VPI Classic

[Steven Holt]

Perhaps a more informed observer could interpret how this resonance could have an acoustic impact.

At this point, I'm going to defer to our more well-informed members. I wish you success on your quest. By all accounts, VPI makes an excellent product.

 

[Angsty]

And you have a nice cartridge too, that is well matched to the effective mass of your tonearm. So hard to imagine what you would do to improve sound, just spend lots more money with no improvement.

It's good to have an affirmation on this point. I simply do love the sound of the Hana SL on the Traveler. I'd likely not ditch the Traveler, but would move it to my second system to displace a Pioneer direct drive unit if I were to acquire another turntable. The Pioneer is quite capable and I have liked it, but I also have some questions about it's tonearm which is much less confidence-inducing than the Traveler tonearm.

With a phrase like "confidence-inducing", you can see the factors at play have somewhat less to do with what I can find measured than with what the experience is like. I would like to be able to select a modern turntable like I can an ASR-tested DAC, but the sources of hard data are more scarce.

 

[Godataloss]

It's good to have an affirmation on this point. I simply do love the sound of the Hana SL on the Traveler. I'd likely not ditch the Traveler, but would move it to my second system to displace a Pioneer direct drive unit if I were to acquire another turntable. The Pioneer is quite capable and I have liked it, but I also have some questions about it's tonearm which is much less confidence-inducing than the Traveler tonearm.

With a phrase like "confidence-inducing", you can see the factors at play have somewhat less to do with what I can find measured than with what the experience is like. I would like to be able to select a modern turntable like I can an ASR-tested DAC, but the sources of hard data are more scarce.

If 'confidence inducing' is high on your list, scratch off the VPI unipivot arm, or any unipivot for that matter. My wife steadfastly refuses to use it (somewhat of a plus in my book) because of the wobble.

 

[Angsty]

If 'confidence inducing' is high on your list, scratch off the VPI unipivot arm, or any unipivot for that matter. My wife steadfastly refuses to use it (somewhat of a plus in my book) because of the wobble.

Does the dual pivot mod help?

 

[Godataloss]

Does the dual pivot mod help?

It's supposed to, but I have not felt the need to install it. I doesn't bother me as the arm is easy to setup and tracks like a monster. I cue with my finger rather than the cue lever anyway so it's less wobbly lowering from the headshell end of the arm. I was looking at the Hana myself, but went with an AT OC9xsl for the boron stylus. It's proving to be an excellent combination. What arm is on the Traveler?

 

[Tom C]

I have a VPI Classic 4 purchased in 2017. It’s different from the other Classic models in that it has a 12-in arm. I bought before the Fat Boy was developed, so it has a unipivot without dual mod. I like the unipivot, free in every direction and low friction. The wobble during descent simply doesn’t bother me.
I got the ADS power supply, replaced the hub on the motor, and added 3 belts, but none of these things changed the sound in any way. I know you don’t want to hear about Technics, but I’ll mention anyway because it’s the only other turntable I have here to compare to. The only real differences are that occasionally I have had some tracking issues with the Technics, but very infrequently, so never tracked down the cause. Not so with the Classic 4, never had any mist racking with that. Then, the tonearm lift mechanism on the Classic 4 is miserable. The stylus barely clears the rim of the record when using it, because the lift doesn’t raise the tone arm quite as high as I would like. Users have long complained about the lift mechanism on the now defunct VPI forum.
In sum, the Classic 4 is more expense and more fuss than the alternatives, but does not sound better, so for me not worth it. What you get for the extra money is a pretty toy you may enjoy tinkering with. Technics is a lot easier, less messing around, more set and forget.
The table you have has a platter plenty heavy enough. Adding a more massive platter is overkill. Just doesn’t improve anything.

 

[Angsty]

What arm is on the Traveler?

The Traveler has the first gimbal bearing design that VPI produced; it is the predecessor of the Fatboy gimbal. The rest of the arm seems to be a replica of the Classic 10" tonearm.

After months of internal debate, I decided to replace my Pioneer PLX-1000 with ... another Traveler. I hear enough subjective differences between my Traveler and my Pioneer to warrant the replacement for me. I also prefer the look and feel of the Traveler.

I'll keep my v1.1 Traveler in my main system and will replace the PLX-1000 in my office with a v2 Traveler that I'll get from a local guy who is looking to upgrade.

Thanks for your feedback regarding the Classic models.

 

[Godataloss]

The Traveler has the first gimbal bearing design that VPI produced; it is the predecessor of the Fatboy gimbal. The rest of the arm seems to be a replica of the Classic 10" tonearm.

After months of internal debate, I decided to replace my Pioneer PLX-1000 with ... another Traveler. I hear enough subjective differences between my Traveler and my Pioneer to warrant the replacement for me. I also prefer the look and feel of the Traveler.

I'll keep my v1.1 Traveler in my main system and will replace the PLX-1000 in my office with a v2 Traveler that I'll get from a local guy who is looking to upgrade.

Thanks for your feedback regarding the Classic models.

I wasn't aware of this arm from VPI. It's visually much more appealing than the Fatboy. I'm sure it's more expensive to produce than the 3d printed jobs.

 

[Angsty]

I wasn't aware of this arm from VPI. It's visually much more appealing than the Fatboy. I'm sure it's more expensive to produce than the 3d printed jobs.

VPI went through three iterations of this tonearm bearing before getting it right. The first used sapphire contact bearings that could be shorn off if the user tried to set the VTF by turning the counterweight instead of the knurled dial at the back.

The second iteration used longer sapphire pins for more durability, but the warranty returns were still excessive. The third iteration replaced the sapphire pins with spring loaded SS balls and were considered “unbreakable”.

However, some fans say the sapphire models sound better. I don’t know for sure but my v1.1 has the longer sapphire pins and the v2 I’m planning to get has the SS balls. I believe the Fatboy gimbal also uses stainless steel. You can now get a gimbal bearing for any VPI turntable (either Fatboy or 3D). The Prime 21 comes with the gimbal by default.

 

[Godataloss]

VPI went through three iterations of this tonearm bearing before getting it right. The first used sapphire contact bearings that could be shorn off if the user tried to set the VTF by turning the counterweight instead of the knurled dial at the back.

The second iteration used longer sapphire pins for more durability, but the warranty returns were still excessive. The third iteration replaced the sapphire pins with spring loaded SS balls and were considered “unbreakable”.

However, some fans say the sapphire models sound better. I don’t know for sure but my v1.1 has the longer sapphire pins and the v2 I’m planning to get has the SS balls. I believe the Fatboy gimbal also uses stainless steel. You can now get a gimbal bearing for any VPI turntable (either Fatboy or 3D). The Prime 21 comes with the gimbal by default.

View attachment 259735

It's such an easy swap, it's tempting but for the $4k cost. The uni tracks so well I only think it would be an upgrade in the sense the wife would be less afraid to use it.

 

[anmpr1]

The Traveler has the first gimbal bearing design that VPI produced; it is the predecessor of the Fatboy gimbal. The rest of the arm seems to be a replica of the Classic 10" tonearm.

The Traveler's vertical gimbal bearing (think up and down arm movement) appears to violate an ideal geometry because the twin bearings are not offset to match headshell/cartridge offset. At least it appears this way from the photo. The outer gimbal appears to be offset, but the inner ring (that holds the vertical bearings) doesn't appear to be.

If this is the case, then it's a common design error found in many tonearms, even very expensive arms, although I don't understand why. I can't imagine that it is more expensive to design correctly aligned pivots than otherwise. One might argue that given the numerous and problematic variables involved with record playing, the overall effect of the misalignment is small. And that is likely true. But why make things worse in the first place when it's possible to avoid the problem, altogether?

[Note: this is not related to the geometry of lateral tracking error, which is a different issue entirely.]

Pisha, Kessler, and Pramanik discussed this in a series of Audio magazine articles from the '80s (excerpt follows).
_________

Correct lateral alignment of vertical bearings is important for maintenance of designed geometry and cartridge azimuth. If records were perfectly flat, the angle of the bearings affecting the vertical axis would not be critical. However, that is not the case, and with vertical tracking angle (VTA) adjustments on some tonearms, the headshell will not remain parallel to the record surface as the arm moves up and down in the vertical axis since the plane of the cartridge body changes with respect to the record surface.

If the angle of the vertical bearings is perpendicular to the line through the offset angle, there will be only one angular change, that of the VTA. If, however, the bearings are not perpendicular to that line, the plane generated becomes a compound angle problem - the cartridge plane twists in two angles (azimuth changes).

As the arm traverses warps or is raised and lowered in the pivots for VTA, the parallel plane is lost in proportion to the difference in angle from perpendicularity from the plane of the cartridge. Visualizing this isn't easy, but if the arm could be rotated up in the vertical plane until it was straight up, the arm whose bearings were in alignment with the offset angle would have the front of the cartridge still parallel to the record surface, whereas the arm not so designed would have the right front edge of the cartridge higher than the left front edge.

Generally, if the vertical bearings are in alignment with the offset angle, the problems with warp and VTA are made less severe because a simple angle is generated, rather than a compound angle that is typical with many arms currently available.
_________

Pramanik illustrates: the first picture shows a tonearm (like the Traveler) where the vertical (up and down) bearing is not offset to match headshell offset. As the arm moves up (due to record warp) the stylus rotates in the groove, causing (according to Pramanik) unwanted FM distortion. The second shows a correctly designed pivot. Here, as the arm rises with a record warp, the stylus remains perpendicular to the record groove.:

Interestingly, most Technics arms have correct vertical pivot angle, however the EPA-250/500 series gets it wrong. Compare the EPA-100 (correct) with the 250/500.

EPA-100

EPA-250/500

 

[Angsty]

The Traveler's vertical gimbal bearing (think up and down arm movement) appears to violate an ideal geometry because the twin bearings are not offset to match headshell/cartridge offset.

Would this also apply to the VPI unipivot designs, as well?

 

[anmpr1]

Would this also apply to the VPI unipivot designs, as well?

Pisha and Kessler:

The problem becomes very complex with unipivots where, with fixed bearing arms, the solution is simple. The resolution of the vectors to bring about the same effect in the unipivot arms is complicated because of counterweight placement.

For instance, the counterweight on the Sonus Formula 4 unipivot (which I'm familiar with) is eccentric, and in addition to sliding it forward or backward for static balance and to acheive a desired tracking force, it must be rotated, sometimes irregularly, in order to obtain perpendicular azimuth.

As the arm rises during play, one could expect that the original static perpendicular azimuth alignment would become dynamically imbalanced, as the arm tube moves up and down with warps--possibly to a much higher degree than in an arm with a fixed gimbal. [However this rotational or wobbling effect is likely somewhat mitigated due to the fluid damping properties of the silicon oil gunk at the pivot.]

The resulting dynamic imbalance would be attributable to the counterweight's irregular position on the arm tube, and not (I'm guessing) from the single point unipivot, which would (all other things being equal) maintain a stable azimuth regardless of VTA. At least that is my quick answer without any formal proof.

FWIW, I would not advise anyone to mess with a unipivot, especially something as wonky as the Sonus Formula 4.

 

[Angsty]

Pisha, Kessler, and Pramanik discussed this in a series of Audio magazine articles from the '80s (excerpt follows).

I'd love to know which issues those are so I can read them online. I find reading old Audio articles to be more technically informative than new issues of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.

 

[anmpr1]

I'd love to know which issues those are so I can read them online. I find reading old Audio articles to be more technically informative than new issues of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.

Kessler and Pisha, January 1980

Pramanik, June 1980

AUDIO - Consumer audio and music magazine from 1947 to 2000.

Audio Engineering magazine began publishing in May, 1947 with a new focus from its predecessor, "Radio". The title changed to "Audio" in February, 1954, with a graphic redesign. The first 7 years focused on technology and engineering, while the later issues highlighted consumer electronics and...

worldradiohistory.com

 

[Godataloss]

Pisha and Kessler:

The problem becomes very complex with unipivots where, with fixed bearing arms, the solution is simple. The resolution of the vectors to bring about the same effect in the unipivot arms is complicated because of counterweight placement.

For instance, the counterweight on the Sonus Formula 4 unipivot (which I'm familiar with) is eccentric, and in addition to sliding it forward or backward for static balance and to acheive a desired tracking force, it must be rotated, sometimes irregularly, in order to obtain perpendicular azimuth.

As the arm rises during play, one could expect that the original static perpendicular azimuth alignment would become dynamically imbalanced, as the arm tube moves up and down with warps--possibly to a much higher degree than in an arm with a fixed gimbal. [However this rotational or wobbling effect is likely somewhat mitigated due to the fluid damping properties of the silicon oil gunk at the pivot.]

The resulting dynamic imbalance would be attributable to the counterweight's irregular position on the arm tube, and not (I'm guessing) from the single point unipivot, which would (all other things being equal) maintain a stable azimuth regardless of VTA. At least that is my quick answer without any formal proof.

FWIW, I would not advise anyone to mess with a unipivot, especially something as wonky as the Sonus Formula 4.

The Sonus looks like a clone of the Mayware Formula 4. Despised that arm. The two unipivot arms I've owned since (Thorens TD 203, and the VPI) are delightful in both in setup and use in comparison. Both have the off-center counter weight. In practice, I think just having the majority of the mass below the pivot corrects azimuth. I have never had to add any 'irregular' rotation.

 

[anmpr1]

The Sonus looks like a clone of the Mayware Formula 4.

It's the third (that I know of) revision of the arm. As I understand it, the original was an Australian design made in Japan, sold by JH Reproducers. The Mayware arm, from England was supposedly a knock off. But I don't know that for sure. The Sonus arm was sold as a match for their high compliance cartridges. Sonus was Peter Pritchard's company, after he sold ADC.

The Sonus design 'featured' the unipivot below the cartridge, in order to further reduce effects of warps. I think (doing this from memory) the old AR tonearm was like that, and the low mass A.T/Signet arms, too--albeit they were not unipivots..

 

[egellings]

The best thing to go better is use a direct drive, and then there is only one name: Technics. The SL1500C is great and only 1K€, the SL1200G is also, with slightly better for the much more expensive GR. The best ever for me are the Technics SL1000R, only equalled by the old EMT broadcast tables (but those are long out of production and way to expensive second hand). Will the SL1000R make a big difference? I don't think it will, it's the last percentage, but a very expensive one... The 1500C aleady is better than all non technics i think. The timing of the motor is very stable and precise, and the arm, in the past the weak point of technics, is a lot better and up to par with the rest of the field and the platter is mass-damped like all technics and relative immune for nomal touch sounds or feedback.

If you want to stay belt drive, you got a good one, the more expensive models won't change much on that. They will just look a bit more fancy. VPI is one of the better brands arround, because a lot of belt drivers are overpriced crap.

I myself, after having many turntables settled on an original 1975 Technics SL1500 MKI in mint state, and it is the known technics quality. I bought it for 200€, did some maintenance, added the very good AT-VM95EB cell to it and took time to calibrate it right, and i'm done. I don't think i need to upgrade anymore. Even after i heared a lot of the known classics and way more expensive turntables. The newer except the SL1200 MK7 are the same kind of quality and precision.

My problem with the D.D. turntables is that the platters ring like bells. I had to apply a coat of damping material to the platter's underside to make that less annoying.

 

[Waxx]

My problem with the D.D. turntables is that the platters ring like bells. I had to apply a coat of damping material to the platter's underside to make that less annoying.

I never heared that, and i had some belt drive turntables (Dual, Thorens, Project, Rega) also in the past. Do you have measurements that show that? Because i think it's not. The motor system does not create ringing i think (at least i see no logic behind why this should be).

Certainly my actual vintage Technics SL1500 and the Technics SL1200 MKII's i had don't have that. Nor the SP10 MKII based build of my ex.

 

[DSJR]

I;m not a vinyl hater, I play vinyl quite often, albeit rather less than digital audio.
However, I'm totally with DVDdoug above, in that I've never heard differences between turntables (or arms!). As long as they go round at the right speed, and with minimal wow & flutter, any difference are totally to do with the cartridge, and in the case of MMs, how they're loaded. MCs are far more load tolerant, so even less differences there. I'm assuming that any turntable will be sensibly mounted, not sitting on a subwoofer....

If you want a new turntable because it looks nicer, or is easier to use, or the arm will take a wider range of cartridges, then fine, just don't expect a difference in sound.

S.

And you used to be a dealer too - wash your mouth out sir!!!!!

Not sure whether to be angry or not nowadays in all honesty. I did hundreds of dems of different turntables often using the same stylus switched between different bodies (assuming the bodies were fairly close from sample to sample). Assuming you weren't totally tone deaf (as many of us males are apparently), the way the music came across could be quite noticeable, the 'scale' of the presentation could change with siting of the deck, slight VTA differences as well as conventional W&F and rumble levels. Acoustic feedback acts on vinyl reproduction long before 'howl-round' starts you know.

I agree that decks like an SL1500C/2M Red and the evergreen cheap Audio Technica VM95E cartridge set great standards that may have been more difficult 50 years ago in a lower priced deck (oh I dunno, the Pioneer PL12-AC and first issue PL12-D's weren't bad at all and I can make a vintage Lenco 75 and Thorens 150mk2 'sound' very acceptable these days), but to all but deny that decks sound any if much different to each other when used at home I have to challenge I'm afraid, sorry