|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: Anti-skate and heavier tracking force... posted by Mr Blue Sky on August 24, 2016 at 02:03:07
It's the other way around. Skating force is directly proportional to tracking force. Therefore, the only time antiskating would be completely unnecessary is if tracking force were zero. When tracking force is set to 2.5 grams or greater, antiskating must be increased to compensate. Normally, the best thing to do is to follow your tonearm manufacturer's instructions relative to setting antiskating.
Good luck,
John Elison
Follow Ups:
My Empire arm has no anti-skate setting. I'm wondering how much of a problem this is. I'm tracking at 2.6 grams.
no problem at all
I read all of these posts, but has anyone really listened to the same cartridge, set up the same way, with the same record, with the same arm, with and without a/s? ....I have and have always liked the sound with no a/s than with some. No, there is not a huge difference, but one that I, myself value. I have never ( using different cartridges) heard mistraking if the arm was set up properly, with the manufacturer's suggested vtf, and too, I have never experience one side of the stylus wearing prematurely. Everyone decides what is good for them...just enjoy the music.
I wanted to find out if I could hear any difference with and without antiskating when I had my Thorens TD-126 with SME III tonearm. As I'm sure you know, the SME III tonearm uses a weight hanging on a string to apply antiskating force. I put on a pair of Grado headphones and sat in front of my turntable with a record playing. I lifted and released the weight numerous times expecting to hear a difference, but I could detect none. I know that HW claims he is incapable of designing an antiskating mechanism for his JMW tonearms that does not degrade sound quality. Well, I guess SME figured out how to do it because I couldn't detect any difference when applying and removing antiskating force as a record was playing.
Best regards,
John Elison
Which Empire arm do you have? All 3 listed on VE have an antiskate facility, but it is likely that the list is incomplete. The 980 and 990 shown on VE have the standard "weight on a thread" solution.
As John has already pointed out, the physics dictates the requirement for antiskate.
The antiskate force is typically 10% of the downforce. If you choose not to use antiskate (or lack the facility), then as the groove modulation increases in amplitude you will have increasing distortion in the R-ch and correspondingly greater wear on the R-ch scanning surface of the tip i.e uneven wear of the tip.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I own one. The "weight on a thread" thing was added later in the production of these arms.
Anyone looking for a replacement tonearm for the earlier Empire arms, as I was, that will fit into the same holes on the top plate as the original arm (probably not the 598 or 698 turntable models) should check out the Jelco SA-750D. Works like a charm and raises the sonic level of the turntable by a lot. Note that only the "D" model (9" arm) of the Jelco 750 will do this.
I was always amused that the original Empire 98 arm I had with a Stanton 881 cart mounted on it would sail through all four levels of those "torture tracks" on the HiFi News test record. Wouldn't sound all that great but it sure wouldn't mistrack either, and that's without any ante-skate. No other arm I owned would do this.
"Stanton 881 cart mounted on it would sail through all four levels of those "torture tracks" on the HiFi News test record"
Stanton cartridges in the 881/981/CS100 family have excellent tracking ability so I'm not surprised at all!
The effects of skating force on R-ch buzzing with the test tracks would tend to be more obvious when the tracking ability of a cartridge was less capable (or the VTF was set too low) such that the tip was losing contact with the R-ch wall for the given amplitude of the test signal. The 881 should be able to clear 100um at 1.25g which is roughly what the +18dB tone is equivalent to (~107um).
At the recommended VTF of 1g or less, the actual magnitude of skating force to be compensated is comparatively small so you could easily get away without AS if you weren't observing any R-ch buzzing. However, the skating force would still be causing a deflection of the cantilever away from the mean central position.
If you had a lesser cartridge that was struggling to achieve 60um or 70um (+14dB approx. = 68um on the HFNRR test disc) at the same low VTF, you would certainly have been hearing evidence of buzzing in the R-ch due to the lack of AS at > +15dB.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
the cartridge was torturing the LP, not vice-versa.The subject of AS and whether to use it and how much to use has been done to death. I suggest that the OP should search the archives. There are many who swear by using no AS at all. The consensus among the remaining majority, including me, seems to be to use very very little but do use some. On average, I would say that one can use much less than the "recommended" amount. I espouse the notion of starting with the minimal amount possible and then increasing AS until the threshold where one no longer perceives tracking distortion.
I do realize that the OP's problem may be lack of any AS mechanism on the Empire tonearm. Sorry for going off on a tangent. (Lack of tangency being the basic problem.) Good suggestion about the Jelco substitute tonearm.
Edits: 08/24/16
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: