Math to show WHY under-hang tonearms sound superiors

[borchee]

...you have to hear it to believe it, which sadly means most will never know...

So, what is preventing you and/or the rest of the group to single out, say ten music pieces of different genres (and different locations on the record, stating the diameters/radii at which approximately they start and end), record/digitaze them and share the amazement with the rest of the world? This isn't that hard to do, is it.

I presume the ideal would be a standalone toneram, long enough for overhang, and a "headshell thingy" with possibility to set the offset angle from zero to hero. Placing it closer/further sets the over-/zero-/underhang. This way one could compare recordings solely on the base of different "hangs".

 

[jrtrent]

If you want to see a audiophile under hang arm

Then look at

Viv Labs.

Review by Fremer at Stereophile mag here

Fremer's review had a paragraph I found very interesting:

"Through the ViV Lab arm, the three-dimensional picture—though not the images themselves—were flattened, obscuring the front-to-back layering of images; the air evacuated the room; and the shimmer and overall transient "crack" and definition, were somewhat blunted. However, Grace's voice became 100% natural and convincing. What I'm fairly certain are recording artifacts were artfully carved away, leaving a relaxed, "cushiony" reproduction of Grace's voice."

He seems to be suggesting that soundstage depth, air, and perhaps excessive shimmer and definition are recording artifacts, and that when these are "carved away," a more natural and convincing performance comes through. This reminds me of something Jeff Day wrote for 6 Moons:

"It's an irony that more of the essence of music often comes through more intact over a table radio than it does through a mega-thousand dollar high-end rig. Why is that? I believe it is because audiophiles have taken the hobby in largely the wrong direction, by emphasizing performance related to the non-musical sonic artifacts of the recording process like soundstaging, transparency, imaging and extreme detail recovery in their listening over the fundamental aspects of music-making itself." https://www.sixmoons.com/industryfeatures/mm/m3.html

Art Dudley, writing for Stereophile, also seemed to think that, for him anyway, an emphasis on extra shimmer, detail, and air is counterproductive:

"Record lovers who enjoy the extra shimmer, sparkle, detail, and air brought to the listening experience by elliptical or more radical stylus profiles have nothing to be ashamed of: those choices are sonically and musically valid. But I continue to prefer the spherical experience—to me, it emphasizes musical content over air, allowing instruments and voices to sound more substantial, and music to sound, overall, less fussy than with other tip types." https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-186-miyajima-saboten-l-phono-cartridge

 

[tabarddn51]

Borchee - Yes over at L/H we have tried that & there are several music files (under-hang & Lof A alignment) that can be downloaded. The trouble is none of them sound as good as my arm in my listening room. It may be my DAC that's the problem as it is only a Topping D50S, which had great reviews but is now a few years old. I have not got such recording equipment, nor the money to buy something suitable!!

JR - Yes I noted those details as well & after reading, I was a little surprised, but delighted by his ended paragraph.
What we do not know is what effect that arm moving in the oil has on the sound. It is well known that none fixed arm like the Well Tempered & Schroeder arms that do not have a fixed bearing or pivot point are in my experience (I have used both) an easier floating feel about their sound. So I surmise the V/Labs is the same. I actually have myself, gone backwards as I felt my system had lost it's soul, I had been using an Ortofon MC2000 mkII, now I am happier using a Dyna 10x5 H/O cart

Cheers

 

[theophile]

Myth to show why under-hang tonearms sound superiors.


Corrected the spelling mistake in the title.

 

[theophile]

I'm waiting for the proponents of this method to get the T-shirts printed

"I'm underhung" 'Smaller is better" "Try a short one for your groove" "It might be shorter than you're used to but just feel the distortion"

 

[jrtrent]

Borchee - Yes over at L/H we have tried that & there are several music files (under-hang & Lof A alignment) that can be downloaded. The trouble is none of them sound as good as my arm in my listening room. It may be my DAC that's the problem as it is only a Topping D50S, which had great reviews but is now a few years old. I have not got such recording equipment, nor the money to buy something suitable!!

Not that I can't enjoy digital sources, because I most certainly do, but I've wondered if, particularly with music, any conversion to digital ends up losing something compared to just playing the vinyl, which I always find more engaging than playing a cd. It's been 33 years, now, but Martin Colloms wrote, "From my experience of more than 250 digital products, coherent, expressive, naturally explosive dynamics and the ability to present good musical pace and a confident, upbeat rhythm are areas in which digital is surprisingly weak." On the other hand, "the vinyl LP disc possesses a powerful and effortlessly musical content, with an easy, fundamental rhythmic stability and solidity. . . With analog, one can listen through the blemishes and be aware of a strong musical message, one in which the music's flow, pace, and tempo are well conveyed, and into which the listener is drawn." https://stereophile.com/content/pace-rhythm-dynamics

More recently, but still 15 years ago, What Hi-Fi's review of the budget AT-LP120-USB said, "the Audio-Technica demonstrates the sort of deft facility with timing and rhythmic organisation that makes vinyl many listeners' format of choice."

 

[ripblade]

I've wondered if, particularly with music, any conversion to digital ends up losing something compared to just playing the vinyl

After digitizing hundreds of albums I believe it does. Particularly in stage depth and spacial aura. When I listen to the LP the noise is disconnected from the music; it emanates from a different plane separate from the music. Once digitized, the noise becomes superimposed on top of the music, flattened together in a single layer of sound. This is why noise removal, especially clicks and pops, is an essential part of post processing. Less essential but still beneficial is DC removal and warp filtering, as well as light EQing, channel balancing and normalizing.

And unlike many others, I used a Mytek pro ADC with SPDIF data bypassing the windows API entirely, recording and editing using ASIO @ 32 bits floating point, 96khz in Izotope RX, close to or on par with the best digital recording platforms around at the time. The phono preamp was through a Threshold SL-10 line stage incorporating a transimpedance MC stage, not some budget phono USB ADC.

Why the goodness and vitality of vinyl doesn't come across in digital I believe has to do with the limitations of PCM, particularly the sample rate. I would've loved to try recording in DSD but hardware recorders were scarce and very expensive, the software didn't exist at all at the time.

 

[borchee]

...several music files (under-hang & Lof A alignment) that can be downloaded.

A link perhaps?

Corrected the spelling mistake in the title.

You grammar Nazi, you!

Not that I can't enjoy digital sources, because I most certainly do, but I've wondered if, particularly with music, any conversion to digital ends up losing something compared to just playing the vinyl, which I always find more engaging than playing a cd.

How can you tell that your records are fully analog?...digital recording and/or processing has been around for what...50 years plus? Remember this?: https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/mobile-fidelity-scandal

 

[tabarddn51]

Hi, I do have a couple of files I saved, but as I said before, the files do not represent the encompassing sound that can be realized using U/H. (Note Ripblades comments above on digitizing LP's above) A few months ago I listened to a audio wave file produced from a T/T combination that cost over $60,000, I was not impressed.

But I have this little snippet from a L/H member who was loaned a newly release $11,000 (approx) very highly rated Nighthawk.
He had 4 arms 2 standard alignment & 2 U/H.

- Nighthawk Prototype DIY 10.5" OH with Lyra Dorian on Presto 10A
- Nighthawk 9" (loaned) OH with Satin Trio on Technics1300G
- Ipearm Blackbird 13" DIY U/H with Denon 107 on Presto 10A
- Cuttlefish Blackbird 10" DIY U/H with Supex 901 on Presto 10A

I can hardly decide. Each version has its charm, its quality.
It's like drinking wine. If the wine is good, you should enjoy it. If it has off-tones, you shouldn't.
There were no missing notes here, just differences in flavour. And emotions, of course. What a wonderful hobby!


Cheers

 

[jrtrent]

How can you tell that your records are fully analog?...digital recording and/or processing has been around for what...50 years plus? Remember this?: https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/mobile-fidelity-scandal

Thanks for the link; I don't recall hearing about the Mobile Fidelity DSD transfer scandal before.

Your question about knowing whether a vinyl record is fully analog or not reminds me of a question I posed to the Linn representative doing some comparative demonstrations at a local hifi shop in, I believe, 1984. In the turntable vs cd player section, one album used was clearly marked as having been digitally recorded. I asked the guy why we should expect that the lp should sound any better than the cd, since both came from the same, supposedly inferior, digital recording. I don't recall any viable explanation being offered, but there was no question that all in attendance preferred the performance of the turntable. I've since learned that even when coming from the same source, analog or digital, there are multiple additional steps a recording goes through in the process of manufacturing the disc we play, whether cd or vinyl. And there are lots of variables in the hardware used to play the discs, too.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that Michael Fremer and Jeff Day both referred to some aspects of what we hear being artifacts of the recording process. In a cartridge review, Robert Greene made a parenthetical aside that said, "If you want controversy, wait until the next installment, when I'll tell you Harry Weisfeld's theory of why moving coils can and do push the soundstage wider than the master tape!" So, artifacts can be created in the playback process, too. What Hi-Fi mentioned the "deft facility with timing and rhythmic organisation that makes vinyl many listeners' format of choice," and I've always found that listening to a turntable commands my attention better, offers a more compelling and engaging performance, than I get from cd players or other digital sources. Maybe what I'm hearing is a result of various artifacts, but that doesn't keep me from getting more pleasure from vinyl records, even if some of them might not be purely analog.

 

[lini]

(...) I will say that I am unconvinced by any implementation of antiskating I've seen since the skating force is pulling on the stylus but the antiskating mechanism is operating on the arm, so there is a torque applied to the cantilever which has to have an effect on alignment and relationship to the coils or magnets. (...)

Hmmm - I don't see it that way (provided I understand you correctly, that is...). In my view, while the groove drags at the needle tip, it's the angluar deviation between the groove drag vector and the virtual arm axis, that causes the arm to try to swivel in on the direction of the groove drag vector, with the corresponding torque being exerted to the cantilever (and thus also the needle tip) at the cantilever suspension. So to me it wouldn't seem wrong to apply an equal counter-torque at the arm for antiskating.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[borchee]

Hi, I do have a couple of files I saved, but as I said before, the files do not represent the encompassing sound that can be realized using U/H. (Note Ripblades comments above on digitizing LP's above) A few months ago I listened to a audio wave file produced from a T/T combination that cost over $60,000, I was not impressed.

But I have this little snippet from a L/H member who was loaned a newly release $11,000 (approx) very highly rated Nighthawk.
He had 4 arms 2 standard alignment & 2 U/H.

- Nighthawk Prototype DIY 10.5" OH with Lyra Dorian on Presto 10A
- Nighthawk 9" (loaned) OH with Satin Trio on Technics1300G
- Ipearm Blackbird 13" DIY U/H with Denon 107 on Presto 10A
- Cuttlefish Blackbird 10" DIY U/H with Supex 901 on Presto 10A

I can hardly decide. Each version has its charm, its quality.
It's like drinking wine. If the wine is good, you should enjoy it. If it has off-tones, you shouldn't.
There were no missing notes here, just differences in flavour. And emotions, of course. What a wonderful hobby!


Cheers

You really must excel at dodgeball.

 

[audiotemp]

You really must excel at dodgeball.

And tap dancing, perhaps?

 

[Nat]

Lini: my concern dates from when I was using very high compliance cartridges, and it seemed to me that with antiskating applied, the cantilever was always canted toward the center of the record. The skating force tugs the stylus inward, and the antiskating mechanism tugs the arm outward, and between them is the suspension/damper with the cantilever subjected to the two opposite forces.
This issue is much less obvious with moderate and low compliance cartridges, but it nags at me.

 

[audiotemp]

Lini: my concern dates from when I was using very high compliance cartridges, and it seemed to me that with antiskating applied, the cantilever was always canted toward the center of the record. The skating force tugs the stylus inward, and the antiskating mechanism tugs the arm outward, and between them is the suspension/damper with the cantilever subjected to the two opposite forces.
This issue is much less obvious with moderate and low compliance cartridges, but it nags at me.

Why didn't you just reduce the amount of AS?

 

[Nat]

Well, sure - I did. But it didn't completely solve the problem of the cantilever being skewed even in play, and meanwhile, my twenty year old self thought I needed antiskating, and that the engineers who designed the turntables and arms I had probably had a reasonable idea of how much was needed, hence the markings on the dial or weights attached.
I don't know when you got involved in audio, but in the seventies, lower and lower tracking forces were thought to be the key to reducing record wear, and so cartridge compliances were very high. .75 gram was thought to be a reasonable tracking force, assuming a good arm, and mistracking wasn't that common at that force (or at least that we noticed). And the original ADC XLM was rated from .25 to .75 grams, and tracked well, though not in any standard arm - after many problems, ADC essentially withdrew the original model and put out one with a more sensible .75 to 1.25 range without telling anyone.
Such high compliance means that even a lowered amount of antiskating visibly torqued the cantilever.

 

[tabarddn51]

Hi, That gentlemen is why I went to a 12.5'' arm so I did not have to apply A/S, then I found out about U/H, got a S/Q upgrade & again no A/S required, so I was in a win, win situation.

Guy's if you want to hear what an U/H arm sounds like the best way is find a dealer that sell either V/Labs arms or Yamaha 5000 T/T's (no affiliation with either). Take you favorite LP's along with you and don't be an armchair critic.

Cheers

 

[audiotemp]

Well, sure - I did. But it didn't completely solve the problem of the cantilever being skewed even in play, and meanwhile, my twenty year old self thought I needed antiskating, and that the engineers who designed the turntables and arms I had probably had a reasonable idea of how much was needed, hence the markings on the dial or weights attached.
I don't know when you got involved in audio, but in the seventies, lower and lower tracking forces were thought to be the key to reducing record wear, and so cartridge compliances were very high. .75 gram was thought to be a reasonable tracking force, assuming a good arm, and mistracking wasn't that common at that force (or at least that we noticed). And the original ADC XLM was rated from .25 to .75 grams, and tracked well, though not in any standard arm - after many problems, ADC essentially withdrew the original model and put out one with a more sensible .75 to 1.25 range without telling anyone.
Such high compliance means that even a lowered amount of antiskating visibly torqued the cantilever.

No, I never tried to use less than 1g tracking. It's an interesting situation that you mention. I can see how there would likely be problems with AS being adjustible for that except with a specialty arm.

 

[tabarddn51]

Hi Guy's, anyone seriously interested in U/H alignment. At Lenco Heaven a member (not me) has started a page to show successful implementations of the set up.

A thread for those actually using underhung alignment (page 1) - Tonearms - Lenco Heaven Turntable Forum

A thread for those actually using underhung alignment . As the title states this thread is for anyone that is using underhang non offset tonearm and alignment to share their knowledge and experience. IF YOU HAVE NOT TRIED IT DO NOT POST HERE. If you

www.lencoheaven.net

Cheers

 

[EWarrior]

Hi, You guy's are totally correct, that U/H have more distortion at the outer & inner parts of the LP. However over on Lenco Heaven a group of us have worked together & have concluded that setting a Nul piont at 80mm from the LP center is the best compromise.
As you know with LP playing everything is a compromise. So at this point (80mm) the arm is acting as a parallel tracker for a very short period of play. But we have discovered tracking distortion is not discernable to the ears at any point across the LP's.

I find it quite irritating that it took a group of people to "discover" that. Did noone bother to calculate the distortion for an underhung geometry? The null point that gives the lowest distortion for LPs cut to IEC groove specs is at just over 79mm (it varies a tiny bit, depending on the pivot to spindle distance).