“ SUPATRAC.....everything is elastic at a microscopic level.....”

[TransFi]

Hi, Vic I do not remember saying ''The shorter the arm, the better the dynamic'' Although some people from the V/Labs review preferred the shorter ar. I have never sold a done short arm, because of the increased tracking distortion a shorter arm produces. I have made some samples out of curiosity, but did not notice they were more dynamic than my standard 12.5'' arms.

Derek....is this not from your website?

Latest News

We have now introduced  9.5 & 10.5''  arm to our range using the new exciting Under-Hang alignment system. Much simpler to align than the old 2 nul points with Off Set Angle.

More Detail, better Soundstage & Bass to die for.

[flood2]

However, where the UH wand trumps the offset one is in sheer dynamics. Blows it out of the water. And to me, in my system, with my ears, its very obvious as soon as the needle touches the record. Not only are the dynamics scary, soundstage is wider and instruments are better separated & focussed. What is causing this? As I have already stated, the Supa pivot anchors the arm better than a race bearing, horizontal pivot, floating baths and LT air arms.....but still, the pivot is OFFSET from the direct pull of the record grooves. With an UH, the pull is in line with the pivot. Best of both worlds.

Ok, I am realising tracking angle is whacked. Again, to me in my system I am not hearing anything untoward in this regard (and with a MicroLine). Maybe I should listen out for it if one of the experts can tell me what I should be hearing. I am familiar with IGD, but I am getting none of that.

Hi Vic
Are you able to record test tracks so that we can hear what you are talking about? I am having difficulty comprehending what you mean by "scary" dynamics!
To me, "dynamics" is a term that would normally refer to the range from the softest sound to the loudest sound and this is defined by the groove amplitude/tip displacement magnitude and velocity. However, you appear to be using it in terms of "excitement" (based on your adjective of "scary") which I can't really comprehend since it is not possible for the same cartridge and same record groove to "blow" one configuration out of the water vs the other simply due to alignment.
Your reported improved soundstaging/focus etc with underhang is also puzzling - it is not possible for underhang to have "better" imaging to the optimally aligned overhang condition since the effect of large tracking error on signal playback of a stereo groove is to smear the image unless the overhung/offset arm was subject to some degrading variable related to azimuth, antiskate or simply gross alignment error. The variation in skating force is related to the variation in tracking error so an arm correctly aligned for minimum tracking error should also result in a minimized variation in the skating force. The next problem to solve is of course setting the average antiskate! I will speculate that azimuth (and possibly in combination with antiskate setting) is why your offset version is inferior to the underhang. The reason why you might be getting better imaging is due to the fact that the SUPA bearing doesn't have a matching offset to the cartridge which means azimuth shifts continuously as the arm rises and lowers. If you set azimuth for a particular test disc, then every other disc played that is of a different thickness or is warped will have incorrect azimuth set.
If you set antiskate using a test disc or blank disc, then it is highly likely you have over-biased the arm which will also smear the image.

The reason why underhang has inferior imaging away from the null point region is that (correct) stereo information is achieved by the (correct) phase relationship and channel balance of the vertical modulation (L-R) to the lateral modulation (L+R). For the correct stereo image to be reproduced accurately to the cutting head, the playback stylus must be tracking the groove with identical alignment so horizontal tracking error, and stylus azimuth must match the cutting head. VTA mismatch adds FM distortion to the signal, but the stereo image should be correctly reproduced with tracking error and azimuth error both being zero. Any phase error between the contact area on each groove wall will change the phase relationship of the vertical modulation to the lateral modulation with respect to the original signal and this will shift the relative output of each channel and smear the images. Jonathan Carr (in a video that Derek linked to in his own thread) comments on smeared images as being one side effect of underhang and this is what I observe with tracking error on inner grooves. It is very difficult to set azimuth if there is a large tracking error because the standard measurements using channel separation rely on the phase relationship being correct and azimuth is affected by phase error.
To each their own, but just to give you a comparison of where I am coming from (based on my system), here are some test files (FLAC) of needledrops from my current playback system.  The purpose is mainly to show the consistency of imaging and dynamics on a test track from the outer grooves and a couple of tracks on the inner grooves so that you can hear what I hear with my offset/overhang alignment.
In my opinion, the goal of playback is to match as closely as possible to the cut signal and to achieve consistent quality (within acceptable limits) across the entire disc.

I will keep the link active for a week or so to give others a chance to listen if they wish:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jud5emmxv0lwwr1ucnaad/ABBHP8XfL6VYS3ER9cfj-Do?rlkey=w6u1vzc4fl6ceyjhxrx78sqib&st=h6geizw1&dl=0

[TransFi]

Hi Tony

By scary I mean listening to records I know well, and never hearing the crack of a snare drum jump out at me with such a force. Maybe dynamic is not the right word.

First, let me put you to rights regarding my setup. I am a bit OCD with this. My first SUPA clone had varying VTF & Azimuth (checked with bubble level) across the record . No way could I live with this. Studying Richard's posts I learned the yaw on the string was responsible, and the relationship of the string holes in the thrust plate & pivot point was critical. Also, the hoist & thrustplate had to be in the same plane. So I cannot attribute the difference in sound to this. I also was OCD about antiskate, and found solutions to optimise this in both the offset & UH arms. Sorting these kinds of mechanical issues are my forte.

I wont get into a big discussion about geometry, because I agree with you. I delayed holding off trying such an arm configuration because it made no sense to me. In the end, after the many iterations of the offset SUPA clones I had made, it took very little effort for me to convert one of the spare wands to zero-offset and underhung. Expecting to hear a mess of tracking distortion, I was surprised at the result. I was immediately met with a leading edge impact I had not hear before. As I settled down to listen to a whole side waiting for the distortion, I was again surprised....especially at the last track, & no IGD.

Still skeptical, I reverted back to my old offset wand and played the same record. It sounded dull & boring in comparison and could not finish the side, so I swapped back & the impact returned.

I have been doing this the last 2 weeks with my return to offset becoming less & less. I still have not found a record that trips up my UH wand.
I can also say this UH wand has retained the soundstage, focus & balance of the channels. I have listened carefully and compared both UH & Offset in this regard, but can find no reason to go back to offset.

What can I tell you? I am not trying to be controversial....just relaying what my experience has been. For the record, my UH wand is 9.5" vs 10.5" for offset. I am running a MC cartridge AT-OC9XML (yes, microline) tracking at 2g, and Puffin phonostage.

I can try to record a track in Audacity UH vs Offset. Not sure when, but will give a go at some stage so you can analyse whats going on.

Cheers

Vic

PS Just listened to the test tracks. Didnt do anything for me & I can see why you dont understand the term 'scary'. Try listening to The B52's Planet Claire.......

[wenig watt]

"PS Just listened to the test tracks. Didnt do anything for me & I can see why you dont understand the term 'scary'. Try listening to The B52's Planet Claire....... "


  this song is scary even on a children's cassette recorder!

I am a fan

Best regards

Arndt

[TransFi]

 

You rock Arndt!

[willbewill]

Great track and I can imagine it on your system Vic.

I've been following these topics and the opposing views with interest and it seems to me that the various tastes in music and preferred presentation of said music may play a big part in the differences. I know what your system sounds like and your taste in music and suspect they may be a "million miles" away from Anthony's (your comment after listening to his test tracks kinda gave that away)?

[TransFi]

Hey Malc!

Nice to hear from you on hols. I hope all is going well!

There is a lot of wisdom in your words. I am coming to realise this may be indeed the case. There are too many variables to come to give a definite judgement on ANYTHING to do with music & hifi. So be it!

See you soon.....

Cheers

Vic

[Adelmo]

Hi,

I read recently in an Italian forum about the VIV Lab TA with UH and seems part of the good result is due to the Ferrofluid bearing..

However to test it they used a pretty fancy TT and not a medium cost cart rather a high cost cart such as Lyra Atlas.

I suppose all the fancy words of the review needs some kind of screening and a basic translation, but I believe the ferrofluid bearing, if well engineered is a solution to several problems in a TA, though may have some short comings.

Rgds

Adelmo

[flood2]

Hi Tony

By scary I mean listening to records I know well, and never hearing the crack of a snare drum jump out at me with such a force. Maybe dynamic is not the right word.

First, let me put you to rights regarding my setup. I am a bit OCD with this. My first SUPA clone had varying VTF & Azimuth (checked with bubble level) across the record . No way could I live with this. Studying Richard's posts I learned the yaw on the string was responsible, and the relationship of the string holes in the thrust plate & pivot point was critical. Also, the hoist & thrustplate had to be in the same plane. So I cannot attribute the difference in sound to this. I also was OCD about antiskate, and found solutions to optimise this in both the offset & UH arms. Sorting these kinds of mechanical issues are my forte.

I wont get into a big discussion about geometry, because I agree with you. I delayed holding off trying such an arm configuration because it made no sense to me. In the end, after the many iterations of the offset SUPA clones I had made, it took very little effort for me to convert one of the spare wands to zero-offset and underhung. Expecting to hear a mess of tracking distortion, I was surprised at the result. I was immediately met with a leading edge impact I had not hear before. As I settled down to listen to a whole side waiting for the distortion, I was again surprised....especially at the last track, & no IGD.

Still skeptical, I reverted back to my old offset wand and played the same record. It sounded dull & boring in comparison and could not finish the side, so I swapped back & the impact returned.

I have been doing this the last 2 weeks with my return to offset becoming less & less. I still have not found a record that trips up my UH wand.
I can also say this UH wand has retained the soundstage, focus & balance of the channels. I have listened carefully and compared both UH & Offset in this regard, but can find no reason to go back to offset.

What can I tell you? I am not trying to be controversial....just relaying what my experience has been. For the record, my UH wand is 9.5" vs 10.5" for offset. I am running a MC cartridge AT-OC9XML (yes, microline) tracking at 2g, and Puffin phonostage.

I can try to record a track in Audacity UH vs Offset. Not sure when, but will give a go at some stage so you can analyse whats going on.

Cheers

Vic

PS Just listened to the test tracks. Didnt do anything for me & I can see why you dont understand the term 'scary'. Try listening to The B52's Planet Claire.......

That's perfectly OK! The B52s aren't my bag either!
We obviously have very different tastes in music and priorities and that's all part of what gives variety to our discussions.  However, you answered my question in a sense because I can calibrate to what you are used to listening to and for. You are using dynamics more to describe excitement rather than in the strictest definition of loudness range.
I have eclectic tastes and listen to pop as well but I mainly listen to classical and jazz. Do you have Peter Gabriel So? That is a challenging record that is very revealing of alignment faults. We may have some overlap although I was more into electronic music in my youth. I suspect I may have more overlap with Richard though based on some of his posts where he mentioned records he used to test his design. 

The recording samples I provided are what I would consider a good example of dynamics and realism as well as accurate sound staging as the instruments are "real". If you listened carefully, you would also have heard a lot of background detail. You will at least have heard that the piano was always very consistent in the soundstage irrespective of volume and the instruments and percussion in each channel did not alter the focus of the piano. Accented notes were also generally clean so the recording was also intended to convey that it is possible to set a bias force that gives a consistent performance across the entire disc at different modulation amplitudes.
For records that I also have the CD to compare with that use the same master, my recordings from vinyl give the same loudness range when I analyse them so the dynamics are what they should be.

It is impossible for a record played with large tracking error to have better imaging than one with small tracking error - the reproduction of the stereo information comes from the vertical modulation so any phase error due to stylus misalignment will alter the relative output in each channel. You might well get better imaging near the null point with underhang, but at the outer edge it will certainly be degraded considerably - that's simply a fact related to the way the groove is cut with stereo information.
I don't really understand the use of a line contact stylus or elliptical with the straight underhung arm either. The point of these tip designs is to minimize the variation in contact position of the scanning surface to the groove wall. In normal use a conical tip always has the contact position rotating about the surface of the stylus, but always has both groove walls contacting in phase thus making the conical tip more tolerant of tracking error and should give a more consistent performance across the side.

I don't doubt that you were careful with azimuth, but a non-offset bearing will have a varying azimuth with record height if the cartridge offset doesn't match the bearing offset. It doesn't matter how OCD you were at the time when you set the azimuth with your test disc, the moment the disc thickness changes or the arm rises due to a warp, the azimuth shifts. The advantage of the straight arm is that whatever azimuth you set will be constant as the arm lifts and lowers. A conventional unipivot is highly sensitive to arm height variation and the SUPA is no different given the suspension concept to hold the thrust box in contact with the pivot position. For consistent azimuth, you would need to shim the record to a consistent reference position which requires you to measure up each and every record....which I happen to do because there is literally no point in going to the effort of setting azimuth if it only matches one record!

While we are on the topic of geometry though, it is worth pointing out that those of us using conventional offset arms, tip zenith tolerances are typically given as ±5° for line contact tips so even if (which is highly unlikely given the many sources of error) one were to get the "perfect" alignment overhang and offset based on the cantilever alignment then for a 9" arm, it is possible that the true tracking error could be somewhere approaching 7° at the outer groove and close to 6° between the null points and minimum radius. In practice, the stacked tolerances related to setup error, cartridge manufacturing tolerances etc mean that the true tracking error most people are getting with an offset arm are likely of this magnitude at the worst case which is why many have such difficulty in setting an average bias that works over the entire modulation envelope. Skating force related cantilever skew will enlarge this error even more in some positions of the disc so in some cases it is possible that the underhang is not such a radical departure from the norm after all!

Out of interest, how did you calibrate your antiskate mechanism and what bias percentage of the VTF did you use?

[tabarddn]

1)
PS I found this quite interesting, but can you clarify the last 2 Magnesium lines?

Aluminum - grey sounding
Carbon fiber - opens up the sound
Magnesium - Quite dynamic, opens sound a little more dynamic that C/Fiber
Magnesium - very dynamic, sometimes with carts like the Decca, to much.


Hi Vic Sorry old age is setting in. No 4 should read Titanium (not magnesium), have corrected the post. now to read through the rest of the new posts received!!

2)
Yes that quote is from my website & I would still stand by those comments for my arms.

Cheers Derek

[tabarddn]

Hi, Right now that I have caught up, It is not only the Viv Labs arm that was considered staggering. I remember reading a review (I think in Stereophile) of the RS U/H (S1700) arm that was pitted again the reviewers Brinkman arm ($10,000) The RS arm more than held is own & in several area was considered superiors.

A few weeks ago I completed a Schroeder magnetic arm clone, played in on my 2nd system & was struck by how the music seemed to just float from the arm. So I tried in my main system & no not for me, still floating the music but overall lacking the dynamics that my Merlin produces.

We also see this with the many members that have SPU's in their systems. A very limited cartridge of yesteryear & definitely not for me. I suspect that mine & Vic's system also would definitely not be for them.

If you like the more dynamic sound from U/H then stick with it, just try it & if it does not float your boat the go back to the old set up. Most people I have talked to did not go back.

P.S. The SPU actually sounds much more dynamic in U/H as well.

The overall object of all these trials is to increase our listening pleasure. (and to keep our grey cells working, for some of us seniors people)
U/H simply does away with one form of distortion, ''anti skating stylus scrubbing''. but makes another ''tracking error'' worse. However many, many people cannot hear either of the two phenomena's.

Cheers Derek

[TransFi]

That's perfectly OK! The B52s aren't my bag either!
We obviously have very different tastes in music and priorities and that's all part of what gives variety to our discussions.  However, you answered my question in a sense because I can calibrate to what you are used to listening to and for. You are using dynamics more to describe excitement rather than in the strictest definition of loudness range.
I have eclectic tastes and listen to pop as well but I mainly listen to classical and jazz. Do you have Peter Gabriel So? That is a challenging record that is very revealing of alignment faults. We may have some overlap although I was more into electronic music in my youth. I suspect I may have more overlap with Richard though based on some of his posts where he mentioned records he used to test his design. 

The recording samples I provided are what I would consider a good example of dynamics and realism as well as accurate sound staging as the instruments are "real". If you listened carefully, you would also have heard a lot of background detail. You will at least have heard that the piano was always very consistent in the soundstage irrespective of volume and the instruments and percussion in each channel did not alter the focus of the piano. Accented notes were also generally clean so the recording was also intended to convey that it is possible to set a bias force that gives a consistent performance across the entire disc at different modulation amplitudes.
For records that I also have the CD to compare with that use the same master, my recordings from vinyl give the same loudness range when I analyse them so the dynamics are what they should be.

It is impossible for a record played with large tracking error to have better imaging than one with small tracking error - the reproduction of the stereo information comes from the vertical modulation so any phase error due to stylus misalignment will alter the relative output in each channel. You might well get better imaging near the null point with underhang, but at the outer edge it will certainly be degraded considerably - that's simply a fact related to the way the groove is cut with stereo information.
I don't really understand the use of a line contact stylus or elliptical with the straight underhung arm either. The point of these tip designs is to minimize the variation in contact position of the scanning surface to the groove wall. In normal use a conical tip always has the contact position rotating about the surface of the stylus, but always has both groove walls contacting in phase thus making the conical tip more tolerant of tracking error and should give a more consistent performance across the side.

I don't doubt that you were careful with azimuth, but a non-offset bearing will have a varying azimuth with record height if the cartridge offset doesn't match the bearing offset. It doesn't matter how OCD you were at the time when you set the azimuth with your test disc, the moment the disc thickness changes or the arm rises due to a warp, the azimuth shifts. The advantage of the straight arm is that whatever azimuth you set will be constant as the arm lifts and lowers. A conventional unipivot is highly sensitive to arm height variation and the SUPA is no different given the suspension concept to hold the thrust box in contact with the pivot position. For consistent azimuth, you would need to shim the record to a consistent reference position which requires you to measure up each and every record....which I happen to do because there is literally no point in going to the effort of setting azimuth if it only matches one record!

While we are on the topic of geometry though, it is worth pointing out that those of us using conventional offset arms, tip zenith tolerances are typically given as ±5° for line contact tips so even if (which is highly unlikely given the many sources of error) one were to get the "perfect" alignment overhang and offset based on the cantilever alignment then for a 9" arm, it is possible that the true tracking error could be somewhere approaching 7° at the outer groove and close to 6° between the null points and minimum radius. In practice, the stacked tolerances related to setup error, cartridge manufacturing tolerances etc mean that the true tracking error most people are getting with an offset arm are likely of this magnitude at the worst case which is why many have such difficulty in setting an average bias that works over the entire modulation envelope. Skating force related cantilever skew will enlarge this error even more in some positions of the disc so in some cases it is possible that the underhang is not such a radical departure from the norm after all!

Out of interest, how did you calibrate your antiskate mechanism and what bias percentage of the VTF did you use?

Tony....which UH tonearms have you listened to?

[flood2]

If you like the more dynamic sound from U/H then stick with it, just try it & if it does not float your boat the go back to the old set up. Most people I have talked to did not go back.

P.S. The SPU actually sounds much more dynamic in U/H as well.

The overall object of all these trials is to increase our listening pleasure. (and to keep our grey cells working, for some of us seniors people)
U/H simply does away with one form of distortion, ''anti skating stylus scrubbing''. but makes another ''tracking error'' worse. However many, many people cannot hear either of the two phenomena's.

Cheers Derek

Derek,
Underhang cannot possibly "increase the dynamics" i.e loudness range from a record - that is defined in the mastering and the amount of compression and limiting used. Pop music is notoriously compressed so anyone using pop music to evaluate "dynamics" is thinking more in terms of excitement rather than loudness range. One should be careful to consider that the additional "excitement" is not simply due to the distortion components which you wouldn't normally hear. IGD is not just due to tracking error so anyone using that as a metric for validating the underhang is missing the point of what tracking "sounds like". It directly affects the sonic image and accuracy in the recovery of stereo information. Put simply it smears the image. That is how you know you have a stylus alignment issue.
Stylus zenith is only specified to be within ±5° and if you were to align the cantilever correctly with this error but leave the zenith error and then compare to another cartridge/stylus with a smaller error, one would find better imaging and superior performance on the inner grooves. The zenith error will be audible once the groove wavelength decreases to a point where the phase error becomes significant which will be both groove radius and frequency dependent. You will hear this effect at higher frequencies from the presence band upwards and then at progressively lower frequencies as you move towards the inner grooves which is why most records sound fine up to around the middle no matter what your alignment accuracy is (within reason).  With an offset arm, the zenith error stacked with tracking error and bias error results in the audible IGD we are all familiar with.
You would likely hear an improvement with underhang because you don't use antiskate with your offset arms so you have far more audible effects due to the skating force and cantilever skew on the inner grooves so I don't doubt that underhang works better for you and definitely has a place for those who can't solve the bias force problem.
As to the audibility, it depends very much on the type of music you listen to. Acoustic instruments and well recorded live material are very revealing of the effects of tracking error and skating force/antiskate related distortions. I have an ELP laser player which has no tracking error, no resonances/scrubbing and no VTA errors or skating force problems to contend with so I can compare and validate my setup.
I encourage you to listen to the files I shared because I can confirm that what you hear has been validated against the ELP and CD references for accuracy in terms of imaging and distortion. You may not like jazz or like the sonic presentation which you may find "clinical", but that is actually what the record is supposed to sound like! Then again, I like accuracy and neutrality and others prefer euphony so to each their own.
The LF resonance modulation ("scrubbing") exists with underhang too - it is a function of the LF resonance which modulates recovered signal and you will see the LF resonance on spectral analysis of a recorded signal from your underhang arm. It is not unique to an offset geometry. The difference is that it is symmetric rather than asymmetric.

[TransFi]

Derek,
Underhang cannot possibly "increase the dynamics" i.e loudness range from a record - that is defined in the mastering and the amount of compression and limiting used. Pop music is notoriously compressed so anyone using pop music to evaluate "dynamics" is thinking more in terms of excitement rather than loudness range. One should be careful to consider that the additional "excitement" is not simply due to the distortion components which you wouldn't normally hear. IGD is not just due to tracking error so anyone using that as a metric for validating the underhang is missing the point of what tracking "sounds like". It directly affects the sonic image and accuracy in the recovery of stereo information. Put simply it smears the image. That is how you know you have a stylus alignment issue.
Stylus zenith is only specified to be within ±5° and if you were to align the cantilever correctly with this error but leave the zenith error and then compare to another cartridge/stylus with a smaller error, one would find better imaging and superior performance on the inner grooves. The zenith error will be audible once the groove wavelength decreases to a point where the phase error becomes significant which will be both groove radius and frequency dependent. You will hear this effect at higher frequencies from the presence band upwards and then at progressively lower frequencies as you move towards the inner grooves which is why most records sound fine up to around the middle no matter what your alignment accuracy is (within reason).  With an offset arm, the zenith error stacked with tracking error and bias error results in the audible IGD we are all familiar with.
You would likely hear an improvement with underhang because you don't use antiskate with your offset arms so you have far more audible effects due to the skating force and cantilever skew on the inner grooves so I don't doubt that underhang works better for you and definitely has a place for those who can't solve the bias force problem.
As to the audibility, it depends very much on the type of music you listen to. Acoustic instruments and well recorded live material are very revealing of the effects of tracking error and skating force/antiskate related distortions. I have an ELP laser player which has no tracking error, no resonances/scrubbing and no VTA errors or skating force problems to contend with so I can compare and validate my setup.
I encourage you to listen to the files I shared because I can confirm that what you hear has been validated against the ELP and CD references for accuracy in terms of imaging and distortion. You may not like jazz or like the sonic presentation which you may find "clinical", but that is actually what the record is supposed to sound like! Then again, I like accuracy and neutrality and others prefer euphony so to each their own.
The LF resonance modulation ("scrubbing") exists with underhang too - it is a function of the LF resonance which modulates recovered signal and you will see the LF resonance on spectral analysis of a recorded signal from your underhang arm. It is not unique to an offset geometry. The difference is that it is symmetric rather than asymmetric.

Tony....another lecture in theory & semantics!

Lets do this real simple.

I have 2 tonearms. They are identical (SUPA) apart from one being set up offset, and one UH. I use same cartridge, same record deck, same sound system etc. Care is taken to dial both arms in as optimally as possible. Forget zenith variations. Forget azimuth variations. Forget VTF variations. Forget warped records. Forget tracking errors. Forget antiskating errors. Forget srcubbing.

Now lets take one record, and one track off that record that I know very well. Lets play that track with the offset arm, then lets play that track with the UH arm. BTW, the track isnt gonna be plinky-plink nylon strung guitar recording from the 50's. It will be a studio recorded track....say something like SuperTramp with a lot going on, side to side panning, vocals, backing vocals, real bass, sax, kick drum etc.

Now let me describe what I hear when I compare the tracks first using the offset arm, then the UH one.

First off, the UH will make me sit up and listen compared to the offset. My attention is instantly grabbed. Trying to analyse why, it appears the instruments in the background stand out more, have more clarity, distinction & separation between them. With the offset they seemed more in the background & less distinct.

Instruments seem more dynamic. By this I mean the hits from the snare seem to stand out more and reach my ear with a greater force. The kick drum also has a crisper leading edge....stops & starts faster. Same with the bass notes. The plucking of the string is more percussive....also starts & stops faster, is more controlled. As a result, there seems to be more clarity in the mix, more room around the vocals.

When the sax solo comes in, it really stands out from the rest of the mix, and compared to the offset arm, I could describe this as 'scary' because when I heard it with the offset arm, it didnt come to the fore.

When I get into the higher frequencies, I cant really comment above 14k. Suffice it to say as long as there is no sibilance, all is good. This is just a rough synopsis of what I hear. I havent gone into great detail such as the bass guitar & kick drum timbres. I know these upper bass frequencies very well, and stream a lot of electronic music from the likes of Monolink, Kerala Dust, Nu, Nichoas Jarr, Stavroz etc. My system is tuned to bring out the nuances of this frequency range. These artists create on their computers, and must spend ages dialing in their kick drums & electronic bass. There is so much going on in this frequency, & my system allows me to appreciate it. Unless you are able to hear these differences which distinguishes these artists from one another, you will think they all sound the same. Also, there is little point to electronic music if you are missing that bottom octave.

Now Tony, you can do your work and tear my semantics apart, but you cannot tell me it is impossible for me to hear these things because blah blah blah. Really, in the end I dont  care because what I experience is all that matters. How about using your skills constructively and try to find a reason why some people find these UH arms so compelling?

I really want to thank all the members on LH for they work they have done & support I have received in the past. I only recently got into pivot arms, inspired by threads from Marra, Arndt, Adelmo, Ed, Derrek, Martin etc. You guys rock. Not forgetting Richard and his amazing SUPA bearing which trounces everything that has gone before. And this UH business has been the icing on the cake.....even though it sparks controversy.

I am still waiting for Tony's response about whether he has listened to one? From Roy Gregory's review: '...... listening to the RF7 (VIV Labs 7" Rigid Float) and you are faced with the disparity between what you know and what you are hearing......'

Cheers to all

Vic

[SUPATRAC]

My wife refers to this quality as 'punchy' but I think it's fair to describe it as dynamics. It's an important part of the illusion of high fidelity playback. Excitement is another good way to describe it, and it was one of my goals when devising the SUPA. That's why I'm very interested in doing further experiments with underhang. If that geometry preserves more of the 'presence' of the signal, then it may be worth sacrificing some other marginal aspects of performance. It's difficult to translate measurements into these sensory impressions, so listening is the ultimate test.