|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
122.59.220.105
In Reply to: RE: Technics SL-1200G vs Continum Caliburn & SAT Arm posted by vinyl survivor on February 01, 2017 at 17:19:14
It's absolute BS...
I'm not sure what he is trying to prove here beyond the law of diminishing returns and cartridge arm/match.
If he is using the same cartridge in both arms then he has the big issue of variability in alignment. Secondly whether he has opted for the standard Technics alignment (which it would appear so given the position of the cartridge in the headshell) and how he achieves that compared to whatever he used for the SAT arm. If he used the L-gauge then he can be anything up to 0.5mm off in overhang and at least 0.5° off in offset not necessarily due to his ability to align in the gauge, but due to arm tolerances.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Follow Ups:
You think Fremer didn't install the cart on the Technics correctly?
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Very possibly.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I seriously doubt that. Fremer is extremely competent regarding cartridge set-up.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
If Fremer mounted the SAT Arm in accordance with its intended alignment geometry, it will produce seriously high inner groove distortion. The SAT tonearm will not perform well on grooves with radii smaller than 73-mm. I've never seen an alignment quite like it. Effective length is 235-mm with a mounting distance of 212.2-mm and offset of 26.1-degrees.
.
I would recommend a more normal alignment with a mounting distance of 217.4-mm and offset of 23.4-degrees. This produces slightly higher levels of tracking error distortion on middle and outer grooves, but it allows good performance on inner grooves from 60-mm to 73-mm. The original alignment is designed for LPs that do not have any inner grooves.
It's not about whether he is "competent" or not. I'm sure he has his routine down pat and can do it in his sleep. The issue is what sort of repeatability he can achieve and what accuracy he can achieve. I don't doubt he can achieve reasonable precision given that we know he uses a USB microscope to measure SRA. I would also be curious whether he has validated and verified the arm positioning and dimensional accuracy himself and whether has used an independent tool to set the alignment on the Technics or whether he is relying on the L-gauge. If he has used the L-gauge then his alignment accuracy is heavily dependent on the accuracy with which both the arm was centred in the plinth and whether he has verified the tonearm dimensions. You may not have done the process study, but I can tell you having disassembled and measured up several of my Technics arms for rewiring purposes that there are variances in the total length and offset angle, which, if not taken into account, make the L-gauge a rather inaccurate tool. There is a big difference between accuracy and precision.
As for his test, it is not clear if he is trying to compare the "package" which includes the manufacturer recommended alignment or whether he is trying to compare the actual "decks" themselves in terms of pitch stability, vibration isolation etc etc. If the latter, then he should have chosen the identical alignment for both decks.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
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: