Jump to content

linear tracking vs unipivot ?????????


joessportster

Recommended Posts

anyone tell me the pros and cons.........i have a chance to get a linear tracking near top of the line clearaudio tq 1 with a clearaudio referance table, and i am wandering if there are any advantages to the linear arm as compared to my graham 1.5 on my clearaudio champ level 2.................

all opinions are appreciated

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, MaxG can give you chapter and verse, as he went through the process of getting a LT clearaudio arm and a high-line Clearaudio 'table. Here is his current LP setup, from his system profile:

Clearaudio Master Solution Turntable, Clearaudio TQI 2000 linear tracking arm, Clearaudio regulater power supply and speed switch, Clearaudio "The ring", Denon 103 and Shelter 901 Cartridges (103 better match and installed currently)

Max has posted extensively on choosing the above items. Now all he needs is a Transfiguration cartridge! [;)]

The Graham 1.5 arm is an earlier, somewhat dated model that was succeeded by the 1.5T (for tungsten side weights), 2.0, and 2.2 which has a tungsten bearing cup and redesigned base clamp. It seems to be a good unipivot design. A unipivot arm is very adaptable and easy on cartridges and cartridge tracking IME. However, I myself am not in a position to predict how much better, if any, the Clearaudio LT arm is.

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my current cartridge is a shelter 901, i am fairly happy with it although for my taste it seems to excintuate the bass too much, i have read a few of maxs posts in regards to the tq1 which is what he has and that is the arm i am looking at, i also seem to recall he states the denon 103 is a very good match but i cannot recall which cart he states he was currently using, i have used a denon many times and i like the overall sound so i may go back to one of those for awhile if i get the aforementioned set up..................i could be wrong here but from memory i seem to recall that a linear track arm is in theory a better arm as there is no arc path that the cart follows it simply follows in a traight line along the rails...........

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuckle, giggle, tee hee hee...

OK - which is better?

Well the definitive answer is this - yes.

Theoretically the LT arm kills anything else stone dead. And a passive LT kills all other forms of LT (zero micro-vibration).

In practice , however, it isnt the easiest thing to live with and you are very restricted on cartridges. the only good news in all of this is that you do not have to buy the Goldfinger ($12,000?) to get the best out of it - a standard 103 denon will do the job perfectly.

Forget the 901 on the arm - I have the same cartridge in a drawer here - if it worked I would be using it - you need a minimum of 2 grams of tracking weight - 2.2 better - I the 901 runs between 1.5 and 1.9.

As an aside - if you are looking at a LT clearaudio right now the answer is - don't.

When they made the statement product a couple of years back they made a new version of the arm that uses just 2 wheels on the truck that supports the armlet as opposed to the 3 we have today. This is a filter down product and will come into the standard line next year (as an upgrade for me - thankfully).

In theory that product overcomes much of the limitations of the current unit - including the tortional tendency induced by the movement. This could be - if it works right - the most important single upgrade to the arm since souther orignially designed it. With a bit of luck I will be testing it out come January/February.

Another product that has come down from the statement design is the mag-lev bearing. Take the signal to noise ratio on the unit to beyond CD - and it a low cost upgrade for any clearaudio table. I will probably get both at the same time.

Bet that confused things.....

BTW - the outer ring is not essential for the LT arm any more than it is for a normal arm - it is just a massive upgrade to the sound for several complex but important reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,

From an engineering standpoint the linear tracking arm is a very attractive design. The stylus is perpendicular to the groove at all points on the record. Other than keeping the arm's moving mass low, the designer has to figure out how to advance the arm so that the stylus doesn't lead or lag the groove being played. If LPs all had the same number of grooves per inch, the problem would be easy to solve, however, groove spacing varies with modulation and the arm has to be driven by avariable speed drive system.

I owned a B&O Beogram ??? which used a light and shutter mechanism to advance the linear tracking arm. You were limited to using their cartridges which plugged into the end of the arm. The platter was driven by an eddy current "motor" which meant the platter was only connected to the plinth thru the bearing--no belts.

With a properly set up pivoting arm, the stylus is perpendicular at only one point. You have tracing distortion at all other points on the record.

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Joe,

From an engineering standpoint the linear tracking arm is a very attractive design. The stylus is perpendicular to the groove at all points on the record. Other than keeping the arm's moving mass low, the designer has to figure out how to advance the arm so that the stylus doesn't lead or lag the groove being played. If LPs all had the same number of grooves per inch, the problem would be easy to solve, however, groove spacing varies with modulation and the arm has to be driven by avariable speed drive system.

I owned a B&O Beogram ??? which used a light and shutter mechanism to advance the linear tracking arm. You were limited to using their cartridges which plugged into the end of the arm. The platter was driven by an eddy current "motor" which meant the platter was only connected to the plinth thru the bearing--no belts.

With a properly set up pivoting arm, the stylus is perpendicular at only one point. You have tracing distortion at all other points on the record.

Lee

Who has the stats on what percentage of the lp there is tracking error with arms of 8, 10 and 12" tonearms? I believe there is near zero tracking error over 85% of an lp with a 12" arm, but I cannot located the article I found on this that discusses he curves, etc.

Anyone who has it or a link I would really appreciate it.

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis, I hope you find the article. I Googled tracking error and found some specs that suggest that more than a degree or two of maximum error is quite a bit for a good tone arm. This 2000 Stereophile article on an SME arm has specs claiming a max tracking error of 0.12 degree, which sounds like an error itself. Here's a good 1991 Stereophile article by Richard Olsher, but no tracking error info. I recall a common spec from the past of degrees per inch, which I think was extremely low as a rule.

The Graham has a terrific stylus cantilever alignment tool, which does it the RIGHT way. Too many tools incorrectly align the cartridge body! What strikes me about tracking error is that the cantilever can be deviated to the right or left depending on the anti-skating setting. On the Vector, for example, I've been told to remove the anti-skating when aligning the cantilever. Apparently it will deviate inward at rest with the anti-skating on, while playing a record will return it to neutral. Now, I can't imagine that variations in antiskating settings and record friction wouldn't cause greater stylus deviations than a minute TA tracking error.

All those complexities would seem to favor a linear-tracking arm, in theory anyway! The execution has to be near-perfect, though.

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Travis, I hope you find the article. I Googled tracking error and found some specs that suggest that more than a degree or two of maximum error is quite a bit for a good tone arm. This 2000 Stereophile article on an SME arm has specs claiming a max tracking error of 0.12 degree, which sounds like an error itself. Here's a good 1991 Stereophile article by Richard Olsher, but no tracking error info. I recall a common spec from the past of degrees per inch, which I think was extremely low as a rule.

The Graham has a terrific stylus cantilever alignment tool, which does it the RIGHT way. Too many tools incorrectly align the cartridge body! What strikes me about tracking error is that the cantilever can be deviated to the right or left depending on the anti-skating setting. On the Vector, for example, I've been told to remove the anti-skating when aligning the cantilever. Apparently it will deviate inward at rest with the anti-skating on, while playing a record will return it to neutral. Now, I can't imagine that variations in antiskating settings and record friction wouldn't cause greater stylus deviations than a minute TA tracking error.

All those complexities would seem to favor a linear-tracking arm, in theory anyway! The execution has to be near-perfect, though.

Larry

Larry,

Thanks for those, I will give them a look. I was looking more for info on the reduced tracking error the longer the tonearm is. The reason for having longer arms is that the amount of error is reduced for a larger percentage of the LP.

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

This is what I am talking about, but I have seen figures that show the percentage of the lp where there is zero tracking error with a 12" arm:

"Those who know and love SME tonearms and turntables, and who know something of the company's history, will recall that the company has been making 12" versions of their tonearms ever since they shifted from making scale models to making tonearms. On the most basic level, the extra 3" provided one thing: a reduction in tracking error. The arc described by a cartridge mounted in a 12" arm is closer to the theoretically ideal straight line than anything possible with a 9" arm. Simple geometry; no PhD required.

But, as users of 12" arms have always known, the mass added by increasing an arm's length from 9" to 12" is simply too much for most cartridges. The classic 12" armsthe Ortofons, and SME's own 3012, M2-12, and 312, etc.have all suffered from this to varying degrees, and have worked best with, primarily, cartridges of low compliance. This was fine with certain moving-coil cartridges, but clearly, any sense of universality with cartridges of more normal compliance was compromised. Even SME's Model 312, with its aluminum armtube, was much heavier than company founder Alastair Robertson-Aikman wanted.

But the allure of a 12" arm was too strong to deter Robertson-Aikman. He extended the magnesium barrel of an SME Series V arm to 12", along with careful sleeving, superb pressure fitting, the right touch of adhesive, and that inimitable SME finish. The result is the SME Model 312S, which probably has the lowest mass of any 12" arm ever made. It can be used with cartridges in the normal weight range of 6-15gm, and with compliances not deemed too low or too high by most makers. "

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...