There was not an arm made in the 60s that could track any cartridge correctly.

There was not an arm made in the 60s that could track any cartridge correctly.

Unfortunately we still see a lot of modern arms that have traditional engineering defects (one example is the bearings not being in the same plane as the LP surface)

What are the details and authority for this claim?

I know that vinyl advocates  like to pretend that there have been dramatic improvements in LP technology since the 1960s but when politely asked to provide details and authority for those exceptional claims, they seem to go silent.

Please provide a technical report describing the adverse effects of building ton arms in different ways than the ones you seem to advocate without providing evidence or logic.

Furthermore there are literally 100's of tone arms on the market today, both new production, legacy and NOS so it seems like there are a lot of relevant choices. 

It is no secret that most audiophiles who are LP advocates  seem to be unaware and uninformed about the kinematics of tone arm design and operation.

Unlike more modern playback formats, LP tone arms and other playback gear seem to require frequent adjustments which few seem to understand how to perform correctly.  In the end we can only judge a format based on how it is used by those who prefer it, and if they habitually do so improperly, that is not the fault of those who prefer more modern technology.

Are you really trying to suggest that there have been no improvements since the 1960s?? Materials science, machining technique, computer optimization, design improvements....

electro-mechanical recording

...  OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved),  if not try volunteering to help someone move.  ...

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2018-02-03 17:29:43

What are the details and authority for this claim?

I know that vinyl advocates  like to pretend that there have been dramatic improvements in LP technology since the 1960s but when politely asked to provide details and authority for those exceptional claims, they seem to go silent.

That could well be because you are invoking stares of incredulity. Going through the immensity of data to try to convince a person who won't be regardless is likely seen as a Sisyphean task.

Are you really trying to suggest that there have been no improvements since the 1960s?? Materials science, machining technique, computer optimization, design improvements.... Beyond this I will allow the rock to roll back to its resting place, as have others.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2018-02-03 17:29:43

Please provide a technical report describing the adverse effects of building ton arms in different ways than the ones you seem to advocate without providing evidence or logic.

Its actually simpler than that.

OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved),  if not try volunteering to help someone move.

Even see Jurassic Park where they bring back dinosaurs?

Vinyl has been around awhile. Just enjoy it for the antiquated technology it is and cease the idiotic claims.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2018-02-05 20:41:22

...  OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved),  if not try volunteering to help someone move.  ...

This is a second order effect. For all sane geometries and amounts of "warp and bass", the tracking force change due to geometry is a very small fraction of the static tracking force. Tracking force change causes cantilever deflection, which causes signal output. The magnitude of this is swamped by the inertia of the arm movement excited by the aforementioned warps and bass modulation.
Another second order effect of not being in the same plane is  the velocity change of the stylus relative to the record  as the geometry changes. Again, for all sane geometries this is a small effect.

As for gimbal bearings, Triplanar weren't unique. Many manufacturers used very hard materials such as tungsten carbide and zircon to reduce wear. Personally, I developed a preference for unipivots. I found the the dynamic damping produced the best results when faced with the warped and rippled discs common in the 80s.

BTW, the summary of LP-related patents that I made my graph from is here: http://www.resfreq.com/phonomusings/phonopatents.html

Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier.

Quote

Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier.

 Triplanar developed the first on-the-fly adjustable VTA mechanism but simply didn't patent it. It has since been copied by a number of other tone arm manufacturers such as VPI.

Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2018-02-07 23:12:21

Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.

Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2018-02-07 23:12:21

Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.

Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.

(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!

Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was. 

Quote from: cliveb on 2018-02-08 15:17:28

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2018-02-07 23:12:21

Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.

Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.

Turns out they like Pink Floyd. They had all the shipping manifests going back years; they knew where every arm went. Not sure what Boeing uses them for, apparently Homeland Security wasn't saying; imagine that. You have to have a security clearance to get the bearings in the first place; Triplanar has been using them so long they were grandfathered in.

Quote

(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!

Sounds like whomever wrote this was not familiar with the arm. And apparently neither was Mr. Gregory. There aren't any 'clicks' and the claims are not those of  Triplanar. But It is well-known that the arm height has to be set right and the VTA tower allows you to do that easily. Its continuously variable and has two scales, one for coarse and one for fine. I know some audiophiles like to experiment with VTA to see what sounds better- some go so far as to mark their LPs with what they think is the correct setting, which is repeatable and easy to do. My main concern is being able to set the arm so that the cartridge does not break up regardless of the track being played and in that regard, the Triplanar excels. A more practical use of the VTA tower is that the arm has no removable headshell so as to reduce resonance and increase rigidity; so if you want to use various cartridges its easy to switch between them and simply dial in the VTA if you know it in advance.

There are audiophiles that obsess about SRA (stylus rake angle) which on average is 92 degrees. I like to point out to them that this is an average, and might not be the best possible setting on an particular LP, simply on account of the fact that the mastering engineer has to replace the cutter stylus about once every 10 hours (or less) of use, and when setting up the new stylus is not looking for 92 degrees but instead is looking for the cut with the lowest noise (which is a combination of rake angle and stylus temperature).

The important lesson is that due to the length of the arm, setting VTA by adjusting the height of the tonearm pivot by reasonable amounts is ineffective.  For each degree of change in VTA, the pivot of a typical 9 inch arm has to be moved vertically by approximately 0.16" or about 1/6 of an  inch. It is thus far more effective to modify VTA by a means of an adjustment that is in close vicinity to the cartridge.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2018-02-07 23:12:21

Quote

Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier.

 Triplanar developed the first on-the-fly adjustable VTA mechanism but simply didn't patent it. It has since been copied by a number of other tone arm manufacturers such as VPI.

Here is what seems to be a well-thought out critique of the Tri-Planar VTA adjusting system:

https://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/vta_e.html



"
(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!
"

In short, the Tri Planar is based on false technology and any claims for improved sound quality are inherently fraudulent.

Reference: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3213