Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dertonarm

Allow me to return the rattle that you have thrown from the pram:

You said:

you don't really want me to tell you what additional breakdown torque is and why it does of course influence the skating force.

If I didn´t wish to know I wouldn´t have asked. I´m always willing to learn something new and if you have something new to say, I´m willing to hear it. It is just that you seem unwilling or afraid to actually say anything at all - commercial reasons?

You said

If you think skating force is just a phenomenon of friction and downforce - fine, certainly no problem with me.

I didn´t say that. A neat attempt at misrepresentation.

You said

If you muse about the model and draw yourself a good and precise force vector model of a pivot tonearm, you'll figure out.

I have done. A long time ago. And since then I have re-considered my original thoughts and am willing to continue doing so in the light of new facts.

You said:

I did suggest starting a "antiskating thread" - I didn't say I want to start it nor did I say I want to participate in it.I have no questions regarding skating force in tonearms.

But a lot of talk and precious few answers, it seems.

You said:

Regarding the UNI-Protractor and it's "universal" use.
Apparently you haven't worked with it so far and haven't understand it's principle either. Otherwise none of the comments in your last two posts would have been made.

I think you´ll find it was I (not you)who briefly explained earlier the way your protractor works. I don´t know if you´ve done this elsewhere, but you don´t do it in your audiogon advertisement. Neither do you credit, or even mention, Dennesen at all in your ad.

You say I don´t understand the principle you used. I understand it only too well.

cheers

.

Dertonarm

Again, since you were the one who brought it up, you said:

If you think you can do better - go ahead design it.

I already have - as soon as I saw the pics I knew you had missed the basic principle of the Dennesen, and, by extension, the underlying concept, which goes back to Percy Wilson in 1924.

Anyone who understands the principle could, with a bit of thought, see how you could have made your protractor more universal, more precise, and easier to use, without compromising the existing features (and you can admit having used it for 25 years, yet haven´t seen this!)

You said:

So far your comments have shown little more than poor judgement, a fairly high aggression and very little understanding of the subject.

Yes, bad judgement in expecting anything other than obfuscation.
Aggression? Scarcely.
Understanding? I can only promise to try and be more understanding of your explanations.

You said:

I welcome your attempt to put your name on the wall again and to prepare the road for yourself for a soon-to-be return to the audio market.
No problem with me - as far as I am concerned you are certainly welcome.

Thanks, spoken like the true salesman you are.

But, unlike yourself, I have no plans to market my add-on to the Uni-Protractor, to compensate for its non-universality.

(Nor my new 12" FR66-killer zero antiskate adjustable effective length, dynamically balanced, irregular-pseudo-elliptical headshell arm, (or even my headshell mounted miniaturised preamp which uses the power gained from negating various mysterious breakdown torques to enable a single run of fine cable from the cartridge to the power amp...))

You said:

I might react to a post by you from time to time only, but so far very few actually did ask for an answer or a comment. Most were simply lacking content and seriousness.

Luckily my last post had two straightforward questions for you to answer, so you might start there. As you must have missed one of them, and misunderstood the other, I´ll repeat:

in what way do the Reed, Talea and Schroeder differ from other arms? The Talea and Schroeder appear to have a facility to alter the effective length,(as does any other arm with a slotted or movable headshell) and they have a facility to alter the headshell angle. What is the difference between this and altering the angle in a normal headshell?

The Reed has a normal slotted headshell except for the model with its little azimuth adjusting device.

What´s the difference? I would honestly like to know.

And I am intrigued to know what are these mysterious additional breakdown torques which the above arms don´t have.

Cheers again

Hi Chris,
last topic first .... yes, there is also an UNI-template for tangential tonearms.

1) "We" was referring to the audiophile community - including me.
Kind of universal - in the sense of "we, the people" - i.e. not a club nor a circle of friends, but all audiophiles in the past 4 decades.

2) With mechanical issues I meant that tangential tonearms do ( with various intensity however ) put the suspension of a cartridge's cantilever to considerable stress. Even in a servo controlled tangential tonearm there first has to be a declination from the tangential right angle to move the tonearm.
It is not an apparent immediate issue, rather a long term problem.
I worked with tangential tonearms for 11 years.

There were and are cartridges which are mechanically better suited to withstand the mechanical stress ( especially Supex SDX-1000, original small body ZYX) and a great many which are not.

I didn't really did run into "problems" with neither the ET2, ET 2.5, Air Tangent 2B, Air Tangent Reference nor Goldmund T3F.
I all had them on my turntable(s) and they all did perform quite well and some showed potential for great sound.
I used them with high tech air supply ( Jun Air "Troll") and adjustable pressure and air volume.

The ET 2.5 still today is a best buy.
If mounted with the right cartridge ( low body weight, solid suspension ) and if you do not ask for the last punch, dynamic, air, color and detail in the lower 2 registers of the audio frequency band.
The ET 2.5 improves considerably with increased air pressure up to a certain limit. It does deliver very good bass with a lot of "body" - but not quite the quality I seek.

It is a very good tangential tonearm and if I were looking today for a tonearm in the $1k to $2.5k range, it would still be high on my list.

Cheers,
D.

Thx for the quick reply D and clarification on the lack of issues other than pump sources with the ET. I have had no cartridge issues in 5 years and it is my main arm.

Is the UNI tangential tool similar to the ET supplied one. I am looking for something that would let me square the line better from the spindle to the bottom of the straight sp10 casing. I am using a homemade extender right that does the job but am curious.

One final question.

You said

"The ET 2.5 improves considerably with increased air pressure up to a certain limit". It does deliver very good bass with a lot of "body" - but not quite the quality I seek."

Are you able to recall what platform/table you mounted the 2.5 on and what PSI you registered at the air bearing, not the pump source.

Thank You Chris

Dear Chris,
my ET 2 was mounted first on the big Le Tallec tt (modified) and later on the Apolyt (450 lbs chassis, 100 lbs composite platter on radial/axial air bearing, 2 Hz air suspension frequency of whole turntable).
The ET 2.5 was mounted on the Apolyt only.
I worked mainly - as far as I recall - with 0.4 to 0.6 bar.
In american psi this means 6 to 8 psi approximately.
This was read down at the Apolyt's control board.
Cheers,
D.