Viv Lab Owners

[bonzo75]

Hi, what cart and systems do you have?

Time to investigate why both General and Hiraga like Viv Labs - HIraga is a straight arm no offset guy.

Have heard it sound good with Fuuga on Rue de borgis, and heard it on Monaco Parabolica with Kondo (system in the SET amp owners thread) - couldn't isolate the arm.

Oneo has one on his apogees, General has one with his own cart on Pnoe and Elysiums.

Iirc UK Paul has one.

Who else?

Apparently sounds good with Nasotec swing headshell

 

[djsina2]

Used the DaVa FC A1, Shindo SPU, and SPU Wood A on mine. All were fantastic. This was on an AF5. I still don’t know why more people don’t get past the “rules” and use ViV.

 

[GroovySauce]

I have the ViV Labs Rigid Float 9" HA. I use their Nelson Hold head shells. I've run a Hana ML and Phasemation PP-200 I just installed the PP-200 and need more hours until it's broken in. I'm really happy with the sound I'm getting from both cartridges. The Nelson Hold head shells are really nice too.

 

[RaceDoc]

The ViV Rigid Float is not only one of the best tonearms on the
world market.

The incredible advantage is that it pulls out the best out of every
cartridge I tried out so far.

If it was a light MM like a Shure V15, a heavy MI like the Acoustical
Systems Fideles, a light MC like a ZYX or an Ortofon SPU G.

Forget resonance calculation and enjoy music!

 

[mtemur]

ViV arms turn micro ridge or other modern high precision stylus profile to simple spherical by omitting offset angle. Besides that, designer claims like superiority of floating arm tube on liquid, standalone arm board and omitting anti-skating is pure ignorance. Relating offset angle to skating force and claiming that omitting offset will also eliminates skating force is another indication of pure ignorance.

Anyway if you enjoy it none of them matters, that’s more important.

 

[Dogberry]

I expect most forums have debated this arm and the theory underpinning its design. There was particularly lively one at Audiogon. It always seems to break down into those that own one and love it (even overcoming their disapproval of the rather lightweight pod it sits upon, which makes me giggle), and those that cannot get past the "rules" mentioned above, and won't even listen to it.

 

[GroovySauce]

ViV arms turn micro ridge or other modern high precision stylus profile to simple spherical by omitting offset angle.

How does omitting offset angle turn a micro ridge into a spherical tip?

 

[Dogberry]

I thought that claim a bit hyperbolic, but it is true that the thin edges of the diamond will ride in the groove twisted away from the intended position in a headshell with an offset.

 

[bonzo75]

ViV arms turn micro ridge or other modern high precision stylus profile to simple spherical by omitting offset angle. Besides that, designer claims like superiority of floating arm tube on liquid, standalone arm board and omitting anti-skating is pure ignorance. Relating offset angle to skating force and claiming that omitting offset will also eliminates skating force is another indication of pure ignorance.

Anyway if you enjoy it none of them matters, that’s more important.

Linear trackers also have no offset, including pivoted linear trackers

 

[mtemur]

Dear @Dogberry, you don't have to follow the rules, but your idea should be logical, beneficial. Your idea should compensate for the loss of going out of the rules and gain more. For example you can put your car in reverse and go backwards all the time instead forward. This way you are not following the rules but what's the benefit, where is the gain?

Same applies to ViV arms. What's the benefit of:
- Omitting overhang and offset when underhang introduces higher tracking error and distortion?
- Omitting anti-skating when skating force also applies to underhung ViV arms and additionally changes it’s direction in the middle?

 

[mtemur]

Linear trackers also have no offset, including pivoted linear trackers

Linear trackers don't need offset angle cause they're tracking on a line and arm is always tangential to the groove. Pivoted tangential arms swing headshell in order to keep cartridge/cantilever tangential to the groove at all times not the arm. There can't be a pivoted (fixed) linear tracker, it's either tangential or underhung or overhung.

 

[bonzo75]

Linear trackers don't need offset angle cause they're tracking on a line and arm is always tangential to the groove. Pivoted tangential arms swing headshell in order to keep cartridge/cantilever tangential to the groove at all times not the arm. There can't be a pivoted linear tracker, it's either tangential or underhung or overhung.

So Hiraga likes using Nasotec swing headshell on his straight arms. The General does too

 

[mtemur]

How does omitting offset angle turn a micro ridge into a spherical tip?

By increasing tracking error which can be considered very wrongly adjusted zenith that results some parts of front and rear faces of stylus hitting the groove walls instead of edges.

 

[bonzo75]

Linear trackers don't need offset angle cause they're tracking on a line and arm is always tangential to the groove. Pivoted tangential arms swing headshell in order to keep cartridge/cantilever tangential to the groove at all times not the arm. There can't be a pivoted linear tracker, it's either tangential or underhung or overhung.

So how do Schroeder LT and Thales statement manage this

 

[mtemur]

So how do Schroeder LT and Thales statement manage this

I'm very familiar with Thales arms, their design benefits from swinging headshell. From outer groove to inner groove they constantly swing the headshell with the help of twin arm tubes connected to different points on the headshell. This enables cartridge/cantilever to be tangential to the groove at all diameters which reduces tracking error. Since the pivot point is fixed and not tangential to the grooves, these arms different from linear trackers requiring anti-skating compensation. I don't know how Schroder LT works but if it's pivoted (I mean the pivot is fixed) then it's not a linear tracker.

Reed 5A and 5T are also pivoted but pivot point is not fixed. They're tangential arms, pivot point is tangential to all grooves. They don't need anti-skating and offset.

 

[GroovySauce]

By increasing tracking error which can be considered very wrongly adjusted zenith that results some parts of front and rear faces of stylus hitting the groove walls instead of edges.

Thanks, that clears up your previous statement for me.

 

[djsina2]

Dear @Dogberry, you don't have to follow the rules, but your idea should be logical, beneficial. Your idea should compensate for the loss of going out of the rules and gain more. For example you can put your car in reverse and go backwards all the time instead forward. This way you are not following the rules but what's the benefit, where is the gain?

Same applies to ViV arms. What's the benefit of:
- Omitting overhang and offset when underhang introduces higher tracking error and distortion?
- Omitting anti-skating when skating force also applies to underhung ViV arms and additionally changes it’s direction in the middle?

When you listened to ViV you could hear the higher tracking error and lack of anti skate?

 

[thekong]

I'm very familiar with Thales arms, their design benefits from swinging headshell. From outer groove to inner groove they constantly swing the headshell with the help of twin arm tubes connected to different points on the headshell. This enables cartridge/cantilever to be tangential to the groove at all diameters which reduces tracking error. Since the pivot point is fixed and not tangential to the grooves, these arms different from linear trackers requiring anti-skating compensation. I don't know how Schroder LT works but if it's pivoted (I mean the pivot is fixed) then it's not a linear tracker.

Reed 5A and 5T are also pivoted but pivot point is not fixed. They're tangential arms, pivot point is tangential to all grooves. They don't need anti-skating and offset.

Hi metmur, I am interested to learn! In the case of the Reed 5A, as far as I understand, the main pivot is always aligned with the armtube and cartridge cantilever, so there is no skating force in the normal sense. However, there is an additional secondary pivot point for the movement of the main pivot, and it is offset in related to the armtube. Would this arrangement create any twisting force, as seen by the cantilever/ stylus, that would require compensation ?

Thanks

 

[mtemur]

Hi metmur, I am interested to learn! In the case of the Reed 5A, as far as I understand, the main pivot is always aligned with the armtube and cartridge cantilever, so there is no skating force in the normal sense. However, there is an additional secondary pivot point for the movement of the main pivot, and it is offset in related to the armtube. Would this arrangement create any twisting force, as seen by the cantilever/ stylus, that would require compensation ?

Thanks

Dear @thekong that’s an excellent question, thank you for asking. I’ll try to explain within my knowledge.

Reed 5A moves pivot point by the help of swinging mechanism.


Yellow lines are tangential to the grooves all the time and they are drawn from stylus to pivot points.

That’s why drag force caused by the stylus in the groove represented with blue arrow is at the same direction with arm tube and perpendicular to pivot point (yellow circle).

But as you’ve asked if the second pivot point (yellow circle) also moves it becomes complicated. It should keep actual pivot point at it’s place and also should let the mechanism swing while the arm moves towards the inner grooves.


It has to be rigid and stiction free at the same time. Because of that reason another rod comes in to play.

The rod marked by red arrow and circle helps the bearing drawn in yellow circle to do it’s job. It helps keeping bearing in yellow circle as if it’s fixed and makes pivot point in green circle to be the actual pivot point, to be perpendicular to drag force (green arrow). And when pivot point needs to move it can because it moves very slowly.

I’m not fan of this arm or Reed 5T. I heard those arms but haven’t used them. They have very complex mechanisms. I’m sure they work as designed but there are to many bearings which increase friction and decrease rigidity. IMHO using wood as arm tube is not ideal either.

 

[mtemur]

Dear @thekong rigidity of a tonearm is really important from my point of view especially the bearing rigidity. I always feel that unipivots lose bass information while adding extra to highs. I noticed evidence to this when a high priced unipivot could not track low frequency sweep while a cheaper ball bearing arm could track perfectly (same cartridge used). You may think how it’s all related with ViV. ViV or other arm depending on a bearing floating on liquid isn’t rigid enough in my book, not even close to unipivots let alone better more rigid ones.

Last November I had a pleasure of spending quite some time with TechDas AF10 air bearing tonearm in Tokyo. It was incredibly detailed, high resolution, resolving tonearm. It was like 192K 24bit while other arms sounding like mp3. I never heard any other arm reaching that level of resolution while being fatigue free. But I’m not sure about the bass, the base of sound didn’t seem right. Air bearing might be making arm friction free and enabling cartridge to read more information carved in the grooves but at the same time disconnecting the arm from the base. I still prefer SAT, AS Axiom or even Kuzma Safir because of their grounded sound. I don’t know maybe I’m wrong. IMHO @TLi can do better judgement since he has SAT and familiar to AF10.