V.Y.G.E.R indian signature & VYDA cables.

[BjörnÖsten]

Congratulations on your new turntable!

I often find myself questioning the stability and performance of linear tonearms that have only one pivot, as the entire weight hangs on a single point.

It makes me wonder why manufacturers don't opt for a design like the TT1, which utilizes two pivots, as this approach seems more logical when considering both stability and weight distribution.

Hej,

I am genuinely interested on your thoughts here, as to stability and how increasing movement in several axis would add stability.

If I have understood your post correctly.

B

 

[exupgh12]

Hej,

I am genuinely interested on your thoughts here, as to stability and how increasing movement in several axis would add stability.

If I have understood your post correctly.

B

When you're holding something with weight only on one side and not from two sides, you're more prone to losing balance or having difficulty controlling the object due to the uneven distribution of weight.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Congratulations on your new turntable!

I often find myself questioning the stability and performance of linear tonearms that have only one pivot, as the entire weight hangs on a single point.

It makes me wonder why manufacturers don't opt for a design like the TT1, which utilizes two pivots, as this approach seems more logical when considering both stability and weight distribution.

i cannot see any details on the TT1 arm wand. based just on pictures i have been able to find; it has a single pivot point on the actual arm wand, but twin towers. can you supply a picture of the actual arm wand pivot point so we can view it? thanks.

my guess is a major design difference from most linear trackers and the TT1 is the friction arm tube approach, as opposed to an air bearing arm tube. it then needs the much more robust twin tower mounting approach to maintain precision. the angle for the arm tube would have to be right on for the side load on the cartridge cantilever moving the arm to be reasonable. otherwise the stylus would jump out of the groove. and the force would play havoc on cartridge life.

as a current CS Port linear tracking owner and past Rockport linear tracker owner i do appreciate what linear trackers can deliver.

 

[Bobvin]

When you're holding something with weight only on one side and not from two sides, you're more prone to losing balance or having difficulty controlling the object due to the uneven distribution of weight.

I was confused, you had said two pivots, but clearly you meant two points of support, correct?

But cantilevers can be perfectly stable if engineered properly. If hanging from a single pivot (fulcrum) counterweighting can be sufficient.

 

[Argonaut]

The new VYGER Titan Indian is also at the top of its game. One of the best sounding turntables currently available at any price. But watch this space.

How do you know this … Have you personally been in contact with the very latest build of Indian ? Or the new TITAN ?

 

[BjörnÖsten]

When you're holding something with weight only on one side and not from two sides, you're more prone to losing balance or having difficulty controlling the object due to the uneven distribution of weight.

Hej,

I do not understand the point. I go with Archimedes here to say that if you give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum in which to place it, and I will move the world.

leverage is leverage, inertial reference is inertial reference, mass is mass and gravity is gravity!

if the fulcrum is established then what is meant by stability, you only have one force and that is gravity, nothing else is acting upon it, so when you increase mass at either end you have a lever point being the fulcrum, this is then relative to the length of the lever. Stability in which axis, axis of rotation?

The moment expressed as a formula is M = F x d where F is the force in our case F = G (or 9.8 N/kg) and d is the perpendicular distance from the pivot.

This is very rudimentary physics actually, but if we are looking at stability across the pivot, our busing occupies a large surface area and is rigid to a minimum of .8 bar or approx. 80% of 1 atmosphere and is around .8 kilogram-force per square centimetre, and a downforce of whatever the rated tracking force of the cartridge is but even at 4 grams it is infinitesimally less than the kilogram-force. The weight of the cartridge is countered by the counterweight (it is in the name) which is used as the lever save as to the offset which is the tracking force.

I would say our arm is as stable as any other arm on the market, and I do not see how having an increased number of points of contact would improve the stability, the stability will be inherent to the surface area and proportional to the same, the rate of change is also linear it is purely a case of mechanical advantage.

B

 

[exupgh12]

i cannot see any details on the TT1 arm wand. based just on pictures i have been able to find; it has a single pivot point on the actual arm wand, but twin towers. can you supply a picture of the actual arm wand pivot point so we can view it? thanks.

my guess is a major design difference from most linear trackers and the TT1 is the friction arm tube approach, as opposed to an air bearing arm tube. it then needs the much more robust twin tower mounting approach to maintain precision. the angle for the arm tube would have to be right on for the side load on the cartridge cantilever moving the arm to be reasonable. otherwise the stylus would jump out of the groove. and the force would play havoc on cartridge life.

as a current CS Port linear tracking owner and past Rockport linear tracker owner i do appreciate what linear trackers can deliver.

Thank you for the elaborated reply Mike.
personally I love linear Armes, I do find that they bring something very unique to the sound of turntable that most pivot arm's I have heard can't achieve
Regarding TT1 pictures, I'll take some more next time I'll visit my friends home.

On the mean time, I think the picture at clear audio website can show the 2 towers the liner arm stands on.

Clearaudio | High End - made in germany

Statement <br>TT1-MI & TT1, The pinnacle of analogue music

clearaudio.de

 

[exupgh12]

I was confused, you had said two pivots, but clearly you meant two points of support, correct?

yes you are absolutly correct, my mistake as English is not my natural lunguage.

But cantilevers can be perfectly stable if engineered properly. If hanging from a single pivot (fulcrum) counterweighting can be sufficient.

yes you are correct, but still from engineering point, support from two sides sound like more easy to achieve then holding the arm just from one side, after all the specific arm is not light as most pivotal arms.

 

[DasguteOhr]

I don't think that's a problem. It depends on how exactly you establish the perpendicularity to the platter. This doesn't work with a normal spirit level. A machine spirit level for a lathe would be beneficial with an accuracy of 0.02 mm / to 1 meter. The more precisely you work, the better the result, like everywhere else in life.

4024/500 Präzisions Richtwaage DIN 877 500 mm 0 01 Maschinenwasserwaage online kaufen | eBay

Entdecken Sie 4024/500 Präzisions Richtwaage DIN 877 500 mm 0 01 Maschinenwasserwaage in der großen Auswahl bei eBay. Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!

www.ebay.de

P.S
sometimes you can get them used quite cheaply.

 

[exupgh12]

Hej,

I do not understand the point. I go with Archimedes here to say that if you give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum in which to place it, and I will move the world.

leverage is leverage, inertial reference is inertial reference, mass is mass and gravity is gravity!

if the fulcrum is established then what is meant by stability, you only have one force and that is gravity, nothing else is acting upon it, so when you increase mass at either end you have a lever point being the fulcrum, this is then relative to the length of the lever. Stability in which axis, axis of rotation?

The moment expressed as a formula is M = F x d where F is the force in our case F = G (or 9.8 N/kg) and d is the perpendicular distance from the pivot.

This is very rudimentary physics actually, but if we are looking at stability across the pivot, our busing occupies a large surface area and is rigid to a minimum of .8 bar or approx. 80% of 1 atmosphere and is around .8 kilogram-force per square centimetre, and a downforce of whatever the rated tracking force of the cartridge is but even at 4 grams it is infinitesimally less than the kilogram-force. The weight of the cartridge is countered by the counterweight (it is in the name) which is used as the lever save as to the offset which is the tracking force.

I would say our arm is as stable as any other arm on the market, and I do not see how having an increased number of points of contact would improve the stability, the stability will be inherent to the surface area and proportional to the same, the rate of change is also linear it is purely a case of mechanical advantage.

B

Thank you for your detailed explanation of the physics involved in this context.

While your analysis is informative, I respectfully hold a different perspective on the stability of one tower tonearm vs. two tower that hold the tonearm (at list in theoretical manner)

You mention that increasing the number of points of contact may not improve stability, but this oversimplifies the issue. In practice, a higher number of points of contact can distribute forces more evenly and reduce the risk of vibrations or resonances that can adversely affect sound quality.

I believe that stability in this context is influenced by various factors beyond just leverage, including resonance damping, tracking accuracy, and how well multiple points of contact interact with the cartridge and the record.

If we have two arms, A and B, with the same weight, and assuming both are well-constructed, wouldn't one of them theoretically exhibit greater stability and be less susceptible to the influence of gravity or resonance compared to the other?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thank you for the elaborated reply Mike.
personally I love linear Armes, I do find that they bring something very unique to the sound of turntable that most pivot arm's I have heard can't achieve
Regarding TT1 pictures, I'll take some more next time I'll visit my friends home.

On the mean time, I think the picture at clear audio website can show the 2 towers the liner arm stands on.

Clearaudio | High End - made in germany

Statement <br>TT1-MI & TT1, The pinnacle of analogue music

clearaudio.de

thank you for the explanation and link to a more detailed view of the TT1.

looking closely at the picture, at the pivot point of the arm wand, it looks to be a single axis (point) of pivot. the way any of these linear trackers pivoting on a tube work, is that they would have to rotate around one line/point, not any gimbal multipoint design. the whole idea is to maintain perpendicularity.

but agree that the twin towers have a benefit in this case. the air bearing designs don't seem to need that part. whether twin towers might audibly improve an air bearing linear tracker performance? is a legit question. my guess is with appropriate execution probably not.

 

[Argonaut]

yes you are correct, but still from engineering point, support from two sides sound like more easy to achieve then holding the arm just from one side, after all the specific arm is not light as most pivotal arms.

I would be interested in your considerations upon the points presented by Bjorn in post No 66 ?

 

[BjörnÖsten]

Thank you for your detailed explanation of the physics involved in this context.

While your analysis is informative, I respectfully hold a different perspective on the stability of one tower tonearm vs. two tower that hold the tonearm (at list in theoretical manner)

You mention that increasing the number of points of contact may not improve stability, but this oversimplifies the issue. In practice, a higher number of points of contact can distribute forces more evenly and reduce the risk of vibrations or resonances that can adversely affect sound quality.

I believe that stability in this context is influenced by various factors beyond just leverage, including resonance damping, tracking accuracy, and how well multiple points of contact interact with the cartridge and the record.

If we have two arms, A and B, with the same weight, and assuming both are well-constructed, wouldn't one of them theoretically exhibit greater stability and be less susceptible to the influence of gravity or resonance compared to the other?

No I think I understand your point.

you are stating that the cross beam being supported at either end is more stable than a cantilever design.

So to clarify in reality a cantilever is an overturning moment in affect. We achieve mechanical advantage over this moment quite easily, by increasing structure at holding down column. For there to be a pulling out force at the holding down assembly the forces needed to do so are incredible, even using the cantilever structure as a lever.

If we were expecting to distribute high loading on the arm then yes a ‘goal post’ configuration maybe a better solution, but that would be based on any spacial engineering constraints and geometry.

As the loading to cantilever advantage in most linear tracking arms that utilise a cantilever design is such a high ratio, unless the user is doing something abnormal to the operation of the arm, in normal operating conditions the performance or stability is not affected.

I however cannot speak to other manufacturers, I can only say that VYGER ratio is in the order of 1000s with zero deflection across the entire structure.

I do accept your point that supporting a load at both ends surely is the most stable way if the criteria is a high loading situation, typical to a universal beam used to support the removal of a wall in the home, this is again simple engineering with the loading triangle, but with a linear arm, the ratio even if the wand and bushing assembly is at the furthest point from the cantilever is so small that the threshold for deflection is nowhere close to being met, the structure remains very rigid.

So it then really moves onto what you feel is comfortable for you, regardless of the science, if you would prefer a system that was picked up at both ends, then you have options.

Regards

B

 

[BjörnÖsten]

To move onto the advantages of a single point cantilevered system is also simple, we have now createtwo effective arcs which we can translate to a Euclidean model for aligning the arm perfectly, we have one reference.

In a situation where we have 2 fixed points we are unable to create a freedom for correction of the geometry and we are limited to a relative position and restricted pivot position, this will surely lead to a larger compromise than if we use a highly specified cantilever model.

Rigidity is no less important, but I think we need to fully understand the science and criteria threshold to apply this in any situation. Cantilever is rigid and stable, it is a commonly used system applied across many disciplines for this reason, there are applications where it is not suitable, but a linear tracking arm is a Goldilocks in so much as it has very low bearing requirement but requires precise geometric design, we can position our arm to optimal and not have an issue with clashing.

I am of course happy to be corrected if you know better, I welcome all debate and corrections as we are all students of the world!

Thanks

B

 

[exupgh12]

No I think I understand your point.

you are stating that the cross beam being supported at either end is more stable than a cantilever design.

So to clarify in reality a cantilever is an overturning moment in affect. We achieve mechanical advantage over this moment quite easily, by increasing structure at holding down column. For there to be a pulling out force at the holding down assembly the forces needed to do so are incredible, even using the cantilever structure as a lever.

If we were expecting to distribute high loading on the arm then yes a ‘goal post’ configuration maybe a better solution, but that would be based on any spacial engineering constraints and geometry.

As the loading to cantilever advantage in most linear tracking arms that utilise a cantilever design is such a high ratio, unless the user is doing something abnormal to the operation of the arm, in normal operating conditions the performance or stability is not affected.

I however cannot speak to other manufacturers, I can only say that VYGER ratio is in the order of 1000s with zero deflection across the entire structure.

I do accept your point that supporting a load at both ends surely is the most stable way if the criteria is a high loading situation, typical to a universal beam used to support the removal of a wall in the home, this is again simple engineering with the loading triangle, but with a linear arm, the ratio even if the wand and bushing assembly is at the furthest point from the cantilever is so small that the threshold for deflection is nowhere close to being met, the structure remains very rigid.

So it then really moves onto what you feel is comfortable for you, regardless of the science, if you would prefer a system that was picked up at both ends, then you have options.

Regards

B

Dear BjörnÖsten,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question and clarify the design. I appreciate your detailed response.

Regards

Guy

 

[byrdparis]

in the meantime the second arm was mounted today....
the J.Sikora MAX (amazing arm!)

 

[No Regrets]

in the meantime the second arm was mounted today....
the J.Sikora MAX (amazing arm!)

View attachment 117770

Sharp looking set up
Would love to hear your impressions on how the two arm/cartridge combo's compare to one another... after you've had some time to soak it all in

Best wishes,
Don

 

[byrdparis]

Sharp looking set up
Would love to hear your impressions on how the two arm/cartridge combo's compare to one another... after you've had some time to soak it all in

Best wishes,
Don

the j.Sikora new arm although its the 9" and not the "Usual 12" sound amazing! a lot better then i expected (i have also the "regular 12" not the max and its VERY very good) i think it got those raving reviews by no chance. it well deserve it.
for now it got the RS for me to play on it... connected with my new CSPORT SUT i got from japan. this combo (with the CH P1) is nothing short of amazing.
to compare it to VYGER LT is very hard, because what Pino linear arm can do, i never heard before, but i get the VYGER table stability and heft with a more all around arm, and that what i was going for.
more to come, if it any of interest.
A

 

[Argonaut]

for now it got the RS for me to play on it... connected with my new CSPORT SUT i got from japan. this combo (with the CH P1) is nothing short of amazing.
to compare it to VYGER LT is very hard, because what Pino linear arm can do, i never heard before, but i get the VYGER table stability and heft with a more all around arm, and that what i was going for.
more to come, if it any of interest.
A

Looking like a vinyl rig that means serious business Aviad However If I may, I would highly recommend that you move your Sparrow onto the Vision tonearm … with that combination you will hear the Sparrow sing like never before.

 

[byrdparis]

Looking like a vinyl rig that means serious business Aviad However If I may, I would highly recommend that you move your Sparrow onto the Vision tonearm … with that combination you will hear the Sparrow sing like never before.

Hey my friend, thank you, and you may always.
to tell you the truth, i am a bit afraid to move the sparrow to the vision yet. i know it will blow everything out and it will game over for my testing periods
soon (a couples of months) i will get the TALOS phono from Aries with his special SUT for the RS, and then all will be align as intended