|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.59.217.145
So here's my DL-103R after a couple hundred hours (at least) on my TD-160. I set the anti-skating using a blank band on a test record. You can see the results.Should I just turn off the anti-skating and realign the cart to the cantilever? Or something else? Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks.
Edits: 04/21/15Follow Ups:
I revisited anti-skate, with my first reaction being that something I don't understand, I am not going to bother with.I realized my turntable/tonearm was under-anti-skate forced! I always figured that if I can't hear it, why bother? Well, I can hear it! I think I went from 0.75 to 1.50 gram equivalent, probably tracking at 1.75 grams, though. I am doing it by ear with a Rega turntable. [OK, all the way to 1.75 and still good, although can't tell the difference for that last bit.]
The sound is so much clearer and just locks in. I must say that I've tweaked everything else to my liking and am probably using a Baerwald alignment more or less.
Edits: 04/27/15 04/27/15
Anti-skate is evidently REALLY interesting to so many of us...look at all the posts..not only here, but on other audiophile site. The day is coming when a "Fozgometer" type device will be invented which will provide the exact means for adjusting this.
Hi, SgreenP,
Having a Fozgometer-type device to measure skating forces where the stylus is zeroed out would be SWEET. But I won't hold my breath. :-)
Regards,
Tom
"This amount of drift CAN be caused by anti-skating being set incorrectly. It common with MC designs to take a lateral "set" in the suspension.
The amount of drift you show is not severe; if the cantilever pulls straight when it is on the record, then you are OK."
I guess I'll just align it to the cantilever and call it good. Thanks for all the responses.
Hi, Biff,
I'm assuming that when you align to the cantilever that you're talking about static alignment; that is, the platter is stationary and the cantilever takes a static set when you lower the tonearm. In your case, the cantilever has a set that isn't parallel with the cartridge body. Aligning to the cantilever seems to be the consensus on how to align a cartridge, based on the assumption that the cantilever remains in that position even while playing the record.
But I don't agree with that assumption; instead you should align the cantilever/stylus so it's parallel to the body of the cartridge or to the angle of the cantilever while the record is playing. Dynamic alignment rather than static alignment. (To clarify, I'm NOT advocating that you try to align the cartridge while playing a record. :-) My methodology is perhaps validated by Peter's comment that "...if the cantilever pulls straight when it is on the record, then you are OK."
That has been my observation for certain cartridges that take a (static) set other than parallel with the cartridge body. I observe the dynamic position of the cantilever/stylus and if it's in-line with the cartridge body, that's what I use for alignment. If the cantilever has a slight angle to the cartridge body while playing, you could measure that angle and use it as the reference for alignment. Basically you'd be setting the cantilever at that angle in relation to the alignment grid on the protractor.
Refer to the discussion at the link below...
Regards,
Tom
That's interesting. I'll keep that in mind when I decide to remount this thing. I've always aligned it statically without concern for how it might be deflected while actually in use.
...that Ortofon Jubilee cartridge I had some time ago. It had a rather long (solid boron) cantilever. After a time I learned to look at the alignment of that long cantilever relative to the cartridge body. When my anti-skate wasn't quite right the cantilever would appear off axis in one direction or the other. Then I would adjust anti-skate to compensate. Then, after a time, and if I made a good adjustment, the cantilever would appear to have good alignment relative to the cartridge body.
However I have owned a couple of DL-103R cartridges for the past several years and neither of them has ever shown a tendency toward crooked cantilever alignments. So......I wonder about yours. Perhaps send it to a good cartridge mechanic. Peter or Andy, I'd guess.
-Steve
since they retipped it about a year ago. It didn't look like this prior to the retip, but this seems to have happened gradually.
I mean have you left the stylus in the run out and fell asleep or whataver?
If that is the cause, you might consider a auto-lift device (maybe the Q Up).
Ed
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
You have discovered a new source of perpetual energy.
Just kidding...good luck finding an explanation,
Ed
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
Two of your respondents are right - skating force is the resultant of vector addition of non-aligned forces. Those who state (wrongly) that skating force results from interaction between stylus and grooves should observe the behaviour of a stylus on an ungrooved LP side. They should learn the principles of vector algebra. It might improve their inelegantly-expressed mood.
It is true that the counteracting bias force that one sets (if one chooses to set it) is a compromise. It is correct at only one radius on the disc. I can think of nothing better to do than to set it for the mid-radius of a typical LP.
You wrote, "Two of your respondents are right - skating force is the resultant of vector addition of non-aligned forces. Those who state (wrongly) that skating force results from interaction between stylus and grooves…."
No problem with your first sentence. But I don't know whom you have in mind when you write, "Those who state wrongly", and I think you're missing something. The skating force is an indirect result of the friction between the stylus and vinyl. (Think about it; if there were no friction, there would be no equal and opposite force to create the skating force.) Since we only care about reproducing music, it can further be said accurately that what we care about in calculating the skating force at any moment in time is the friction between the stylus and vinyl plus the groove effect. The need for the stylus to traverse groove modulations at an ever decreasing velocity from outer to inner, regardless of their tortuosity, must have an additive effect on the friction force, and therefore it must affect the skating force on a moment to moment basis. So, in my opinion, if you think that the groove has no additional effect on skating force, you should think some more about it. If you can agree that groove modulations do play a role in determining the magnitude of the skating force, then it stands to reason that setting AS using a groove-less LP will not give you a result that really reflects what is happening when you play music. However, it probable gives a best-case scenario, i.e., the apparent skating force on smooth vinyl is probably at least slightly less than it ever is when playing music.
I find it far simpler to just state that the outer radius of the groove is ALWAYS larger than the inner radius, so the relative speed on the outer groove is larger resulting in more friction (more material exposure per unit time) and so, the stylus gets pushed along towards the center AND starts traveling that way, as well, UNLESS we counteract that force.
The groove is not responsible for skating force. If you put a nail through a wooden dowel, placed it on a flat spinning disc, and loosely held the back end, it would still drift left or right until it aligned itself with the direction of drag. The groove prevents the arm from aligning itself with the drag, so the force remains.The difference in the length of the inner and outer groove is negligibly small, and travel speed doesn't affect the drag anyway.
Edits: 04/22/15 04/22/15
Now I see. It is the DRAG vector causing all the problem! Vectors are useful, afterall ;-)
Skate force is NOT due to the outer groove versus inner groove friction. It is entirely based on geometry from an offset headshell which is required due to overhang. Otherwise the same problem would plague linear tracking tonearms.
As for a unique piloting arm that was designed primarily to avoid skate, I offer the following read:
http://www.stereotimes.com/post/viv-lab-rigid-tonearm/
nt
Thanks for posting the link.
Regards,
Andy
Well, for the skating force to occur it takes both the geometrical deviation (i.e. the groove drag vector not being in-line with the virtual arm axis) and the friction. The latter will be different for "tip of tip on blank disc" compared to "flanks of tip in groove", though - 'cause for the former the normal force equals the actual tracking force (which should be a bit lower than the set tracking force due to vertical skating...), whereas for the latter it'll be 2^0.5 the actual tracking force, so that friction for "tip in groove" should be ca. 41 % higher than friction for "tip on blank" due to the different normal forces.
However, the actual coefficient of friction would seem pretty likely to also differ between blank disc and modulated groove - but the influence of that factor would seem pretty hard to guesstimate (for me, at least), so it would be nice to have something like the Dual Skate-o-meter at hand to get a better idea about that...
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
"Those who state (wrongly) that skating force results from interaction between stylus and grooves should observe the behaviour of a stylus on an ungrooved LP side."
What does this sentence mean? Where do forces on the arm come from if not from the stylus in the groove? A stylus on an ungrooved side is also pulled in toward the label if anti-skate is 0.
I think what they're saying is that the friction of a stylus in a groove is different from the friction of a stylus on a flat grooveless surface. However, it is often close enough that the flat grooveless surface can be used successfully to set antiskating. In my opinion, it is probably just about as good as any other method. I have yet to find a perfect method for setting antiskating.
Best regards,
John Elison
LT arms :)...That is a whole different bean bowl. I think what Logan really means that the Skating force is a multiplier of the drag force and the vector strictly resultant of the geometry of the arm, not a result of some unequal friction caused by grove modulation. Also since the vector will change along the curved path the algebraic change of the vector is very predictable, one could devise some compensation that follows that change exactly. I have not plotted it, but here is what i think; the change to the vector is directly proportional to the tracking error at a specific point, since the drag force is always tangential to the groove. If that is really true the change in the skating force is most likely be within the percentage of change in tracking angle error.Is it really worth getting upset over a couple percent change of a minuscule force?
There is nothing you can do about the change in drag force due to increased modulation, but that has nothing to do with the arm geometry caused vector. Theoretically even drag force can be calculated based on the dynamic compliance of the cartridge and the change in velocity of the modulation. Since it is assumed that a properly tracking stylus never leaves the grove wall, the force of friction is the same as the friction agains an unmodulated grove wall, the additional drag force comes from moving the assembly along the modulation and that is just the force needed to work against the compliance, once you have that force in the direction of the travel of the stylus, then you just have to calculate the vector that falls into the tangential direction of the disk at the point of stylus contact. There you have your drag force based on modulation :). Simple ay?
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Edits: 04/22/15 04/22/15
> Also since the vector will change along the curved path the algebraic change of the vector is very predictable
>
> I have not plotted it
If you have my tonearm alignment spreadsheet, the angle of the vector is described in Column B labeled Groove Tangent . It shows that skating force will decrease as the tonearm moves inward to the middle of the record (89.3-mm groove radius) and then increase slightly as it continues inward to the innermost groove. For a 230-mm effective length tonearm aligned to null-points of 66-mm and 120.9-mm, skating force is 4.3% lower on the innermost groove than on the outermost groove. In the middle of the record, skating force is 11.6% lower than on the outermost groove. The magnitude of skating force follows a path like the blue tracking error line on the graph.
Best regards,
John Elison
.
I don't think they'd leave it like that. I honestly don't remember.
Peter will fix it, he stands by his work.
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
pushing the stylus a fraction of a gram one way or another cannot make it lopsided :). There is a piece of steel spring wire that holds the cantilever in alignment. You would bend the cantilever before you could alter the resting position of the steel wire inside :).
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Since many readers of this forum don't have a formal introduction to the problem of skating force...Imagine a stopped grandfather clock. The pendulum hangs completely vertically. This is our pivoted tonearm. Now, if I attach a string to the bottom of the pendulum and pull straight down, the pendulum will not move because I'm pulling in a direction which is fully supported by the pendulum's mounting. That is, I'm applying a vector cancelled by a vector which passes through that which supports the pendulum.
It's easy to make the jump from here to a linear tracker. The arm is supported at the back. The stylus/record interface pulls the arm straight forward, but it's supported in that direction so there's a balance.
Now, back to our pivoted tonearm. We don't pull straight down on the string because of the overhang/offset angle of the cartridge (which is there to address the bigger problem of tracking angle error). Our stylus/groove interface is like a string being pulled down and to the left (toward 7 o'clock) instead of down**. This vector passes to the right of the pendulum support and is not fully opposed. In this case, the pendulum is obviously going to swing left.
But what if it can't move left? What if we have installed a dowel beside the pendulum so it stays vertical? The pendulum will press on the dowel when we pull the string with our offset angle. This is the force pressing the stylus against the inner groove wall because the arm is not allowed to swing freely.
The way to alleviate the force on the dowel is to install a spring on the right side of the pendulum equal to the force to the left that we will be applying. With the right spring, we can pull the string at a given force at our new angle and still not press on the dowel. The spring can also be a string to a weight hung over a pulley or some other contraption that applies a simple force.
That is what goes on when you use a pivoted tonearm.
**that is, draw a line through the center of the cartridge, and then a line from the cartridge to the arm pivot. You'll see what the new "string" angle is.
Edits: 04/21/15 04/21/15 04/21/15
I agree with what you say on how headshell offset can contribute to the skating force, but the central cause of skating force (at least in my mind) is the fact that all conventional pivoted tonearms posit the the stylus tip should overhang the spindle. I guess this practice was adopted so that it is possible to achieve two points of tangency across the surface of an LP, because you ALSO then introduce headshell offset. However, with no headshell offset, the cantilever can never be tangent to the groove. This is proven by the Pythagorean Theorem, if you think of the tonearm as side "A" of a right angle (90-degree) triangle and the radius of the LP at any point on its surface as side "B". Then, the pivot-to-spindle distance becomes side "C". Pythagorus proved (because there were no sports on TV to otherwise occupy his leisure time) that for such a triangle, C^2 = A^2 + B^2, but for our typical pivoted tonearms, that is never true, since A is always greater than C. This lack of tangency acts much like headshell offset to create the inside force but to my mind it is the central culprit. WITH headshell offset, we DO get two points of tangency, but even at those points, the headshell offset per se acts to create an inside force, as you say, albeit probably one that is smaller in magnitude than at other points on the LP surface.
Yes, offset angle is only an approximation of the drag vector because the cartridge could be mounted at any angle and you could still drop the stylus in the groove (although you may bend your cantilever...)The only thing that matters is the point at which the stylus touches the record. When the record turns, that spot will move (and pull the stylus) in a direction perpendicular to the radius and tangent to the groove. The overhang determines the spot and the tangent line (drag force vector, etc...) will pass to the right side of the arm pivot, pulling the arm to the left. The size of the stylus contact area and the tracking force will affect the amount of drag.
I focused on the offset angle because it's an easy way to visualize the groove's direction of travel.
Edits: 04/22/15 04/22/15
Even if the pivoted tonearm had no headshell offset angle, there would still be skating force, in other words. And IMO the headshell offset angle is added to the mix so as to achieve two points of tangency to the groove across the surface of the LP, when you combine that with overhang.
Pivoted tonearms with underhang (like the crazy RS Labs RS-A1 and that new one with the floating bearing) can achieve only one point of tangency on the playing surface, but at that point, there would be no skating force, because all the friction force vectors line up and point back to the pivot, as in your clock analogy. And there is no use for headshell offset angle on these types.
My only point was that there are two sources of skating force Even if the pivoted tonearm had no headshell offset angle, there would still be skating force, in other words.I'm trying to understand your point on this. Your statement is correct, however. All fixed-point pivoted arms will experience skating force, regardless of design.
And IMO the headshell offset angle is added to the mix so as to achieve two points of tangency to the groove across the surface of the LP, when you combine that with overhang.
Yes, the overhang and offset angle are for reducing tracking angle error. Together they are really just one thing: The mathematically optimal cartridge position for a fixed arm. This position defines the nature of the skating force because it defines the stylus arc and the direction of record drag at every point along it.
I don't see the 2nd source.
Pivoted tonearms with underhang (like the crazy RS Labs RS-A1 and that new one with the floating bearing) can achieve only one point of tangency on the playing surface, but at that point, there would be no skating force, because all the friction force vectors line up and point back to the pivot, as in your clock analogy. And there is no use for headshell offset angle on these types.
But cartridge/groove tangency alone does not cancel skating forces unless the cartridge is mounted in a line with the pivot (as with an LT arm or short scratch arm). So the null points of an offset arm are still experiencing drag that's out of alignment with the pivot.
EDIT: Let me add that I realize skating force is not consistent across a side due to the arc, and maybe that's what you're saying. The 'drag angle' (I'll call it) shifts in the same way the tracking error does so it'll always be a moving target.
Edits: 04/22/15 04/22/15
Bry, I am indeed saying that tonearms like the RS-A1 (and that new one with the floating bearing) that are to be mounted with the stylus under-hanging the spindle (not reaching the spindle) and in which there is zero headshell offset angle will achieve tangency to the groove at one point on the arc of the stylus across the playing surface of the LP. And at that one point of tangency, there will be NO skating force. At that instant in time, the RS-A1 is exactly like a linear tracker. Of course, one instant before and after that magic moment, there is skating force.
Straight arms aligned with underhang have no offset. Skating force is reduced to very small levels, so much so that anti-skate is not needed. At least that is the claim and it makes sense.
With the absence of offset and anti-skating, torsional affects from the arm on the cantilever are greatly eliminated. "They" say, elimination of these torsional affects provides better sound quality than increased alignment error.
neo
BIRD LIVES
I stand by what I wrote above your post. Yes, the designer of the RS-A1 does claim to have done away with the "inside force", but in fact there still would be an inside force or skating force at all points on the arc of the stylus tip where the cantilever is not tangent to the groove. At that one moment in time when tangency is achieved, there is no skating force, I agree. If there is a flaw in my logic, I welcome correction.The RS-A1, in particular, does have itshead shell mounted on a unipivot, which allows free movement in the lateral plane and in theory the headshell itself may choose its own offset as it traverses the groove, thus maintaining tangency at least some of the time, but in actuality the signal wires between the cartridge and the arm body impede free movement around that pivot point. Thus I have doubts that it self-corrects for inside force.
EDIT. Upon further thought I realize I was wrong in this last paragraph. If the headshell does passively pivot to hold tangency, then the fact of its pivoting creates a headshell offset angle and thus generates an inside force. No free lunch.
I own an RS-A1, and it punches way above its weight with an MC (low compliance) cartridge, for sure. I have yet to try it with a high compliance cartridge for fear of damaging the cartridge suspension; there's too many ways to screw up while mounting the cartridge and cue-ing it.
Edits: 04/24/15
> I don't see the 2nd source.
The second source of skating force is dynamic in nature and caused by the the modulation level of the recorded signal. A modulated groove produces more drag on the stylus than an unmodulated groove. Consequently, there is a constant skating force proportional to the sine of the angle of the groove tangent at the stylus and there is additional dynamic skating force applied by the modulation level of the groove. Antiskating mechanisms counteract only the constant aspect of skating force but not the dynamic portion.
Best regards,
John Elison
I left the dynamic part out because my main point was to show how the geometry of the arm makes skating force a fact of life and not so much to determine what that force actually is. But yeah, the cartridge generates electrical energy from mechanical energy and that involves an increased load in the form of drag.
IF so little a/s is needed (less than 1/2 of the indication on the a/s devices....and is not accurate anyway being a variable depending on the loudness of the signal, where the stylus is (beginning, middle, or anywhere in between), etc...then using none is as appropriate as using it at all.
All the skating forces will fall within a range which is greater than 0. Even if you set the anti-skate to only cancel the lowest point of drag on an LP side, you're still better off than having none at all. Finding a value close to the average will be best for your stylus life.
Here is a vector diagram of skating force:
not enough,add more.
E
T
It does, but I find that very puzzling. Groveless records tend to make you set the anti-skate too high. Also, even with no anti-skate force, I would not expect a 103R to deflect like that. A 103D maybe, but not a 103R.Dave
Edits: 04/22/15
What is your opinion of this?
He he certainly is an authority which I have to give deference to. My experience with groveless records giving too high a setting is based on setting the needle down midway and adjusting it until it stays put, so his technique is very different than mine. Because of the different technique, neither his and my experience with groveless records invalidates the other.
With regard to my technique of using mistracking at high grove velocity on a test record to adjust antiskate, I am having trouble understanding what he is saying, since it is offset of the headshell that causes skating, that offset would be constant, but it is intriguing enough that I'd love to discuss it with him. I will be very interested when his test record come out. I will reread it and see if I can figure out what he is saying.
Dave
I use a record with no grooves to adjust the anti-skate. It works fine with my setup. Anti-skate will differ with different arm and cartridge combinations. In my case the anti-skate has to be 3/4 of a gram higher. When set correct the difference is outstanding!
Agreed Dave. I just have to guess there are other factors at stake.
E
T
I think this is part of the price we pay through the trials and tribulations of vinyl to get to the high quality music. Yesterday, out of nowhere my Sumiko MMT tonearm decided to become loose enough from the TD 321 sufficient to be a problem. I spent a part of this afternoon fixing the problem and readjusting the entire deck. A lot of work but the payoff is the real listening this afternoon.
Sim
I'm using the DL-110 for a while.
Use the cantilever as the reference not the cartridge body. But you already knew that :).
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
I just sent Craig at Soundsmith the photo. Curious what he'll have to say about it. I have exactly one day left on the one year warranty. :)
I don't see how turning antiskating off would help in your case. Shall mean: Your cantilever obviously points towards the outside, which would rather mean too little antiskating than too much of it. Hence turning antiskating off would rather be likely to make it worse...Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Edit: Oops, just noticed that Bry has already commented on that above...
Edits: 04/21/15
I know this idea, like everything else in analog, is controversial, but many think that setting AS using a blank LP is "wrong", because the skating force is due to the friction force created when the stylus tip engages the grooves in an LP. But beyond that, my advice would be to use less AS, obviously. Whether you want to use no AS at all is up to you, but for sure there IS a skating force that will be unopposed if you use no AS. There is no perfect setting for AS, because skating force is changing all the time during play, and in a rather unpredictable way (because of groove modulations). As for me, I set AS to the lowest possible amount, and then I forget about it. In my system, total absence of AS results in bad R channel distortion (with one of my tonearms and one of my cartridges, to be exact).EDIT. Everyone else who pointed it out is correct. What you've got there could be the result of too little AS, not too much. All I can say is I considered that possibility then made an error in my analysis.
Edits: 04/21/15
Lew ...regarding the poor performance of that cartridge without a/s. Do you use a MINT protracter so that you can accurately set up the cartridge? Sounds like it's askew
Even the most perfectly aligned pivoted tonearm will generate a skating force, according to all information and even to my own way of thinking. It's the law.
Right Lew....the stylus wants to travel to the label....and that's exactly what it does.
Edits: 04/21/15
The stylus is guided toward the label by the spiral grooves toward the label, but there is an additional force generated in pivoting tonearms that tends to push the stylus preferentially against the inner wall of the groove. Primarily, this skating force represents a fraction of an equal and opposite product of the force of friction between stylus and groove. Its vector is directed toward the spindle, and therefore the inner wall of the groove, because the tonearm, absent headshell offset, can never be tangent to the groove. At least not in the case of almost all the pivoted tonearms we use that employ stylus overhang. (See the Pythagorean Theorem.) The addition of headshell offset (and proper alignment) gets us two points across the playing surface of the LP where the stylus/cantilever can be momentarily tangent to the groove. I could go on, but I have a feeling you know all this and would rather believe in pixie dust. Which is OK with me. No offense intended re pixie dust, was just trying to inject some humor into this dull subject.
Sometimes cartridges just do that. The cantilever or suspension might have shifted during use. There might have been some residual stresses when it was assembled that relaxed. Some glue might have been unevenly applied or something like that.
But, looking at the cantilever, it's skewed to the left. Meaning it's actually skewed to the right once mounted. If it's anti-skate related, then it's due to too _little_ anti-skate (the arm was pulled inward and the cantilever forced to deflect outward). In this case turning off anti-skate won't help.
A much better indicator would be the wear spots, though.
As I posted above, given the compliance (or lack thereof) in the 103R, It would be very unlikely that too little anti-skate could do that. Shifting during use is much more likely. You could check wear to confirm this but I think the wear pattern will tell you it was not anti-skate.
Dave
A little more anti- skating force might center the cantilever in time. If you decide to buy another one, buy the 103; it sounds better than the 103r and I own both.
> If it's anti-skate related, then it's due to too _little_ anti-skate (the arm was pulled inward and the cantilever forced to deflect outward).
Yes! My conclusion as well!
Perhaps the stylus got snagged and was bent outward. Perhaps the situation has nothing to do with antiskating or skating force.
Just a thought!
It just seemed to happen gradually. Or so I thought.
There have been many posts on Anti-Skate. I never use it because my system sounds better without it. Anti-Skate inhibits (dampens) the stylus so it isn't as free to move as needed for best sound.
I'm not sure I believe that. Both skating and anti-skating forces act the same way- they're a force against the arm roughly as though the table was not level. Neither one dampens the stylus or cantilever, but rather they bias it. In fact, the stylus is most free to move when enough anti-skate is applied to null out the forces on the cantilever suspension.
Bry....why are you bogged down in theory? Just listen... With anti-Skate, the sound is restricted, without it it sounds more open.....the same difference I get when I dampen my tonearm. If you don't like it without...just add back the a/s. Everyone does what they want....I write on these pages simply to share what I find in the audio world.
And yet others claim that they tune anti-skate by ear because the sound opens up and becomes less restricted when you have a proper amount of it. I also don't like the idea of one side of my diamond wearing down prematurely.
Although I agree with the idea of tuning by ear, I also think that the best performance should roughly correlate with the optimum setup or there's probably more investigating to do.
Bry....Exactly....listening and choosing the better way is always the right way. That's exactly why anti-skate has no part to play with my tonearm. I tried it both ways, and a/s is gone.
viewed the cart head on during play to see any noticeable cantilever deflection from "centered" then adjusted the AS accordingly. Worked for me for nearly 50 years.
Never held much stock in the blank band method as skating force comes from interaction with the record groove.
Opus 33 1/3
That's normally what I've done in the past. Maybe I'll just turn it off for a while.
I used to be in the non-anti-skate crowd. Then I got the HFNRR test LP, and couldn't play the more severe bias setting cuts without adding some anti-skate. So I added some and it's better now. (It's a Hadcock 242 and Musicmaker btw.)
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
That is what I used and I tried just about everything else. I want to try it with an oscilloscope which may give me even better results, although I also check by ear when I am done.
Dave
Ditto ! Correct ant-skating is as important as correct tracking force !
Bill...that has nothing to do with music. If you like to listen to "test" records, go right ahead.
We will just differ on that. I've found getting an arm to track as well as possible has a lot to do with getting music from LPs, and I've found the bias tracks on that record help get it right.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
i agree 100% with your comment...
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: