The What Tonearm Are You Using Thread

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I am using the AXIOM tonearm by Acoustical Systems and the Brinkmann Audio 12.1 tonearm. Here is a photo showing both on display at the recent 2013 Australian Audio & AV Show.

View attachment 12312

Nice, what else are we looking at? :)

Liked the concept of how the Axiom arm separates SRA from VTA. One reservation though is that detachable headshell; guess that's just conditioning.
 

Young Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2012
112
76
935
47
Nice, what else are we looking at? :)

Liked the concept of how the Axiom arm separates SRA from VTA. One reservation though is that detachable headshell; guess that's just conditioning.

Hi Myles,

Also shown in the photograph is the new two-arm version of Brinkmann Audio's Balance turntable (with Brinkmann Audio 12.1 tonearm fitted with van den Hul Crimson cartridge), Brinkmann Audio Edison phono preamplifier, MSB Technology Signature DAC IV Plus with Diamond attenuators, and an IsoTek EVO3 Aquarius AC filter. The equipment rack and red subwoofers are from Mebourne-based SGR Audio (you can see the accompanying active loudspeakers in their Lamborghini yellow paintwork in the attached photo).

1385355_725677627448560_1044816116_n.jpg

The ability to adjust SRA at the headshell (aiming for groove compliant SRA and not some arbitrary figure of 92 degrees) is a nice feature as long as it does not compromise rigidity. I am pleased to report that this is not a concern in practice. The Axiom is available with either a fixed (my choice) or removable SME-type headshell, the latter more suited to users of the Fidelity Research FR series of cartridges or fans of the Ortofon SPU series.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Hi Myles,

Also shown in the photograph is the new two-arm version of Brinkmann Audio's Balance turntable (with Brinkmann Audio 12.1 tonearm fitted with van den Hul Crimson cartridge), Brinkmann Audio Edison phono preamplifier, MSB Technology Signature DAC IV Plus with Diamond attenuators, and an IsoTek EVO3 Aquarius AC filter. The equipment rack and red subwoofers are from Mebourne-based SGR Audio (you can see the accompanying active loudspeakers in their Lamborghini yellow paintwork in the attached photo).

View attachment 12392

The ability to adjust SRA at the headshell (aiming for groove compliant SRA and not some arbitrary figure of 92 degrees) is a nice feature as long as it does not compromise rigidity. I am pleased to report that this is not a concern in practice. The Axiom is available with either a fixed (my choice) or removable SME-type headshell, the latter more suited to users of the Fidelity Research FR series of cartridges or fans of the Ortofon SPU series.

Thanks for the explanation!
 

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,683
174
1,150
Dumb Question Dep't: i get the difference between SRA and VTA, and appreciate the benefit that correct SRA might make. But, once that is adjusted using this tonearm (which I gather is similar to the Arche head shell made by the same company), aren't you back where you started if you change VTA on the fly (ie, change in VTA affecting SRA)?
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Since adjusting SRA at the headshell with that design still changes overhang I don't see any advantage to doing it there. If it had been designed to not change any other parameters while changing just SRA it would be useful. Although it is still nice for an arm with a detachable headshell that has no adjustments of it's own. I do like how it adjusts azimuth.
 

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,683
174
1,150
Since adjusting SRA at the headshell with that design still changes overhang I don't see any advantage to doing it there. If it had been designed to not change any other parameters while changing just SRA it would be useful. Although it is still nice for an arm with a detachable headshell that has no adjustments of it's own. I do like how it adjusts azimuth.
You are adding to the questions, not answering them! :)
 

Young Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2012
112
76
935
47
Since adjusting SRA at the headshell with that design still changes overhang I don't see any advantage to doing it there. If it had been designed to not change any other parameters while changing just SRA it would be useful. Although it is still nice for an arm with a detachable headshell that has no adjustments of it's own. I do like how it adjusts azimuth.

One really has to prioritise when it comes to setting the static parameters of any cartridge/tonearm combination. For me, the correct overhang (and alignment) for a given tangential curve trumps all else and I resist the temptation to constantly fiddle with other parameters which might alter this. When changes in effective length of less than 0.5 mm can have a profound effect on the level of tracking error/distortion (i.e. a completely different tangential curve with its unique null points) I will always choose the devil I know rather than the devil I don't.

The idea of adjusting VTA on-the-fly (the method for traditionally effecting changes in SRA) is fundamentally flawed. Every tonearm should perform optimally when in perfect static balance with the arm tube parallel to the LP surface. The ability to alter the height of the tonearm bearing is thus a convenient way to compensate for different record thicknesses (to maintain a parallel arm tube), not as a tone control.

In a perfect world we would ensure that the SRA is groove compliant for the particular record we are playing at the time. Since there was no standard in place for cutting angle this is a real moving target although one can identify strong trends among studios and from different eras. A work around might be to have two tonearms, one "permanently" set with the best compromise SRA for vintage recordings (original Decca, Mercury Living Presence, Living Stereo) and a suitable tangential curve, and the other with a best compromise SRA for modern recordings and reissues.

I do not want to sing the praises of a particular brand of tone arm because I am very conscious of keeping my commercial interests (in Australia) separate from my own personal choices. Needless to say, the unique technical qualities of my personal arm of choice go far beyond the ability to adjust the SRA at the headshell or to alter the height of the arm bearing on-the-fly.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I had a quick chat on FB with the US importer, Stirling Trayle, and we'll chat more on Friday and hopefully can shed more light on the subject. While Sean is correct, Stirling pointed out that's not the point of the feature. It is to allow one to optimize the position (geometry) of the arm by providing SRA adjustment at the headshell rather than moving the entire arm up or down to make the change.
 

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,683
174
1,150
One really has to prioritise when it comes to setting the static parameters of any cartridge/tonearm combination. For me, the correct overhang (and alignment) for a given tangential curve trumps all else and I resist the temptation to constantly fiddle with other parameters which might alter this. When changes in effective length of less than 0.5 mm can have a profound effect on the level of tracking error/distortion (i.e. a completely different tangential curve with its unique null points) I will always choose the devil I know rather than the devil I don't.

The idea of adjusting VTA on-the-fly (the method for traditionally effecting changes in SRA) is fundamentally flawed. Every tonearm should perform optimally when in perfect static balance with the arm tube parallel to the LP surface. The ability to alter the height of the tonearm bearing is thus a convenient way to compensate for different record thicknesses (to maintain a parallel arm tube), not as a tone control.

In a perfect world we would ensure that the SRA is groove compliant for the particular record we are playing at the time. Since there was no standard in place for cutting angle this is a real moving target although one can identify strong trends among studios and from different eras. A work around might be to have two tonearms, one "permanently" set with the best compromise SRA for vintage recordings (original Decca, Mercury Living Presence, Living Stereo) and a suitable tangential curve, and the other with a best compromise SRA for modern recordings and reissues.

I do not want to sing the praises of a particular brand of tone arm because I am very conscious of keeping my commercial interests (in Australia) separate from my own personal choices. Needless to say, the unique technical qualities of my personal arm of choice go far beyond the ability to adjust the SRA at the headshell or to alter the height of the arm bearing on-the-fly.
I think you did answer my question, which is basically to not fiddle with the VTA, and use a fixed setting for SRA for two general categories of records.
Did something like the old Vestigal arm address this on a constant basis? Or was that really too aimless?

Edit: I guess I have one more question; given what you acknowledged about different record thicknesses, do you regard VTA adjustment as a necessary evil, despite what you said about it being a flawed way of adjusting SRA? I have had some cartridges that seem far more sensitive to minute adjustments in VTA (or its effect on SRA) than others.
 

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,683
174
1,150
I had a quick chat on FB with the US importer, Stirling Trayle, and we'll chat more on Friday and hopefully can shed more light on the subject. While Sean is correct, Stirling pointed out that's not the point of the feature. It is to allow one to optimize the position (geometry) of the arm by providing SRA adjustment at the headshell rather than moving the entire arm up or down to make the change.
Other than the Arche (which worked with arms accepting a detachable head shell) how else would one do this at the front of the arm rather than adjusting the VTA? Some sort of 'shim'?
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I had a quick chat on FB with the US importer, Stirling Trayle, and we'll chat more on Friday and hopefully can shed more light on the subject. While Sean is correct, Stirling pointed out that's not the point of the feature. It is to allow one to optimize the position (geometry) of the arm by providing SRA adjustment at the headshell rather than moving the entire arm up or down to make the change.

