Fremer says 9" arms are inherently superior?

[rockitman]

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.

indeed. I was trying to explain why I think in my stock Herzan situation, it didn't kill the sound with my AF1 because of the HRS shelf acted as a buffer between TT and Herzan vs it killing the sound when I put a TT directly on the top plate...herzan for the Clearaudio table and AVI for the AS2000.

 

[TLi]

indeed. I was trying to explain why I think in my stock Herzan situation, it didn't kill the sound with my AF1 because of the HRS shelf acted as a buffer between TT and Herzan vs it killing the sound when I put a TT directly on the top plate...herzan for the Clearaudio table and AVI for the AS2000.

The air filled bladder feet of Air Force One provide more buffer than HRS. Clearaudio and AS2000 don‘t have this buffer.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Yes this subject is off topic for the thread. Mike, this is more or less how I understand it too. The modified Herzan actually addresses a broader range of frequencies, so it is more effective at isolating whatever device sits on top of it from a greater range of vibrations that are reaching it, either from the ground or air, ie environmental vibrations. Christian may also have a point about the layer (panzerholtz or HRS) also attenuating vibrations generated by the device itself (turntable in this case) which has the effect of making the active device correct less often. I don't know if this theory has been tested.

 

[Fsonicsmith]

Anything that I say at this point might sound like a further taunt of the esteemable Mr. Fremer or some base gloating that I successfully prompted him to defend his views. I am hesitant to say anything, but I am. As another participant noted, it is one thing to challenge a person's views and another to challenge/attack the person. This is intended to be about Mr. Fremer's views. Mr. Fremer is fond of the "tap-test" when reviewing decks. He taps on the top of the plinth and reports whether there is an audible sound out of his loudspeakers. Why does he do this? He assumes, obviously, that the tap test is valid and somehow indicates a tendency for the tonearm/cartridge interface to pick up sound wave resonances. Where is his engineering support for this assumption? I will answer that for you; out of thin air. The vast majority of turntables don't pass his tap test because the engineers behind them don't find it to be a meaningful test. Most of us don't tap at the top of our turntable plinths while playing LP's! Maybe Mike Fremer does, but I sure as heck don't! This is like JA taking a stethoscope to speaker enclosures testing for resonant nodes. It would mean something if we all listened to music while wearing stethoscopes applied to our speaker enclosures, but we don't.
I was looking at a back-issue of S'Phile this morning, I believe from 10/2015, in which the Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista 800 integrated is on the cover (reviewed by Mikey incidentally) and in the follow-up section there is piece by Art Dudley on the improved version of the Abis SA-1 tonearm. I would encourage anyone with back-issues to read the piece and think about it. Art mentions that the arm was made longer, with an effective length of 9.4 inches rather than 9" to improve the geometry. He mentions that he does not own a single shibata or micro-ridge tipped cartridge, that his entire collection of cartridges have spherical stylii, and he mentions that his rather humble set-up of a $900 Thorens TD124 on a homemade plinth with the $2300 improved Abis arm and a $2500 SPU cartridge with his moderately priced Shindo gear and $1200 Altec Lansing speakers were producing not some of the best, but the VERY best, reproduction of tone and touch he had ever heard from any system, regardless of price. Is Mikey right, is Art right, or are they both right? The answer, I think, is that they are both correct because they listen differently.

 

[PeterA]

For another thread, I would be very interested to hear Michael Fremer's opinion about isolated tables versus mass loaded tables. I wonder if he would also generalize how each type sounds based on his reviewing experience or if like the arm length debate, it is best answered by the individual doing the listening.

 

[rockitman]

Christian may also have a point about the layer (panzerholtz or HRS) also attenuating vibrations generated by the device itself (turntable in this case) which has the effect of making the active device correct less often. I don't know if this theory has been tested.

That is my point. Devices/components that don't have moving parts are perfect for active isolation. Moving part components like a spinning TT, no so much IME.

 

[DaveyF]

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.

Peter, I think you are definitely on to something here when you tell us that the 12" version of the SME has 'upgraded bearings' over the 9" version ( SME V). IME, the bearing design and the bearing type/quality have a much bigger impact on the sound of the whole than just about anything else on the arm. Certainly more than the length of the arm. Years ago, AJ Conti figured out that the uni-pivot bearing design was flawed...and that this design had a propensity to roll on the pivot as it transversed across the record. He came up with a very ingenious fix, IMO. To that he added some liquid dampening and the rest is well known. Today, the best arm that he designed...the Superarm 9 is produced...and then the new Superarm 12. Question is whether the Superarm 12 was brought to market to fill a need?....the need for a 12" arm from a marketing perspective. ( regardless of the fact that the 9"arm was perfectly acceptable and SQ was of the highest echelon.) Does the Superarm 12" sound better than the Superarm 9? I bet you there are owners of the 12" arm that will swear it does. My question would be, have these very same owners actually done an AB between the Superarm 12 and the Superarm 9 on the same exact table with the same exact upstream gear and the same set up parameters in the same listening room and with the same software to really know this....I certainly doubt it given the extreme difficulty of that test.

 

[microstrip]

IMHO sometimes people compare apples with oranges and then make generalizations that are often misquoted. I will wait to read the original Michael Fremer article to know the facts before commenting on the 9"-12"subject.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I think you are definitely on to something here when you tell us that the 12" version of the SME has 'upgraded bearings' over the 9" version ( SME V). IME, the bearing design and the bearing type/quality have a much bigger impact on the sound of the whole than just about anything else on the arm. Certainly more than the length of the arm. Years ago, AJ Conti figured out that the uni-pivot bearing design was flawed...and that this design had a propensity to roll on the pivot as it transversed across the record. He came up with a very ingenious fix, IMO. To that he added some liquid dampening and the rest is well known. Today, the best arm that he designed...the Superarm 9 is produced...and then the new Superarm 12. Question is whether the Superarm 12 was brought to market to fill a need?....the need for a 12" arm from a marketing perspective. ( regardless of the fact that the 9"arm was perfectly acceptable and SQ was of the highest echelon.) Does the Superarm 12" sound better than the Superarm 9? I bet you there are owners of the 12" arm that will swear it does. My question would be, have these very same owners actually done an AB between the Superarm 12 and the Superarm 9 on the same exact table with the same exact upstream gear and the same set up parameters in the same listening room and with the same software to really know this....I certainly doubt it given the extreme difficulty of that test.

Davey, I can not confirm that the bearings in the V-12 are better than those in the V, this is just what one analog guy told me about the V-12 arm. I do not know how many people with a strong opinion about the 9" and 12" arms have actually done a direct comparison between two versions of the same arm in the same system. I have done such a comparison over a two week period. It was easy because I was upgrading from the SME Model 10 with V arm to the 30/12 with V-12 arm. Once my new 30/12 was set up, I simply moved the 9" V arm and AirTight cartridge from the smaller table to the larger one. I listened for a week or so and then reversed the arm board and then listened to the new V-12 arm with the same cartridge.

In this way, I was able to first compare the Model 10 to the Model 30/12 using the same 9" arm and cartridge. Then I compared the 9" arm to the 12" using the 30/12 table. Finally, I compared my old AirTight PC-1 to my new PC-1 Supreme. It was an enjoyable and very instructive few weeks.

Here is a photo of the 30/12 with the 9" V arm. Below that is a photo of the two MINT protractors showing the difference in the shape of the traced arc and overhang between the two arms. The difference is easy to see. I enjoy the discussion of technical reasons why one arm may be superior to the other, but, if possible, I think actually listening to the two arms in a direct comparison is a better way to know which arm is preferred by the listener.

 

[microstrip]

If 9" arms are better than 12" arms I must get a safe for my FR 64S copper wiring : see this eBay auction : usd 6700 for a 12" FR 66S https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fidelity-Research-FR-66S-12-034-stereo-tonearm-box-manual-2-headshells-nice-/392047537025?ul_noapp=true&nma=true&si=%252FNsfD5REHrmfU95bUDpE0pdTYWo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 !

 

[TrackingAngle]

Less tracking error and as mentioned, less movement of the arm in both the vertical and horizontal planes with any given force. Finer adjustment of VTA and SRA are possible. AS becomes less critical with longer arm length. A longer arm can be designed to absorb more energy transmitted by the plinth/motor and better isolate the cartridge from that vibration energy. The tonearm pillar and pivot point, which are not necessarily the same (e.g. the Reed 3P design) are further from the spindle and platter bearing which can mean less vibration energy to that critical area. And as mentioned, with a longer S-P distance, the table can accommodate a peripheral/outer ring clamp. Few 9" arms will accommodate an outer ring, if any. And then there is 80 years more or less of empirical listening that despite huge advancements in cartridge technology (and only relatively meager changes in turntable technology) support the use of longer arms.

I suggest you bring this up with Marc Gomez. He's got degrees in mechanical engineering and materials sciences. One is a graduate degree. I won't argue with you (because clearly it's pointless) other than to say some of your assertions are absurd particularly "finer adjustment of VTA and SRA" and your "80 years of empirical listening...." is what your psyche tells you that you need to assert to prove you are "correct". If you want "correct" get a CD player.

 

[TrackingAngle]

While a 9" may have less moving mass than a 12" arm... the 9" arm also moves a lot more than the 12" arm...

I'd have to see some actual data to support his claim that those are the reasons why. I'm not saying that it isn't possible 9" sound better, but his reasoning seems meaningless.

Bring it up with: Bob Graham, Marc Gomez, and the others who conclude that when all of the variables are considered 9" is the best overall solution especially to dynamic performance in the groove. Gomez has degrees in materials science and mechanical engineering. I don't. And you? And I do not and did not say 9" arms are "inherently superior". It's not how I talk or write.

 

[TrackingAngle]

If you guys were truly interested in less tracking error, you should be looking at the tangential tonearm like models from Schroeder, Thales, KLA.and alike.

Makes the debating about 9, 10, 10.5 or 12 inch arms quite amusing as they all have tracking error all over the record.

Cheers

Actually most so-called tangential arms have more tracking error "all over the record". Very few really describe a tangent to the groove. Most have various forms of "wobble". You are correct that the Schroeder, Thales and KLAUDIO avoid those errors but they produce their own issues in terms of rigidity especially. BTW: the pivoted arms do not have tracking error "all over the record". They have two "null" points with 0 tracking error. I like to bring 96/24 files to shows that use the same track recorded with a 9" pivoted arm (SAT) and various "tangential" trackers, most often the Thales but that's just because I made more recordings. I use classical music and the big end of side crescendos where the tracking error is maximum....and no listener can tell which is which, though one always sounds best to them and that's the SAT arm on the Caliburn.

 

[PeterA]

Bring it up with: Bob Graham, Marc Gomez, and the others who conclude that when all of the variables are considered 9" is the best overall solution especially to dynamic performance in the groove. Gomez has degrees in materials science and mechanical engineering. I don't. And you? And I do not and did not say 9" arms are "inherently superior". It's not how I talk or write.

Michael, Did you ever ask SME founder Alastair Robertson-Aikman his opinion about his 9" and 12" arms and how length affects the sound? I directly compared an SME V to a V-12 and preferred the latter. Of course that does not mean it is "better" or superior". I simply preferred how the longer arm sounded on the same table in my system.

BTW, I really enjoyed your video tours of the SME factory. Thank you for participating on this forum.

 

[TrackingAngle]

Michael, Did you ever ask SME founder Alastair Robertson-Aikman his opinion about his 9" and 12" arms and how length affects the sound? I directly compared an SME V to a V-12 and preferred the latter. Of course that does not mean it is "better" or superior". I simply preferred how the longer arm sounded on the same table in my system.

BTW, I really enjoyed your video tours of the SME factory. Thank you for participating on this forum.

Yours is a most reasonable response. Besides, I never said 9" arms were "inherently superior". That was someone's defense mechanism kicking in. I did say in that review "it's just my opinion"! Oh, I did not meet Mr. Aikman. He had passed away by the time I visited SME (more than a few times)....I wish I had though.

 

[TrackingAngle]

Interesting, and this subject is interesting too.

I sent a photograph by email to a friend last year, of a turntable with four arms.
He asked me what it was, he wasn't sure about a turntable; the four arms, like spider legs, confused him I guess. And he's a professional musician who recorded in studios and has few original lacquer of his music.

Mike Lavigne, David, Peter, Marc, Tang, and all the other analog vinyl audiophiles here @ WBF; how long are their arms? Michael Fremer's arm, how long?

SAT is 9". Kuzma 4 Point is 11" plus of course I've reviewed tangential trackers 12" arms and the 14" Kuzma 4 Point as well.

 

[TrackingAngle]

I would like to tackle the errors of alignment issue

12 inch arms have less tracking error if properly aligned View attachment 41164

However alignment errors can have bigger effects on longer arms
View attachment 41165

No one disputes that 12" arms have less tracking error if properly aligned. That's not the final arbiter of sound quality.

 

[Loheswaran]

Science and pseudoscience

I suggest you bring this up with Marc Gomez. He's got degrees in mechanical engineering and materials sciences. One is a graduate degree. I won't argue with you (because clearly it's pointless) other than to say some of your assertions are absurd particularly "finer adjustment of VTA and SRA" and your "80 years of empirical listening...." is what your psyche tells you that you need to assert to prove you are "correct". If you want "correct" get a CD player.

Mike, whilst I appreciate:
1. your point, that Gomez is a scientist and you trust his opinion over x, y's, z's,
2. that you are a well known audio reviewer

You do not need to be so insulting in your riposte - especially coz you only joined the forum recently.

I am sure there are equally qualified persons who will say equally compelling things about having inches - I think Joel Durand is a pretty smart cookie for instance.

Can I pose this question to you. With all things being equal - lets say an SME 30, one with a 12 inch and one with a 9 inch same cart etc - what do you prefer the sound of?

There's an awful lot of science meets mystique in audio, but nothing beats the good old arbiter as opinion based upon experience.

thanks

 

[TrackingAngle]

Mike, whilst I appreciate:
1. your point, that Gomez is a scientist and you trust his opinion over x, y's, z's,
2. that you are a well known audio reviewer

You do not need to be so insulting in your riposte - especially coz you only joined the forum recently.

I am sure there are equally qualified persons who will say equally compelling things about having inches - I think Joel Durand is a pretty smart cookie for instance.

Can I pose this question to you. With all things being equal - lets say an SME 30, one with a 12 inch and one with a 9 inch same cart etc - what do you prefer the sound of?

There's an awful lot of science meets mystique in audio, but nothing beats the good old arbiter as opinion based upon experience.

thanks

I don't think I was insulting in any way. And I certainly did not write anything about being "a well known audio reviewer" did I? By the way I never wrote that " 9 inch arms are inherently superior" which is the claim made by the person who started the thread. I did say "in my opinion all things being equal"....

Interestingly someone just posted something explaining that the SME V and 12" are different designs and so there's no "all things being equal" to be had here. I based my opinion on my experience with the SAT arm, which is a 9" arm and is by far the best sounding and tracking arm I've ever used. I've reviewed many, many arms.

I agree Joel is very smart and I've reviewed one of his arms but Joel is not technically trained (nor am I).

When I first encountered Marc Gomez I asked him why he designed a 9" arm (I did likewise with Mark Doehmann who was responsible for the Continuum Cobra arm, also 9") and Marc Gomez gave me the answer I've repeated here: he said that tracking error is less of an issue than dynamic performance in the groove in part due to moment of inertia.

When i got the arm to review, the first record I played sounded so superior in every way to any other arm I've heard, reviewed or owned (not hyperbole!) that I began to believe Marc Gomez's calculations were correct. Gomez told me he designed the arm and was confident when he built it that it would sound and perform as predicted. Again, I believe him based upon what I heard.

I have brought 96/24 files produced using the SAT to audio shows around the world and the response from listeners who were not prompted and who didn't know the source, convinces me that Marc is a very talented and technically competent designer for whom there was no "trial and error" in the design....just applied science...

Someone else posted here that Myles Astor, when confronted by the SAT, which was brought to his home for a listen by Gomez had a similar reaction. He said it was "light years ahead" of anything else he'd heard.

This and my years of experience with the Cobra (which was probably the first 3D printed arm ever developed) convinced me that "all things being equal" or taking into account all of the variables and acknowledging that a 12" arm has less tracking error and requires less anti-skating compensation, it's my opinion that 9" arms (properly designed) are preferable. Again, it's my opinion but based on a great deal of listening and arm ownership.

I'm sorry if my post came across as insulting.

 

[NorthStar]

BTW, I really enjoyed your video tours of the SME factory. Thank you for participating on this forum.

+1

SAT is 9". Kuzma 4 Point is 11" plus of course I've reviewed tangential trackers 12" arms and the 14" Kuzma 4 Point as well.

Thx a bunch Michael.