Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 17313 times.

S Clark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7362
  • a riot is the language of the unheard- Dr. King
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #100 on: 19 Jan 2016, 12:54 am »
If there is a hole/slot in the axle, can you get the spring into it? If so, could a tiny drop of epoxy possibly hold it in place?  You'd have to get the surfaces clean, but that's doable.

ACHiPo

Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #101 on: 19 Jan 2016, 03:38 am »
I suppose it's possible, but after several hours with my watchmaking tools I gave up.  There is oil in that area, and it's very difficult to get down in there to clean--I really need to pull the whole thing apart, which I don't want to tackle.

neobop

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3448
  • BIRD LIVES
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #102 on: 30 Jan 2016, 05:25 pm »
I'm bringing this up because I think my point might have been lost in all the back and forth BS.  I never said a cantilevered armboard was generally inferior.  I said I don't like them and I don't think they're a good idea for DIY.  Apparently, I'm not entitled to have such an opinion.  Nevertheless, I do.

Many high end tables are designed to dissipate energy (vibrations) from the arm out to the plinth or foot.  Many times, substituting a spike or cone for a rubber foot located near the arm, will make it sound more focused and clear.   Damping does not always solve this problem of vibrations, and can make it sound like mush. 

On another forum Jonathan Carr told us that the vast majority of energy (vibrations) from the cart/cantilever do NOT get converted to electrical energy.  A phono cartridge is a very inefficient device.  What happens to this mechanical energy?  Depending on the arm, much of it might be slowed and converted to heat by the mass of the counterweight and supporting structure.  Ideally, any remaining mechanical energy will be dissipated by plinth mass or drained out of a foot.   
Unfortunately, vibrations can be transmitted from the whatever supports the armboard, back up the arm.  Outboard pods are not immune to airborne vibrations (sound) hitting the base or supporting shelf.   That's where mass becomes your friend, converting vibrations to heat.
neo

Your assertion of inferiority was about cantilever in general.
~John

ACHiPo

Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #103 on: 31 Jan 2016, 09:49 pm »
Update:  Both arms/cartridges are dialed in and playing music!



In taking this picture I realized that the Zero is a pretty good high-frequency receiver, as I could hear my iPhone when in a certain position (the Lyra doesn't do this).  I did an A/B on "Masterpieces by Ellington" and both cartridges sound really good.  The Zero is more romantic, with mid-bass bloom, but at the same time extremely detailed.

Will let things settle in before making any other changes.  The outrigger seems stable enough for the time being, but I am getting more sound than I'd like when I tap the shelf. Also, when the WTT/Lyra is playing and I tap the outrigger it's louder than when I tap the shelf.  Not sure what to make of that, but will need to address it at some point.

neobop

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3448
  • BIRD LIVES
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #104 on: 1 Feb 2016, 02:27 am »
"when the WTT/Lyra is playing and I tap the outrigger it's louder than when I tap the shelf.  Not sure what to make of that, but will need to address it at some point."

The pod is amplifying your tap - like the crack of baseball bat when it hits the ball.    It would help to reduce the size of the pod, but you need to increase the weight.  Adding other types of material (massive) would help.  You could hollow out a section and fill it with sand and/or lead.  Lead works like magic killing vibrations. 
neo

 


ACHiPo

Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #105 on: 1 Feb 2016, 03:54 am »
"when the WTT/Lyra is playing and I tap the outrigger it's louder than when I tap the shelf.  Not sure what to make of that, but will need to address it at some point."

The pod is amplifying your tap - like the crack of baseball bat when it hits the ball.    It would help to reduce the size of the pod, but you need to increase the weight.  Adding other types of material (massive) would help.  You could hollow out a section and fill it with sand and/or lead.  Lead works like magic killing vibrations. 
neo
Neo,
I figured as much.  I'll add some lead and see what happens.

S Clark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7362
  • a riot is the language of the unheard- Dr. King
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #106 on: 1 Feb 2016, 04:18 am »
I've been thinking about mounting my Pioneer arm in a pod as well... something along the lines of 6" diameter PVC with 5/8 plywood bottom and top filled with lead shot.  Any comments, suggestions?

GentleBender

Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #107 on: 1 Feb 2016, 01:24 pm »
Update:  Both arms/cartridges are dialed in and playing music!

Lyra doesn't do this).  I did an A/B on "Masterpieces by Ellington" and both cartridges sound really good.  The Zero is more romantic, with mid-bass bloom, but at the same time extremely detailed.

Will let things settle in before making any other changes.  The outrigger seems stable enough for the time being, but I am getting more sound than I'd like when I tap the shelf. Also, when the WTT/Lyra is playing and I tap the outrigger it's louder than when I tap the shelf.  Not sure what to make of that, but will need to address it at some point.
Congrats on completing the "prototype". Your continued questions and problem solving are beneficial to others with dreams of second tonearms and the many factors involved with DIY.  :wink:

ACHiPo

Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #108 on: 1 Feb 2016, 01:37 pm »
I've been thinking about mounting my Pioneer arm in a pod as well... something along the lines of 6" diameter PVC with 5/8 plywood bottom and top filled with lead shot.  Any comments, suggestions?
Probably a better approach than mine.  I just couldn't get enough height to have enough mass with a cylinder unless I raised the plinth.  You might do a calculation on how much volume of lead shot you'll have once you make arrangement for the tonearm cable.

neobop

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3448
  • BIRD LIVES
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #109 on: 1 Feb 2016, 02:37 pm »
6" diameter seems a bit large.  Will the arm base fit on a 4" PVC coupler?   You could add something to the front to make it into a hollow teardrop shape.  Then fill with sand/lead shot.  PVC is a little weird to glue/attach to.   PVC solvent used to glue 2 pieces of pipe doesn't work too well when used on the outside.  I had better luck roughing up the surface and using epoxy putty.  If the base of the pod includes any external front portion, it's easier to have it look (and act) like a single unit.

You know, you can put an additional board under one unit and not the other.  Sometimes things get unstable when a foot or spike is height adjusted.  Always check for wobble.
neo


S Clark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7362
  • a riot is the language of the unheard- Dr. King
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #110 on: 1 Feb 2016, 02:56 pm »
" Will the arm base fit on a 4" PVC coupler?" 

Yes, but the arm base is 2 1/2" in diameter, so that only leaves just over 3/4" of lead shot around it.  As for glue, I'd use epoxy. 

neobop

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3448
  • BIRD LIVES
Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #111 on: 18 Feb 2016, 03:16 pm »

Agreed, but they are still cantilever.  Your assertion of inferiority was about cantilever in general.
So what?!
Subtract Teres, and I've still shown you more than a few.  As per your request.
This doesn't erase them from my list.  It only makes you uninformed.
I perfectly understand your point, trust me.

Agree 100% that it's difficult to implement properly.  I've said so, several times.  I've also said  (several times) it's why I didn't use it.  But it's not impossible, as evidenced by the great sounding setups -- both production and DIY -- that use it.

That you are not alone in your opinion is irrelevant and proves nothing.  Many opinions in audio.  Many well-respected designers use it, and produce awesome sounding tables.  I'll side with them, before you.  No offense.
I only objected to your assertion that cantilever is inherently inferior due to some springboard /vibration / noise issue.  That's intuition, not science.  But I actually see your point, it makes complete sense from a logical / intuitive pt of view.   

I said in my previous post that I can't strongly argue it one way or another.  I have neither the intellectual firepower nor scientific background to do so.  But the proof is in the pudding.  If it sounds good, it is good, regardless of your theories  (which you haven't supported, BTW).  I simply pointed this out.

I never said you were out of date.

I do use one.  It's stock on my Scheu / Eurolab table.  And it sounds excellent, thank you!    :thumb:

Didn't do it for my outboard mount because it's too difficult to get right.  For all the reasons you point out:  topply, springy, vibration, etc.  This, and that I don't have the required tools and machine shop to do it right (ie. metal, heavy, dense, stiff, rigid, precise / tight tolerances, etc.).  I've already said this, several times.  But other folks can get it right.  Obviously. 

I recommended nothing specifically.  I've been very general.  I've merely suggested that you try, listen, and then adjust if necessary, and not get too bogged down in techo-babble.  Sometimes you get lucky, and it works.  Nothing to lose.

No need to be so defensive, Neo.  Beyond me why my simple, practical, non-scientific approach gets your panties in such a twist.    :scratch:   My view is just as legit as yours.

That you keep putting words in my mouth means you are missing the point, not me.

I hope you do return.  I respect your obvious knowledge base, and always enjoy reading your very informative posts!         :thumb:

~John

Because of the single line quotes this reads like a nonsequitur, but I think it's easy enough to follow. 
Beside the fact that I didn't say that about cantilevered armboards in general, there's another principal here worth addressing IMO. 

"I've merely suggested that you try, listen, and then adjust if necessary, and not get too bogged down in techo-babble.  Sometimes you get lucky, and it works.  Nothing to lose."

I disagree.  All technology is built on preceding refinements.   Most of us are not driving model A Fords or listening to Edison cylinders.  You have a lot to lose if it isn't as good as it could be.  One thing is your time, not only the time spent building something possibly second rate, but also the time spent listening to something that might be better if done "right".

On my AT95 thread you can see photos of Halcro's Victor TT101 pods.  He had a beautiful steel frame type table pod that looked killer.  When that pod was replaced by one made of granite, he said it was dramatically better.   When I build a pod for my TT81 I will benefit from his experience - what preceded.

This is an example of why I think it pays to do your homework, because there is something to lose.
neo




ACHiPo

Re: Second "Outrigger" Arm for WTT Reference for Mono
« Reply #112 on: 18 Feb 2016, 07:32 pm »
 :surrender: :peek: