provided.

 

[PHAA_]

I've seen much greater deflection than that in air bearing arms (you could see the cantilever move) where the cantilever compliance matched the vertical tracking mass but not the lateral.

Which arms were they?

 

[Deaconblues]

The tracking angle error of a long pivoted arm is vanishingly small. I'd rather live with the mechanical simplicity and stability of a gimbaled arm with negligible bearing friction, than deal with the mechanical problems of a linear tracking arm mechanism.

 

[Atmasphere]

Which arms were they?

The ET is such an example. The Kuzma is not; the only concern with that is the coupling issue I mentioned in my prior post. That issue is reduced by higher air pressure.

 

[mtemur]

The tracking angle error of a long pivoted arm is vanishingly small. I'd rather live with the mechanical simplicity and stability of a gimbaled arm with negligible bearing friction, than deal with the mechanical problems of a linear tracking arm mechanism.

+1

 

[hb22]

The tracking angle error of a long pivoted arm is vanishingly small. I'd rather live with the mechanical simplicity and stability of a gimbaled arm with negligible bearing friction, than deal with the mechanical problems of a linear tracking arm mechanism.

A few more words about the tangential tonearm, because most of you have never dealt with it. It has two advantages that are insurmountable for rotary tonearms:

- the first is the tangential error towards the end, especially towards the mark of recorded LPs. The distortion in this part increases disturbingly audibly with 9-inch and even 12-inch tonearm. And that is where songs end with pompous endings in classical music. You can partially defend yourself with very long tonearm !!!, but you can also give up on such records. Crying or Very sad

- the second is - in my opinion, much more important than the first - the absence of problems with slipping - you don't need anti-slip.
Of course, we can reduce (so that this doesn't erode us psychologically) by saying that this is not audible. Of course, you can not hear this on the same tonearm that has this problem, because the trick is not only in the exact dose of anti-slip, but in the fact that it cripples the output dose.
I will start with the force dosing - the problem of the anti-slip force cannot be solved even theoretically !!!, because it is tied to the modulation of the record, which is constantly changing.

More importantly - the sliding force, which pulls the tonarm inward, acts on the needle. The anti-slip force acts on the tonear . Between the needle and the tonarm there is a soft damper, which allows the needle to follow the modulations of the groove.
So the needle and its damper are under a constant one-sided lateral load. Which is constantly changing and, in addition, changes the tangential error at the moment (due to the deflection of the needle), so it must be set to some average modulation value.
In measurements, the distortion curves are strongly asymmetric between the left and right channels, as well as intermodulation and channel separation.
In addition, the consequences on 'soft' heads are already visible to the eye, and with high coherence (usually MM), over time the needle protrudes strongly to the side, inward. Because the damper is permanently deformed. On hard MCs this is less, but still.
With the tangential tonearm this is not there, which is felt as a relief when listening, a certain relaxation in the sound and listening towards the end of the LP in general becomes a pleasure - a real relief after decades of turning the tonearm of all possible manufacturers, when the fear of how the anxiety will increase towards the end of the LP creeps under your skin.

The belief is that a higher circumferential speed at the beginning gives a better result. But I have seen measurements of the mechanical noise of the record (unmodulated grooves), which decreases as the end of the LP approaches. So a better signal/noise of the needle sliding due to the lower speed towards the end!! The curve shows a difference of about 2.5 dB at 1 kHz, which increases continuously and reaches about 5 dB above 14 kHz. The tangential lever allows you to hear this clearly, because it is not covered by distortion due to the tangential error, wow.

It was translated with a translator, I hope it is understandable.

p.s. long tonearm is a new story though

 

[Atmasphere]

- the second is - in my opinion, much more important than the first - the absence of problems with slipping - you don't need anti-slip.
Of course, we can reduce (so that this doesn't erode us psychologically) by saying that this is not audible. Of course, you can not hear this on the same tonearm that has this problem, because the trick is not only in the exact dose of anti-slip, but in the fact that it cripples the output dose.
I will start with the force dosing - the problem of the anti-slip force cannot be solved even theoretically !!!, because it is tied to the modulation of the record, which is constantly changing.

The anti-skate also has to reverse its bias once the arm has passed the tangential point. No radial tracking arm does that, which is why its often best to apply no anti-skate at all.

We can see right here why the turntable speed stability is so important, since the skating forces vary with the speed of the groove. This can cause the stylus lateral tracking pressure to vary on either groove slightly.

 

[Deaconblues]

The anti-skate also has to reverse its bias once the arm has passed the tangential point. No radial tracking arm does that, which is why its often best to apply no anti-skate at all.

We can see right here why the turntable speed stability is so important, since the skating forces vary with the speed of the groove. This can cause the stylus lateral tracking pressure to vary on either groove slightly.

This is a very interesting point. With appropriate tonearm overhang adjustment (usually shorter than the factory alignment), the skating force can be zeroed at the center of the record between the spindle and the edge. This is independent of headshell offset angle. Because the groove modulation is more severe near the spindle due to lower linear velocity there, it is best to apply a small amount of antiskate force to compensate for the skating force in this region. When the arm overhang is set this way, the overall need for antiskate is almost none, and can be vanishingly small for long tonearms. It looks like magic.....

 

[marty]

I think in part it's because even professionals say it's a complete nightmare to setup.

A "nightmare to setup" is an understatement. This is especially true if you are setting it up by trying to follow Reed's poorly illustrated instruction manual. I think MIT now offers a course that is required to get a degree in Mechanical Engineering called "How NOT to set up a Reed 5T" for which reading the instruction manual is a required pre-requisite (unless it has been changed since I set up mine some time ago.). The final exam for that course is simply to write a new instruction manual for the arm's installation that any idiot including me, can understand and follow. That said, once the installation of the arm is mastered, it has worked flawlessly for about 2 years and sounds superb on my Dohmann Helix I Mk III turntable. I do have one serious complaint however. How hard can it possibly be to put an auto lift on the arm to bring it into the 21st century? We sequenced the human genome in 2001 and now, 25 years later, we can't make a 10 dollar auto lift for the 5T tonearm?

As far as anti-skate on a pivoted arm (a nightmare in any implementation due to inherent non-linearities across the surface of the LP), the anti-skate implementation on an LT has been discussed previously:
(post#658) https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/alexx-v-arrive-in-nj.32990/page-33.
I have not seen any data recently that suggests my original hypothesis has changed in that the best anti-skate is still no anti-skate!

 

[mtemur]

The anti-skate also has to reverse its bias once the arm has passed the tangential point. No radial tracking arm does that, which is why its often best to apply no anti-skate at all.

We can see right here why the turntable speed stability is so important, since the skating forces vary with the speed of the groove. This can cause the stylus lateral tracking pressure to vary on either groove slightly.

Skating force does not reverse direction anywhere on the record surface including two null points when using an overhung tonearm. In contrast, on underhung arms, the skating force does reverse direction after the single null point.

Almost all pivoted tonearms are overhung — only a handful are underhung. That’s an absolute fact. Anything you or anyone else says to dispute it will only demonstrate a lack of understanding.