|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
150.148.14.5
In Reply to: RE: That's just an old wives tale... posted by John Elison on March 27, 2015 at 12:20:11
Thanks for that post. I own a Grace Ruby that was re-tipped by SoundSmith with their OCL stylus (their most expensive option, at $350). (Ruby originally was elliptical.) I have not been happy with the results. When I reported that fact to Peter Ledermann by phone, I was told that azimuth was very critical to the sound quality obtainable with that tip. I was and still am a little incredulous about this explanation. But your distinction between electrical adjustment of azimuth and azimuth as it pertains to the way the stylus sits in the groove is perhaps relevant. What bothers me is that I don't hear the problem as being more in one channel vs the other, as one might expect if azimuth is to blame. The sound is equally distorted and a bit irritating in both channels. And as to "physical" azimuth, I use this cartridge in a Dynavector DV505 with DV headshell that does not permit azimuth adjustment. Thus it also stands to reason that the top of the cartridge body is parallel to the LP surface, which means that unless the new OCL tip is mounted askew, there should be no problem with physical azimuth of the tip.
I should add that after Peter admonished me to check azimuth, he also did kindly invite me to return the Ruby for his inspection. I have not done that yet. I did inspect the tip with a microscope. Apart from a gob of glue under the new tip, which may or may not be normal, I see no problem.
Follow Ups:
perhaps of interest ...
> > What bothers me is that I don't hear the problem as being more in one channel vs the other, as one might expect if azimuth is to blame. < <
The Gyger SGII and OrtofonRep100 are very dependent on azimuth. But they are very aggressive stylus. I use a test record w/mono for setup and record the results to digital for more clinical comparison, when needed.
My stylus is mounted with fine precision, as typical of every top Benz (& Orts) I've owned. So I'm not looking for obvious distortion in any channel. What I do hear is still very telling, in that the soundstage opens up dimensionally. You may also discover greater bandwidth (easier to hear w/a freq.sweep test rec), but to my ears, that's more an SRA issue.
One other thing, and I'm not certain you've heard this before ... but I know with my particular stylus, incorrect azimuth and increased stylus drag are directly related. You can actually see the strobe shift, very slight decrease in speed, but obvious none the same.
> > Thus it also stands to reason that the top of the cartridge body is parallel to the LP surface, which means that unless the new OCL tip is mounted askew, there should be no problem with physical azimuth of the tip. < <
Is it mounted askew?
You need to determine this first, before moving forward. Otherwise ...
Thanks for taking the time to compose that response. I do appreciate it. However, I think your points may be moot. In your first paragraph responding to one of my sentences that you quoted, you are talking about correct "electrical azimuth". My definition of correct electrical azimuth is the condition where you have physically altered azimuth such that any misalignment of the signal generating system with respect to the LP surface/groove (and the visible exterior of the cartridge body) is corrected. In theory, this leads to equal crosstalk or at least lowest practical crosstalk. Very often or at least sometimes, achieving correct electrical azimuth will result in the stylus tip being slightly askew in the way it contacts the groove walls, which might make for incorrect "physical azimuth" for a given cartridge sample.
My understanding of the message I got from Peter Ledermann and others is that the SS OCL stylus needs to have correct physical azimuth. That is, the relationship of the contact points between groove and either side of the stylus needs to be symmetrical. It seems to me that this is not always compatible with correct electrical azimuth. Further, I said that the re-tipped Ruby was riding in a Dynavector DV505 headshell. This headshell fits the tonearm in only one way, such that the bottom surface of the headshell is plane parallel to the LP surface. This won't always give correct electrical azimuth, but it pretty much guarantees that you start out with near correct physical azimuth, unless the stylus/cantilever was cockeyed wrt the cartridge body, from the get-go. That would be an issue with the re-tipping, not that I claim such an issue exists.
I certainly don't disagree that correct electrical azimuth is to be desired, and I did not mean to say that.
> > My definition of correct electrical azimuth is the condition where you have physically altered azimuth such that any misalignment of the signal generating system with respect to the LP surface/groove (and the visible exterior of the cartridge body) is corrected. In theory, this leads to equal crosstalk or at least lowest practical crosstalk. Very often or at least sometimes, achieving correct electrical azimuth will result in the stylus tip being slightly askew in the way it contacts the groove walls, which might make for incorrect "physical azimuth" for a given cartridge sample. < <
Yes, my point exactly (although perhaps not well stated in my earlier post)
Restated: given the degree of cut with any particular stylus shape (some more aggressive than others), if physical azimuth is off, or needs to be physically offset in order to achieve "best-case" electrical azimuth, you're still dealing with a compromise setup. And given that compromise; I'd still opt for physical azimuth, because to my ears, this will have an even greater effect on sound quality.
But my opinion is based ONLY on my experiences with certain stylus types. I've never used this particular stylus.
> > My understanding of the message I got from Peter Ledermann and others is that the SS OCL stylus needs to have correct physical azimuth. That is, the relationship of the contact points between groove and either side of the stylus needs to be symmetrical. It seems to me that this is not always compatible with correct electrical azimuth. < <
It isn't compatible, hence the problem. And perhaps Peter considers this stylus less forgiving of physical azimuth errors/offset?
Lew, another possibility maybe that the stylus is mounted well, but that the the cut of the stylus is askew. Also, the problem you're hearing may be related to another issue. I still think this needs to be determined before you can move forward, no matter which tonearm. If it were me, I'd send it back for examination pronto.
tb1
Dopogue is lives nearby and owns a Grace F9E that he set up in a VPI tonearm on a Lenco. (My possibly defective re-tipped Ruby is riding on a Dynavector in a Lenco, too, as it happens.) Yesterday, I took my stylus assembly over to Dave's house, and we simply swapped my stylus assembly for that of his F9E, without changing anything. Dave had aligned his F9E using a Fozgometer, and the set-up checks out perfect for "electrical azimuth". Dave and I together heard the same qualities of distortion from my Ruby re-tip that I heard in my own system, as compared to the F9E, in this case. Dave could hear the problems even better than I, because he is of course more used to the sound of his own system. He felt as I do that the distortion does not seem to be due to any phenomena that we associate with azimuth error, although I certainly cannot rule out that this is azimuth error of the "physical" type, as we discussed.
Anyway, I have been re-energized to send this back to Peter.
I once had Chris Feickert (aka Dr. Feickert) and his software designer over at my place when they were just rolling out their Adjust + software for cartridge alignment.
I had just (about 2 months before) installed my AT150MLX on my Yamaha GT-2000 using a Clearaudio alignment protractor. They wanted to demo the software for me and see what I thought of it and its user friendliness. So we set about checking all kinds of parameters and, well, there was nothing to improve! I had the alignment absolutely nailed; VTA, overhang, including azimuth, which i had done by setting the cartridge on a thin mirror and magnifying glass without a record. So I had aligned it for the stylus and body (very good alignment of these two by AT). It seems that this resulted also in good electrical alignment. What this tells me is that AT has extremely good build quality so that all these things lined up well.
I haven't had to touch my alignment since...it is bang on and I didn't really need Adjust + ...at least for the AT cartridge...with another more hand made one it might be very useful.
We have a local (v.big city, so take "local" figuratively) store that sells much analog, including Feickert, and his setup software. I went in to demo a particular tonearm. It happened to be setup on a Feickert tt. The demo lasted all of 3 minutes, bc I couldn't judge anything on what I was hearing. I'm not saying it sounded bad, it didn't, but it didn't come close to meeting my expectations.
Was it the arm, the turntable, the room, or the setup, I don't know, but as a demo, it failed to impress me on any level. And considering the reputation for Feickert gear and setup, it was doubly disappointing.
Well, not long ago, I was sent a flac digital copy of a complete Feickert TT. This was a home based setup, by EAR! Still not expecting much, I was instantly surprised, perhaps one of the best rips I've ever heard of this particular recording (although it should be noted that he used a superbly mastered "audiophile" LP). Not only did it display amazing depth, background instruments had much more impact. It sounded NOTHING like the store demo.
So impressed, this demo (like some others before) sent my own turntable back to the workbench for upgrade/re-setup.
Personally, I consider turntable setup a black art. If you simply go by the standard aligned numbers, graphs, fozzers, and rely on only those factors to attaining "superior" sound quality, well, good luck. When I setup my turntable, the real test is ALWAYS ear based. If everything measures perfectly, but it still sounds compromised to my ears ... something still is wrong, something needs to change.
Consider the Alan Wright's "Guru" method, obviously (and purposely) incorrect based on standard(s) alignment methodology. Most people would skwak at such blasphemy, purposely setting something wrong to achieve a preferred sound?
Yet, I know some who swear by this method, and never look back. Personally, I don't use any of the standard alignment methods, having developed a methodology that suites my rig specifically. I tried the Guru method, I certainly didn't hear anything "wrong". In fact, it sounded as good as ever. I even sent out a demo LP-CDR using the Guru method (but w/~half the offset) and had comments come back such as (I paraphrase) "sounds great, you obviously have it aligned perfectly".
Defined set points/numbers, graphs and "standard" practices, still need to impress at the listening stage. Otherwise ...
tb1
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: