TERMINATOR linear-tracking, air-bearing tonearm

[Owen Y]

I though I'd start a thread for Terminator users - there must be a few in AU (& NZ)?

 

Based originally on a concept by Poul Ladegaard, a Brüel & Kjaer engineer in Denmark, the Terminator product was developed by Trans-Fi Audio in England.

 

I've had this one since 2013.

Here it is mounted on a Technics SP-10 MkII......

 

Cheers, Owen

Dark Lantern blog - http://darklanternforowen.wordpress.com/

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Owen Y

[Owen Y]

And a couple of pics showing the main functional elements of the Terminator.

 

(On an AURA turntable.)

 

Cheers, Owen

Dark Lantern blog - http://darklanternforowen.wordpress.com

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Owen Y

[acg]

I have one Owen, one of he newer production ones from Andre.  Have never got around to mounting it on my Helix 2 turntable, but will one day.  Is supposed to be very good.

[Owen Y]

Hi @acg - (sorry about delayed reply, I must have missed the notification...)

 

Would be interested to see & hear about Andrey's version of the Terminator, please post pics if you can..

 

I have recently installed Andrey's carbon fibre arm wand & early days yet but it's all positive, sound-wise, no drawbacks that I can discern as yet.

 

Cheers, Owen

Dark Lantern blog - http://darklanternforowen.wordpress.com

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Owen Y

[Paul R]

Hi Owen

 

Could you please advise where you source the belts for your Aura? The belts on my daCapo are the original, sondating back to about 1999 or thereabouts.

 

Thanking you in advance.

 

Paul

Edited April 1, 2021 by Paul R

[SMX5000]

On 20/03/2021 at 9:50 AM, Owen Y said:

I have recently installed Andrey's carbon fibre arm wand & early days yet but it's all positive, sound-wise, no drawbacks that I can discern as yet.

 

Hi @Owen Y,

 

I've got a Terminator on a Technics 1210, probably a bit older than yours as it has the rod arm wand.  What do you think of the new wand now you've had it for a while? 

 

Regards,

 

Stuart. 

[Jventer]

Where do one buy these nowadays?

[cafe latte]

Dont want to be negative on a thread, but my 2c on this..

I have an Eminent Technology air arm and I started to build an air arm with intention to sell them. I stopped as yes air arms eliminate distortion due to wrong angles, but they introduce a whole new can of worms. First is horizontal and vertical compliance issues, next is travel across record, all tend to drag. 

Just my opinion but my feeling is you compromise more than you gain with linear tracker air arms. I set up mine with air tank in another room and a switch in listening room then I have to wait till air tank changes and arm sounds good but question if it is worth the trouble my feeling is no. Take my comments as intended no offense meant.

Chris

[Martykt]

 @Paul R and @SMX5000, unfortunately Owen Y is sadly not able to answer your questions.

Very much a loss to the Audio Community.

 

 

[Martykt]

On 01/04/2021 at 5:24 PM, Paul R said:

Hi Owen

 

Could you please advise where you source the belts for your Aura? The belts on my daCapo are the original, sondating back to about 1999 or thereabouts.

 

Thanking you in advance.

 

Paul

I don't know if there's anywhere that does a specific belt for the Aura but Pyramid Belts in the US would probably be able to make a belt to suit.

 

http://pyramidbelts.com

[Martykt]

1 hour ago, cafe latte said:

First is horizontal and vertical compliance issues, next is travel across record, all tend to drag. 

What do you mean by compliance issues?

I haven't noticed any problems with my Rockport.

Drag with travel across the record is easy to get around, all you need to do is run the tonearm downhill slightly.

[Martykt]

3 hours ago, Jventer said:

Where do one buy these nowadays?

I assume you still buy these direct.
 

https://trans-fi.webs.com/terminator-tonearm
 

https://www.musicfromvinyl.shop

[acg]

Yes,  the second link is where I purchased mine. 

[cafe latte]

10 hours ago, Martykt said:

What do you mean by compliance issues?

I haven't noticed any problems with my Rockport.

Drag with travel across the record is easy to get around, all you need to do is run the tonearm downhill slightly.

With air arms in general the horizontal compliance is very high and vertical is much lower this cant be avoided due to the design of arm arms.

Chris

[Martykt]

50 minutes ago, cafe latte said:

With air arms in general the horizontal compliance is very high and vertical is much lower this cant be avoided due to the design of arm arms.

Chris

What do you mean by compliance?

Amount of lateral movement?

[cafe latte]

18 minutes ago, Martykt said:

What do you mean by compliance?

Amount of lateral movement?

On a normal arm you have an effective mass of say 12g and this matches carts of certain dynamic compliance so we match a medium compliance cart with a 12g effective mass arm. Now with air bearing arms the horizontal compliance is high as horizontally by design air bearing arms have a high mass, but vertical compliance is low as arm up and down is light. Friction may well be low but mass is still high laterally. So upshot is we have a different compliance horizontally to vertically so no cart is a perfect compliance match to the arm.

So we eliminate tracking error and introduce a whole new can of worms basically no free lunch.

Chris

[Martykt]

28 minutes ago, cafe latte said:

On a normal arm you have an effective mass of say 12g and this matches carts of certain dynamic compliance so we match a medium compliance cart with a 12g effective mass arm. Now with air bearing arms the horizontal compliance is high as horizontally by design air bearing arms have a high mass, but vertical compliance is low as arm up and down is light. Friction may well be low but mass is still high laterally. So upshot is we have a different compliance horizontally to vertically so no cart is a perfect compliance match to the arm.

So we eliminate tracking error and introduce a whole new can of worms basically no free lunch.

Chris

Thank you, now I understand what you're getting at.

I think we are partly in agreement in that one of the reasons linear tracking arms are not more common is due to the engineering required to design a good linear tracking tonearm can be difficult.

I don't think it's impossible though.

 

Taking my Rockport as an example I'm guessing part of the design of the longer arm and counter balance shaft may be to do with the vertical compliance.

 

As I referred to earlier running the tonearm downhill slightly (by levelling the turntable) will not only get rid of the drag from the outer groove but also will essentially reduce the effective horizontal mass.

 

There's not a lot of information on my tonearm but I believe it's considered a medium mass tonearm which will match a wide range of cartridges.

It seems to work perfectly with my cartridge so no complaints here.

 

I don't hear many complaints from the Terminator tonearm owners either so I have no reason to believe it's poorly designed and too much of a compromised arm.

 

I do agree most things are a compromise and no one solution will be perfect.

[cafe latte]

24 minutes ago, Martykt said:

Thank you, now I understand what you're getting at.

I think we are partly in agreement in that one of the reasons linear tracking arms are not more common is due to the engineering required to design a good linear tracking tonearm can be difficult.

I don't think it's impossible though.

 

Taking my Rockport as an example I'm guessing part of the design of the longer arm and counter balance shaft may be to do with the vertical compliance.

 

As I referred to earlier running the tonearm downhill slightly (by levelling the turntable) will not only get rid of the drag from the outer groove but also will essentially reduce the effective horizontal mass.

 

There's not a lot of information on my tonearm but I believe it's considered a medium mass tonearm which will match a wide range of cartridges.

It seems to work perfectly with my cartridge so no complaints here.

 

I don't hear many complaints from the Terminator tonearm owners either so I have no reason to believe it's poorly designed and too much of a compromised arm.

 

I do agree most things are a compromise and no one solution will be perfect.

Like I said I have an Eminent Technology and traditional pivot arms also so coming from both sides. The main issues with the Terminator is the horizontal compliance is around 100g and the vertical is 5g I think which is a massive mismatch basically no cart will be correct compliance. Also the other issue it has is the really short arm so unless the record is totally flat (non are) stylus rake angle will be constantly changing and at worst there will be wow. Other issue is no rigid bearing, pivot arms control the stylus tip really well in the groove as good pivot arms have no play. Linear arms by design dont have this rigidity in the bearing all have play. There are other issues with linear, but I feel the main one the the very high horizontal compliance which there is no way to avoid it or fix it. I like my Eminent but I would never get another linear, I have 8 turntables set up so the Eminent serves its purpose, but my feeling pivot is the wat to go even with tracking error as the fix (linear) introduces too many other issues that are worse than a little tracking error.

Chris

[Grant Slack]

Hi Chris, 

 

IMO you have got this all back to front. 

 

The high horizontal H and low vertical V compliance of the LT arm is actually a huge advantage, and not at all the crippling problem that you describe.

 

The fact that a pivoting arm cannot separate H and V compliance is in fact the inherent weakness, not a strength.

 

Saying that the cartridge suspension compliance is the same H and V, and so the arm needs the same “to match the cartridge”, ignores what this is all about.

 

It’s all about achieving target resonance frequencies that won’t cause oscillations when the stylus encounters warps (vertical, up to 10 Hz, ideally undamped/steep slope) and eccentricities (horizontal, 1-2 Hz, ideally smoothly damped) in the record. These targets are very different in the V and H, hence the ideal effective mass is very different in the V and H, by a factor of 25 to 50. 

 

Impossible with the pivoting arm, which is stuck with a factor of 1, so they just pick a rough compromise target resonance, somewhere in the middle.

 

Fully achievable with a Ladegaard LT, because the H and V effective mass can be individually tuned. Even the different H and V dampening targets can be achieved.

 

Even if an effective mass H/V of 25 to 50 is impractical, a factor of 10 is still 10 times better than a pivoting arm.  

 

7 hours ago, cafe latte said:

So we eliminate tracking error and introduce a whole new can of worms basically no free lunch.

 

Quite the opposite. We eliminate 2 cans of worms and enjoy a free lunch.

 

@Martykt to note.

 

cheers

Grant

[cafe latte]

39 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Hi Chris, 

 

IMO you have got this all back to front. 

 

The high horizontal H and low vertical V compliance of the LT arm is actually a huge advantage, and not at all the crippling problem that you describe.

 

The fact that a pivoting arm cannot separate H and V compliance is in fact the inherent weakness, not a strength.

 

Saying that the cartridge suspension compliance is the same H and V, and so the arm needs the same “to match the cartridge”, ignores what this is all about.

 

It’s all about achieving target resonance frequencies that won’t cause oscillations when the stylus encounters warps (vertical, up to 10 Hz, ideally undamped/steep slope) and eccentricities (horizontal, 1-2 Hz, ideally smoothly damped) in the record. These targets are very different in the V and H, hence the ideal effective mass is very different in the V and H, by a factor of 25 to 50. 

 

Impossible with the pivoting arm, which is stuck with a factor of 1, so they just pick a rough compromise target resonance, somewhere in the middle.

 

Fully achievable with a Ladegaard LT, because the H and V effective mass can be individually tuned. Even the different H and V dampening targets can be achieved.

 

Even if an effective mass H/V of 25 to 50 is impractical, a factor of 10 is still 10 times better than a pivoting arm.  

 

 

Quite the opposite. We eliminate 2 cans of worms and enjoy a free lunch.

 

@Martykt to note.

 

cheers

Grant

I disagree. Mono is vertical and stereo is horizontal this high horizontal is a big problem, yes it is about resonance frequency, but it is also an issue for the stylus, 100g of horizontal effective mass IS an issue. Then there is the sloppiness of air bearing and in the case of the Terminator the short arm. 

All I am saying is air arms are not the niversal answer, I have one but understand the limitations. Some carts actually say not to be used on a linear tracker the reason is the horizontal compliance.

Chris

[Grant Slack]

Hi Chris, 
 

point-by-point:

• 100g of effective mass is not a problem at all. Even with poorly eccentric records it will only create minuscule lateral forces, a small fraction of skating forces in a pivoting arm (half of which are uncorrectable). And with reasonably well-centred records this force drops right away, while the pivoting arm is still stuck with the same skating forces.
• Calling an air bearing sloppy is a bit ironic: the gap is measured in microns and not only is it stiff, but it is air-cushioned too, so any movement at all, which has never been shown to be problematic, acts like a damped spring, whereas in a pivoting arm bearing, any gap at all, no matter how small, rattles. And that is actually sloppy. An air bearing running properly is not sloppy at all.
• I don’t see the problem in some carts saying not for this type of arm. Many carts are not for many arms. Carts which say ‘suits all arms’ are the most compromised of all on a pivoting arm, especially given the different target H and V compliances that I explained, and which a pivoting arm cannot satisfy, by design.

 

P.S. mono is horizontal and stereo is diagonal.

 

cheers

Grant

Edited May 12, 2021 by Grant Slack

[cafe latte]

4 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Hi Chris, 
 

point-by-point:

• 100g of effective mass is not a problem at all. Even with poorly eccentric records it will only create minuscule lateral forces, a small fraction of skating forces in a pivoting arm (half of which are uncorrectable). And with reasonably well-centred records this force drops right away, while the pivoting arm is still stuck with the full skating forces.
• Calling an air bearing sloppy is a bit ironic: the gap is measured in microns and not only is it stiff, but it is air-cushioned too, so any movement at all, which has never been shown to be problematic, acts like a damped spring, whereas in a pivoting arm bearing, any gap at all, no matter how small, rattles. And that is actually sloppy. An air bearing running properly is not sloppy at all.
• I don’t see the problem in some carts saying not for this type of arm. Many carts are not for many arms. Carts which say ‘suits all arms’ are the most compromised of all on a pivoting arm, especially given the different target H and V compliances that I explained, and which a pivoting arm cannot satisfy, by design.

 

P.S. mono is horizontal and stereo is diagonal.

 

cheers

Grant

Grant,

100g is a problem this is huge for most carts which is why some cart specifically say not to use on linear trackers this weight is not about friction it is about compliance and momentum. This is not correctable.

Yes you are right I was probably over simplifying the stereo signal is at 45 degrees, but basically for stereo you have both vertical and horizontal information, with a big difference between horizontal and vertical compliance this is not good. Compliance is basically suspension stiffness and cantilever length having a huge horizontal and low vertical compliance is not good at all. 

Now re air bearings, they are not rigid like a good pivot bearing so the stylus has wobble from the play in the air bearing, this is not much but it has an effect. 

I went down the air bearing path and even started to build one of my own design but abandoned the idea as they are flawed IMO. I am building a pivot arm as my feeling is the issues are less.

Chris

[VAKMAN]

Vic is now offering an updated wand, dual one to be precise for his previous customers. Have one on order and should be here in a few days.

 

Apparently is a big step up from Andrey's carbon version.

 

Things are never static in the audio world

[kwtools]

Very sorry to read about Oven Y is no longer with us he was an extremely knowledgeable and a nice person. Thoughts go out to the family and will surely miss his contributions.

Thought I’ll share my two cents of exploring the Terminator LT arm. I was a keen reader of Lencoheaven and Decca Club sites. Over the years I have learned very much especially the Terminator LT arm and Decca cartridges.

 I found using the Terminator challenging but extremely rewarding when setting up is overcome. I bought direct from Vic in Jan 2010 with the round wand and later up graded to the Tomahawk which is the flat aluminium wand. It was so encouraging that later made 5 more 20 mm longer wand as CNC machines were easily accessible sadly as I have retired such facilities not available anymore. My Terminator is attach to a Technics SP10 MK2 and I personally CAD designed and made the plinth out of Acrylic specifically for the Terminator with a custom made arm board recessed into the plinth like the original Technics plinth. Took me some time to figure out and try and error in addition with what I learned from Lencoheaven forums to get the Terminator to work as intended. It was quite a great deal learning from the Lencoheaven site how to set up the pump, reserve tank, filters and air pressure gauge that never gave me any trouble since 2010. The pump is about 1.5 meter away from the TT and it’s so quiet that sometimes I had to feel for the air to confirm its working.

I designed and made a special fixture for much convenient setting arm length, balancing and height adjusting which allows me to swap wand (cartridge pre mounted) in less than 5 minutes. All wands are set with same height and same cartridge to pivot distance to facilitate cartridge/arm swapping in less than 5 minutes. Swapping a stereo cartridge (cartridge pre mounted) to mono cartridge and play records in less than 5 minutes... My specially designed and made arm board allows for precise forward, backward and swing of the whole arm to the HFN arm set up template at a breeze. The tangential tracking error is almost zero and I don’t “hear” any distortion comparing with my two other TT.

Most of the time I play this LT set up with a Decca C4E and other times a Garrard 401 with a Decca Super Gold mounted on a modified Hadcock arm or Lenco G88 with a 12 inch 2A Reed mounted with an Ortofon A90 cartridge. Each TT set up playing the same record has its own character and I enjoy playing and comparing constantly. To make all this possible an Aesthetix Rhea phono amp is used capable of 3 TT changing from one TT to another by switching.

[kwtools]

Though I mentioned the three arms has got their own characteristics but in my setup and listening room there is one distinct difference of the three arms the Reed a Gimbal tone arm, the Hadcock a Uni-Pivot and the Terminator a linear tracker of which I found the Terminator produces better sound stage with all the cartridges I owned but I am in no way to say Terminator is the best of my three tone arms. That’s my two cents and I am no expert but just an average person like listening to vinyls.

Cheers, KW.