That is a good point. It will give more flexibility and you would not likely run out of room to adjust SRA if you can adjust at the headshell and the back of the arm.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
One really has to prioritise when it comes to setting the static parameters of any cartridge/tonearm combination. For me, the correct overhang (and alignment) for a given tangential curve trumps all else and I resist the temptation to constantly fiddle with other parameters which might alter this. When changes in effective length of less than 0.5 mm can have a profound effect on the level of tracking error/distortion (i.e. a completely different tangential curve with its unique null points) I will always choose the devil I know rather than the devil I don't.

The idea of adjusting VTA on-the-fly (the method for traditionally effecting changes in SRA) is fundamentally flawed. Every tonearm should perform optimally when in perfect static balance with the arm tube parallel to the LP surface. The ability to alter the height of the tonearm bearing is thus a convenient way to compensate for different record thicknesses (to maintain a parallel arm tube), not as a tone control.

In a perfect world we would ensure that the SRA is groove compliant for the particular record we are playing at the time. Since there was no standard in place for cutting angle this is a real moving target although one can identify strong trends among studios and from different eras. A work around might be to have two tonearms, one "permanently" set with the best compromise SRA for vintage recordings (original Decca, Mercury Living Presence, Living Stereo) and a suitable tangential curve, and the other with a best compromise SRA for modern recordings and reissues.

I do not want to sing the praises of a particular brand of tone arm because I am very conscious of keeping my commercial interests (in Australia) separate from my own personal choices. Needless to say, the unique technical qualities of my personal arm of choice go far beyond the ability to adjust the SRA at the headshell or to alter the height of the arm bearing on-the-fly.

I totally agree.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Other than the Arche (which worked with arms accepting a detachable head shell) how else would one do this at the front of the arm rather than adjusting the VTA? Some sort of 'shim'?

Yes. I have done that before. Not ideal but it gets the job done.
 

Young Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2012
112
76
935
47
I think you did answer my question, which is basically to not fiddle with the VTA, and use a fixed setting for SRA for two general categories of records.
Did something like the old Vestigal arm address this on a constant basis? Or was that really too aimless?

Edit: I guess I have one more question; given what you acknowledged about different record thicknesses, do you regard VTA adjustment as a necessary evil, despite what you said about it being a flawed way of adjusting SRA? I have had some cartridges that seem far more sensitive to minute adjustments in VTA (or its effect on SRA) than others.

I adjust the height of the arm (with the Axiom at least) to keep the arm tube level with each LP (120 g, 180 g, 200 g). This is not changing the VTA for each different record thickness, rather it is about maintaining VTA (and by extension the SRA) at a predetermined value and by extension keeping the static balance and other parameters of the arm in their previously optimised state/s. With some tonearms this is a rather onerous task and that is where a degree of compromise is involved (i.e. set the tonearm bearing height to obtain a level arm tube with 180 gram records and let the thinner ones be tonearm slightly nose down and the thicker ones slightly tonearm nose up).
 

Young Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2012
112
76
935
47
No doubt someone will point out that, due to the different positioning of the stylus on the cantilever from one cartridge to the next, having the arm tube parallel to the record surface may not necessarily result in an acceptable SRA. This is where the Arche headshell (and by extension the Axiom tonearm) are useful since one can adjust the SRA independently of the tonearm's bearing height (i.e. both can be optimised before performing the final overhang and alignment).

We must also remember that it is the tiny polished areas of the stylus which makes contact with each groove wall and we work on the assumption that the stylus is properly mounted with respect to the cantilever. A look down a very high powered microscope might lead to a few surprised expressions from owners of some high priced cartridges. Here, quality control is crucial and it is either totally right and thus a perfect starting point for optimisation in set up or totally wrong and it should be returned to the manufacturer.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
1397867_177927272404920_868694232_o.jpg

SME version of Axiom at Japan Show.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
The same one some of you guys heard, a Schröder Reference SQ.

saskia2.jpg

Photo courtesy of Kuma.
 

Fred

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2010
296
5
365
Covington, LA
As I've gone back through this thread I have to say how amazed I am at just about ALL of the rigs that the members here have been kind enough to share with us. Truly amazing display of the utmost dedication to the preservation of vinyl playback. Great job guys!
 

jn229

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2012
112
3
925
Southwestern Ontario
'Young Skywalker, commented "The ability to adjust SRA at the headshell (aiming for groove compliant SRA and not some arbitrary figure of 92 degrees) is a nice feature as long as it does not compromise rigidity".

Could a member explain what groove compliant SRA is and how do you achieve it?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing