|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.36.216
I've been reading a lot about cartridge alignment.
Most of the discussions about the differences between Baerwald/Lofgren A, Lofgren B and Stevenson seem to indicate that all three can be successfully implemented without regard for the tonearm being used.
The tonearms that I own have their vertical bearings "canted" in a way that will maintain azimuth as the tonearm moves in the vertical.
If a cartridge alignment, different than what the tonearm was designed for, is used the cartridge will have to be "twisted" in the head shell. This will cause a shift in the azimuth as the tonearm rides up and down while playing anything other than a perfectly flat record.
Furthermore, every time the tonearm is lower or raised at the back to set/change the SRA, the azimuth will have to be reset.
And further again, if a thin record is played the azimuth will be different than when a thick record is played.
My conclusion is that one needs to know (or figure out) what alignment the tonearm was designed for and stick with that. Always use the alignment that places the cartridge (cantilever) straight in line with the head shell.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
The old Grace G-1040 I mounted on my TNT shares its specs with other Grace arms: 237mm effective length, 15mm overhang, 21deg offset and 222 mounting distance.
I used an arc protractor to align to the original Grace null points - 66.8 and 103mm(!).This results in higher distortion at the start of the record but low distortion from the first null inwards.
Sounds very good with the Ortofon 2M black - actually I'm loving the sound of this combo.
I've got no inclination to try to re-align to Lofgren (I'm sure the thought of this alignment would drive John Elison nuts).
System Info
Edits: 07/09/20
> I've got no inclination to try to re-align to Lofgren (I'm sure the thought of this alignment would drive John Elison nuts).
Wrong! This alignment wouldn't drive me nuts but I believe that the 66-mm/120.9-mm Lofgren "A" null-point alignment is slightly better. It's a matter of opinion, though -- a trade-off, if you will.
The red distortion curve is the important aspect of all alignments. It's weighted in the sense that it means the same regardless of where on the LP it displays distortion. In other words, when the red line indicates 1% distortion on an inner groove, it's the same 1% distortion as on an outer groove. You can see from the blue tracking error curve that it requires more tracking error on an outer groove to produce the same level of distortion that less tracking error produces on an inner groove.
At first glance, it appears that the Grace alignment is the better alignment. However, the Grace alignment produces significantly more distortion on the first 25-mm of outer groove area. Consequently, the first couple of songs on every record you play will have greater distortion than the 66-mm/120.9-mm Lofgren "A" null-point alignment that I prefer. After that, there will be slightly less distortion throughout the remainder of the record.
All alignments are basically a compromise. Consequently, if you can put up with more distortion at the beginning of every record in order to get slightly less distortion on the remainder of the record, then the Grace alignment is a good one for you. On the other hand, the 66-mm/120.9-mm Loefgren "A" null-point alignment limits the maximum distortion on outer grooves to be the same as the maximum distortion on middle grooves and inner grooves. In my opinion, that makes more sense. It's a trade-off, though! YMMV
.
.
The math supports your reasoning.
Perhaps Grace engineers, also being cartridge makers of note, decided to listen to the difference and decided low distortion in the second half of the record trumped low average distortion across the whole record?
In practice it sounds consistently good across the record to me ;-)
System Info
If you're happy with the Grace alignment, that's what matters most. I'm sure it doesn't sound bad at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could actually hear a difference between the Grace alignment and the 66-mm/120.9-mm Lofgren "A" null-point alignment. We're only talking about a few tenths of percent distortion difference here and there. Any alignment that places both null-points fairly equally spaced within the record playing area can't be all that bad. ;-)Happy listening!
John Elison
Edits: 07/09/20
John, I'm actually surprised this arm, which cost me about $150 back in 1982, sounds any good at all.
I've previously used the Lofgren A with all my arms on the TNT - all much more expensive, a couple of Graham arms and the SME-V.I scaled back my analog, sold my Graham Phantom, and put this arm on the TNT just because I still had it on hand.
It's proved to be a really fun setup and I'm preferring the Ortofon 2M Black on the TNT/Grace to the Black on the Technics 1210 GR.
Of course there are many variables at play here and alignment is just one of them.Perhaps i'm just drawing psychological comfort from using the alignment intended for the design ;-)
(BTW, Grace used this alignment for pretty much all their arms, including the popular 707).
Edits: 07/09/20
I find more "proprietary" alignments.
BTW "The funky Grace" sounds like the name of a 60's dance. Oh wait, that was the funky chicken. :-)
Thanks for the input.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Tracking difficulty tends to increase towards the inner grooves so maybe lower tracking error in the second half of the record isn't such a bad idea.
Sounds very good at the start of the record still and the alignment actually has a very consistent sound.
System Info
All alignments with two null-points within the playing area of the record produce three points of maximum distortion. These distortion peaks occur at the outermost groove, in-between the two null-points, and at the innermost groove. The alignment I prefer minimizes and equalizes these three points of maximum distortion. In other words, it prevents there being more distortion on any one of these three peaks. In order to do this, tracking error must always be lower on inner grooves than on outer grooves. For example, the alignment I prefer limits the maximum distortion for the Grace G-1040 tonearm to 0.6% on all of the three peaks. The alignment intended by Grace allows 1% distortion on the outer peak with 0.5% distortion on the inner peak and 0.4% distortion on the peak in-between the null-points.
Whichever alignment you prefer always represents a compromise or a trade-off. However, I think it makes more sense to minimize and equalize the three distortion peaks. YMMV
Best regards,
John Elison
I know Stevenson agrees with you.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
It is not hard to solve the problems relating to azimuth for your choice of tonearm - set the arm height once for a reference record thickness, then shim thinner and thicker records to match the reference thickness.
Secondly, putting aside the issue of tip zenith for a moment, few cartridges have the cantilever/motor lying perfectly on the centreline of the body, so if you align for the cantilever you are always going to have the body appear slightly twisted in the headshell. Then again, for the vast majority of users relying on their eye sight and a 2 point protractor or arc protrator, a small error of cantilever skew within 0.5 degree may be nulled by the inability to set the offset accurately so the correct solution may be hit by chance.
It doesn't matter at all what modulation envelope the arm was originally intended for, any pivoted arm can be optimised for any envelope you choose. Whether the solution is realisable or not based on one's ability to achieve the alignment after all the errors are stacked is another matter.
The remaining problem to solve is the adjustment of the antiskate value relative to the manufacturer calibration of the scale.
I designed a linear offset jig with 4 options including an option suitable for 7" and 10" discs and have no difficulty in optimising all the parameters for my Technics arm.
The short version, is that you aren't restricted to the original intended alignment for a pivoted arm, nor is aligning the body to be parallel to the headshell the correct approach either.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I understand that the cantilever is what needs to be aligned and even that's not always true. Sometimes the stylus is not exactly 90 degrees to the cantilever so it's the diamond that needs to be aligned but that's not the point of my post.
"It doesn't matter at all what modulation envelope the arm was originally intended for, any pivoted arm can be optimised for any envelope you choose."
Yes, I understand that but what happens to the azimuth when the SRA is adjusted? What happens to the azimuth when a warped record is being played?
When the alignment used is the alignment the tonearm was intended for then the cartridge/cantilever/stylus will be in line with the lift direction of the off set vertical bearings and the azimuth will not change as the tonearm raises and falls while playing a warped record or when the user adjusts the SRA to play a thick record or when the user plays a thick record without changing the SRA setting.
When an alignment is used that is different than the one intended for the tonearm the cartridge/cantilever/stylus will not be in line with the head shell, it will not be in line with the lift direction of the off set vertical bearings so the azimuth will change as the tonearm raises or falls for any reason.
John pointed out that the change in azimuth would be very small and that there is no reason to worry about it but I hope you now understand the point of my original post.
It was not about Lofgren A or B or Stevenson. It was about the azimuth changing when the arm goes up or down for any reason because the user is using an alignment that doesn't match what the tonearm (and the vertical bearing off set) was intended to use and that is causing the 'cartridge' to be twisted in the head shell.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I understood your question, but what I was trying to convey was that the error can be nulled during the standard alignment procedure. What hasn't been mentioned explicitly in the discussion so far, but which I consider far more important is that the horizontal bearing for a gimbal must be perfectly normal to the record plane otherwise the azimuth continuously changes across the modulation envelope and the arc described by the stylus is not that of a circle on the record plane - the circular arc described is tilted (analagous to the equator line of the globe) and when you project this on to the record plane, it is no longer perfectly circular in nature which means the effective tracking error does not match that predicted by theory.
Setting the offset angle is the hardest to do accurately because of the small dimensions of cantilever and so the likelihood of deviating from the bearing offset is quite high depending on the tools used. Errors of at least ±0.5° are to be expected and are usually combined with errors in the overhang of ±0.5mm (or worse for some people depending on the tools used). Therefore even if you choose to use the Design Alignment to match the bearings, alignment errors will instantly result in a shift in azimuth. If the arm is adjustable for azimuth, then this error can be nulled (except in the case where the horizontal bearing is not normal to the record plane).
As I have mentioned before, cartridges may "look perfect" to the naked eye, but when measured up carefully have various errors and cantilever skews within 0.5° will not be obvious to the naked eye. Setup errors may neutralise this error by chance, but in general the errors are compounded.
Azimuth is therefore the least reliable parameter to assume perfection without adjustment with the aid of test tones in when evaluating a cartridge and azimuth almost always needs even a tiny adjustment to really optimise the performance.
Some may believe that they have a perfect cartridge and strictly follow the instructions to mount the cartridges perpendicular to the record, but given that most people don't compensate for record height on a record by record basis (not even Fremer does), azimuth errors are a given. Setup errors in alignment will also contribute to azimuth errors of even a perfect cartridge for the reasons given in the previous paragraph.
"Yes, I understand that but what happens to the azimuth when the SRA is adjusted? What happens to the azimuth when a warped record is being played?"
The azimuth will shift very slightly in both cases - the magnitude of the shift depends on the magnitude of the error in the vertical bearing offset and the set offset (relative to the intended offset).
The same applies to a unipivot if the arm height is not correctly set and record thickness is not compensated for.
The effect of record warps are not something that can be eliminated by design (except with the ELP laser turntable!), so unless you have the facility to flatten a disc (eg VinylFlat), you will have to accept the azimuth error and the associated increased in distortion and degradation in imaging.
Just to reiterate, deviation from the vertical bearing offset is a non-issue if the arm is adjustable for azimuth (or you are prepared to shim the sides of a cartridge) and you compensate for record thickness variations precisely unless the horizontal bearing is not normal to the record plane in which case there is only one radius on the record where azimuth will be "correct".
If azimuth is adjustable, then any alignment can be used with any arm (with respect to the reference record thickness), but the best results are obtained if the error from the bearing offset and the set offset are minimised to desensitize the azimuth to the effect of warp related arm deflections.
In short, vinyl playback is all about compromises and true perfection is extremely rare.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
"but the best results are obtained if the error from the bearing offset and the set offset are minimised to desensitize the azimuth to the effect of warp related arm deflections."
That is what I am saying.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Most of the discussions about the differences between Baerwald/Lofgren A, Lofgren B and Stevenson seem to indicate that all three can be successfully implemented without regard for the tonearm being used.
The 800 pound gorilla in the corner makes the huge assumption that the Zenith of the diamond is set exactly 90° to the cantilever. The Namiki spec for Zenith on a stylus assembly is ±5°. The test report I have giving the measurements of 3 samples from a group of 50 samples lists 25', 40' and 50' so all less than 1° but it would be interesting to see what the math says about zenith being off by 1° for the various geometries. (john??)
dave
" it would be interesting to see what the math says about zenith being off by 1° for the various geometries."
Yes it would. And more to my point, it would be interesting to see what the math says about azimuth being off by 1° or the amount caused by a warped record being played with a cartridge "twisted" in the head shell to reach an alignment different than the alignment the arm was designed for.
I think John would be able to math all of this out.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
A white paper from Shure suggests a degradation of 5dB in channel separation with a 1° error. 1° is a very typical tip mounting tolerance angle (for azimuth and rake). 1° is a typical cantilever skew tolerance (as quoted from Audio Technica).
The effect of the error in bearing offset to set offset angle will depend on the amplitude of a record warp and the arm length combined with the error in arm height with respect to a reference record thickness and whether the individual record thickness is compensated for.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
You can easily see the null-point error resulting from an offset error of 1-degree using my tonearm alignment spreadsheet. Simply alter the value in Cell B3 by one-degree. Here's an example:
.
.
Hey John,
I downloaded the version from ETM and cell B3 simply say =o3 and a number of things appear different.
is there a link to your current version?
dave
You have my current version. Just read the instructions underneath the graph and it should become clear how to use the spreadsheet.
The "=O3" in Cell B3 simply means that Cell B3 connected to Cell O3. If you put a number into Cell B3 it will become disconnected from Cell O3. Cells A3, B3 and C3 control the graph. You can put numbers into these three cells and the graph will respond accordingly. Read the instruction!
Good luck,
John Elison
thanks... kinda got it figured. I was confused by the different info in the R3-S3... your plots have distortion and mine have measurments.
Mine has a separate spreadsheet page designed for making a picture to post in the Asylum. All the distortion numbers can be found in Column D. I just wanted three of those numbers included in the picture I made for the Asylum.
Theoretically, you're correct! However, the difference in bearing angle is so minuscule for slight changes in cartridge offset that it really doesn't matter in the practical sense. If you remember, SME used to completely ignore bearing offset angle in their original J-shaped tonearms, yet they were still considered to be excellent tonearms. While I don't necessarily agree with totally ignoring bearing offset, this just goes to show that a very small error in bearing angle will likely have negligible impact. I believe the horizontal alignment scheme is more important than a slight deviation from optimal bearing offset. That's why I select the most desirable null-point alignment without worrying about a minuscule bearing alignment error. YMMV
Best regards,
John Elison
Hi, John,
I wonder if the difference in bearing offset could be measured/observed using an analyzer or perhaps a Fozgometer. Align for the inherent tonearm geometry, e.g., Stevenson's, and then align for Lofgren A and see if the change in distortion is detectable at specific groove radii. My hunch is that the scale on the Foz isn't fine enough to detect such small differences but a good spectrum analyzer might.
Tom
It is measureable and you don't need a Fozgometer - just a test disc and standard audio software like RX or even Audacity (which is free!). You can use Audiotester if you just want a spectrum analzyer function in real time.
The photo is from one of my many ATN440ML samples (mounted on an AT150MLX body) which have various azimuth errors - some better and some worse than what you see in either direction. The tip has been aligned electrically from the test tones according to my method (you can see the tip is perpendicular to the surface) and the channel separation is > 42dB (R-channel) and > 34dB (L-channel). Adjusting for equal channel separation results in far lower figures for separation and far higher distortion related to the tip azimuth error.
I standardised on the Jelco HS25 headshell which has azimuth adjustment so that I can compensate for my alternative alignments.
I can measure the effect of a 0.1° shift in azimuth very accurately via the test tones.
This is why setting horizontal tracking needs to be done AFTER an initial estimate of the tip azimuth. Once the headshell is rotated off a parallel relationship to the records plane you combine the effect of bearing offset error and the effect of the rotation of the cartridge on a tilted plane. Alignment is therefore an iterative process since after resetting azimuth, the offset and overhang shift simultaneously. Once the correction for offset and overhang is made, the azimuth shifts again. It doesn't take me long to zero in on the final solution with my linear offset jig.
Anyway, the long and short of it is that the effect of bearing offset error is a nothing-burger as long as the records are nominally flat and the record thickness is accounted for.
The effect of azimuth shift is why I measure all my records for thickness and shim to a reference value. I came to the conclusion years ago that it can't be the effect of SRA that one is hearing when adjusting arm height by fractions of a mm because the angular change that results is miniscule compared with the overall mounting tolerances for even a long line contact tip. It has to be the azimuth shift causing increased distortion associated with the tip contact area change and the shift in coil relationship to the groove walls.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi, Anthony,
Thanks for the suggestion of using free analyzer software; I wasn't aware it was available. When I asked John E. if I could borrow his copy of SoundForge I was only half serious so I may or may not bother with testing.
Like you, I came to the conclusion that maintaining a consistent tonearm height was an important aspect of good sound from a cartridge so I now use three platter mats of various thicknesses to compensate for record thickness. I discovered that the thinnest LPs I had in my collection were actually great sounding records once they were elevated off the platter to match the same surface height as my "audiophile" 180g LPs.
Regards,
Tom
Good question! I'll let you measure and report back. I have no interest. I haven't even played a record in over a year and I haven't turned on my Technics turntable in three or four years.
Good luck,
John Elison
Can I borrow your spectrum analyzer? :-)
Unfortunately, I don't own a spectrum analyzer. I used to have a computer with Sound Forge software installed and this software had a spectrum analyzer plug-in, but that computer is no longer operational and I was unsuccessful in transferring Sound Forge to any of my newer computers. Consequently, it's been several years since I've been able to do any spectrum analyses.You might try using a Fozgometer to find out whether it's able to detect azimuth changes from a tonearm with a bearing offset error. If you have a Fozgometer, you might try using it to run some tests.
On the other hand, if a Fozgometer cannot detect any azimuth changes, that should be proof that a small bearing offset error is completely irrelevant, which is what I suspect.
Good luck,
John Elison
Edits: 07/08/20 07/08/20
The sensitivity and scale of detection with the Fozgometer is likely not up to the task of measuring such small differences. I may give it a try anyway when I set up a second turntable.
John,
I always learn from your posts even if I don't always understand the technical aspects.
-Wendell
This all came about when friend purchased a "on the fly" SRA adjuster attachment.
Although it might not matter in practice, if the cartridge is twisted in his head shell (caused by his choice of cartridge alignment being different than the one the designers of the arm had in mind) then he is going to have to check azimuth every time he changes SRA.
But, as you point out, maybe there won't be enough change in the azimuth to worry about.
In general, I have a tendency to do things according to theory even if in practice it "shouldn't" make any real difference. With audio circuit design in particular, many times I have found that it does make a audible difference.
It's kind of a "right is right and wrong is wrong" sort of thing. I figure I might as well do it right.
Thanks again John.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
> It's kind of a "right is right and wrong is wrong" sort of thing. I figure I might as well do it right.
I agree with you 100%.
Unfortunately, the problem I'm plagued with on my Technics turntable, for example, is that when I align the cartridge for perfect bearing offset, then I'm stuck with a horrible null-point alignment. On the other hand, if I adjust the cartridge for an optimum null-point alignment, I'm stuck with a possible minuscule bearing offset error. It's a compromise. I believe the null-point alignment is much more important than a possible minuscule bearing offset error. In fact, the only way the bearing offset error can even exist is if the tonearm moves up-and-down, and most of my LPs are perfectly flat. Therefore, most of the time I won't have a bearing offset error at all, but I'll always have an optimum null-point alignment.
To each his own!
Your choice,
John Elison
PS. I simply love my SME Series V tonearm because it's designed for an optimal null-point alignment and therefore always maintains perfect bearing offset, too.
" and most of my LPs are perfectly flat"
I realize that your statement is hyperbolic John, but I would think that NONE of your records are PERFECTLY flat. Most probably aren't even virtually flat. And all of them have off center holes too! It's just the unfortunate reality of our favorite source...highly imperfect.
What amazes me that there are many modern tonearms with no bearing offset. I'm just a dummy but I can figure out why aligning the vertical bearing with headshell important to a good tonearm design.
> What amazes me that there are many modern tonearms with no bearing offset.
Well, that's news to me. Of course, I don't keep up with modern tonearms but I thought just about all of them had offset bearings these days. The main ones I remember with zero offset in the vertical bearing are the original J-shaped SME 3009 and 3012 tonearms. I owned two SME 3009 Series II J-shaped tonearms and they sounded just fine to me. However, SME switched to offset bearings with the SME Series III tonearm in the 1970s. The SME Series IV, V and 300 Series all have offset bearings. They might have gone back to zero offset on some of their newer M2 tonearms, but I would never own one of those and they no longer make them anyway.
I'm just not aware of "many modern tonearms with no bearing offset." Therefore, I'm calling "horse doo doo" on that one. ;-)
Best regards,
John Elison
"I'm just not aware of "many modern tonearms with no bearing offset." Therefore, I'm calling "horse doo doo" on that one. ;-)"A quick scan of tonearm images on Google brought up these examples. If I had more time I'm sure I could find a dozen more.
Edits: 07/09/20
So, why do you think so many tonearm manufacturers are making tonearms without offset bearings?
Do you think anyone buys them? I certainly wouldn't.
Thanks!
John Elison
I have no idea why so many manufactures have incompetent engineers? Maybe it's just a whole bunch cheaper.
I bought one, in 1991. A Kenwood KD-990. It was my first turntable so I was ignorant.
"What amazes me that there are many modern tonearms with no bearing offset."
That is amazing to me as well.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Actually, most or my records are pretty darn flat. They've been tightly stored and as a result they've flattened out over the years. However, it doesn't really matter because I would never sacrifice an optimum null-point alignment to achieve a perfect bearing offset alignment. In my opinion, that would be absolutely stupid. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion.
Good luck,
John Elison
"However, it doesn't really matter because I would never sacrifice an optimum null-point alignment to achieve a perfect bearing offset alignment."
But couldn't you get a tonearm that matches the alignment you want to use and then you would be sacrificing nothing?
Just saying.
I do understand that that is not always practical, like with a semiautomatic TT, etc.
Believe it or not, I do understand your point.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I own a tonearm with bearing offset that matches the cartridge offset angle. It's the SME V. I also own a Technics SL-1200 turntable and it has bearing offset, too. I wouldn't own a tonearm without bearing offset nowadays. In fact, I haven't owned a tonearm without bearing offset for more than 36-years. I had a SME III tonearm with bearing offset before owning my two modern tonearms. The SME III and SME V are both designed for 66-mm/120.9-mm null-point alignments so the cartridge is always mounted parallel with the headshell. In other words, their cartridge offset matches exactly their bearing offset angle.
On the other hand, the cartridge in my Technics SL-1200 is adjusted slightly off parallel with the headshell by a fraction of a degree. Therefore, cartridge offset is probably a fraction of degree different than its bearing offset angle. I don't believe this is significant or even audible.
Prior to 1984 I owned two of the J-shaped SME 3009 tonearms and they sounded just fine to me. Yet, these tonearms had zero bearing offset. That means the vertical bearing was out-of-alignment with the cartridge by 24-degrees. Still, they sounded okay to me. Now, you're concerned about altering the cartridge offset by one-degree in order to achieve an optimum null-point alignment, which introduces a bearing offset error of only one-degree. My position is that if a 24-degree offset error doesn't sound bad then a one-degree offset error won't even be audible. Therefore, I would never jeopardize an optimum null-point alignment for a one-degree bearing offset error.
> But couldn't you get a tonearm that matches the alignment you want to use and then you would be sacrificing nothing?
Yes! I've been playing a turntable with a tonearm that matches the optimum alignment I want to use since 1984, which is 36-years. In other words, for the past 36-years I've had exactly what your talking about.
Best regards,
John Elison
I get what you're saying but I want it all. My friend could just get a good arm (as good as the one he has) already set up for the alignment of his choice. Then he would "have it all" and be able to set SRA at will without worries. See what I mean?
So what is the alignment of your SME type V and my SME type IV?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
> So what is the alignment of your SME type V and my SME type IV?
They're both designed for null-point radii of 66.00-mm and 120.89-mm, which is the alignment I like best.
I empirically discovered that what you say has merit many years ago, and I try to abide by the rule that the long axis of the cartridge body should be set parallel to that of the headshell.
Lew, please tell me about your empirical discovery.
Mine was just a "thought" discovery but I will abide by it.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
This was with a Dynavector DV505 tonearm, which as you know separates the vertical bearing from the horizontal bearing. The DV505 seems to have been designed for Stevenson or something like it. When I aligned a cartridge according to Baerwald, the cartridge had to be twisted inwards with respect to the long axis of the headshell. In that particular set-up and for some reason, I did not like the resulting sound; there was an odd distortion on all LPs. I knew that both the cartridge and that system were capable of better. So, just for the heck of it I re-aligned for Stevenson. This very clearly eliminated the odd distortion I had been hearing. This rises only to the level of anecdotal information, but I reasoned or rationalized that the forces on the cantilever/stylus might become assymetrical when the motion of the headshell in the vertical plane is not in line with the motion of the cantilever, and that the resulting distortion might be more apparent in the DV tonearm than in conventional tonearms that combine both vertical and horizontal motion at one pivot point. I mentioned this once or twice on the Audiogon forum, to no one's excitement. As in most things audio, I cannot be certain that my hypothesis is correct based on such scanty data, so I usually don't make a big deal out of it.
"...I reasoned or rationalized that the forces on the cantilever/stylus might become assymetrical when the motion of the headshell in the vertical plane is not in line with the motion of the cantilever..."
Yup.
Thanks Lew.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
One other reason I don't push my finding is that the "problem" may be worse for the DV tonearms than for any others, just because of separating vertical from horizontal. Each of the bearings in a DV tonearm is limited to one degree of freedom, either in the vertical or in the horizontal. That would exacerbate any issue with force vectors that comes about because of misalignment of the cantilever with the headshell, in the vertical plane. I think.
I totally agree with Story, thus, I use an elliptical tip as it's forgiving of slight inaccuracies, and playing a record I have that's been a bit sibilant in the past is now, no longer on my Rega P6, which has no user adjustments, unless I play with shims but am not gonna at this time.
The record, is Heart's 1985 self titled which had at least 2 big hits, and at least one other minor hit (What About Love) and 2 hits, Never and These Dreams, both were sibilant, but Never especially on my old table, and using the Bearwald protractor for Rega arms has virtually eliminated all that. I got this from VE, making sure the measurements were printed exactly as the file by choosing fit to page option on my printer as it's a PDF file and it was absolutely spot on and did the job exceedingly well I might add.
I think I'll leave it that way and the cart is more or less straight in the fixed headshell to start with.
Tre' - a tonearm that's adjustable is a tool for aligning the cartridge, which has a diamond aligned on the cantilever. Each and every cartridge, even by the same manufacturer, is going to be slightly different.
The complicated diamond profiles are the ones that need precision in setup and playing each and every record. Ellipticals and conicals are more forgiving.
There are people that purchase complicated profiles in systems requiring detailed setups for each record. I'm not one of them as I prefer to just clean and play vinyl without too much fuss. My setup time was spent on the initial mounting and my not using the most complicated profiles.
Unless you write each and every adjustment down and have a tonearm that's adjustable on the fly you might spend a lot of time doing this. There are many factors involved and I have an original Magnepan tonearm which is the most precision tonearm I've ever used as the VTA can be repeatably adjusted to within a MM on the fly but away from the chair.
Somebody out there somewhere probably designed a remote control device and tonearm but was probably shelved because vinyl was "replaced with perfect sound forever". I will be dead when that happens.
*Meters!
I don't do anything from LP to LP except clean the stylus.
I set VTA--using a thin mat under the wool mat--to where it sounds best on the typical 120-150 gram pressing.
Align to Stevenson (after trying Baerwald). Set VTF.
That's it.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Later Gator,
Dave
nt
Later Gator,
Dave
I'm old enough to remember Stevenson as UN ambassador.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
about 7 months old in 1965 when he had his heart attack and died in London. :-(
Thus I knew of who he was from the history books growing up.
I remind him/her that the Cuban Missile Crisis happened when I was 7 years old.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Life was far better in 1957. Streets were safe. We could walk anywhere without fear. Parents were respected. Ditto teachers, firefighters and police. I'd take life in those times without hesitation, compared to the crap we face now. Soapbox closed.
Opus 33 1/3
nt
You could walk all over Pittsburgh, nobody's going to bother you.
Safer now than 30 years ago.
IMO, there never was a better, simpler time. Just seemed that way because we were kids.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Today it with semi automatic weapons. Murders in smaller town were unheard off. Not today. Sex trafficking back then? Nope. No one would even think of remaining seated while the National Anthem played, I could go on and on but it's too damned depressing to think about.
Opus 33 1/3
violent crime peaked around 1994. It's lower now than at any time since 1960.
Everybody stood during the national anthem, but sex-trafficking is as old as mankind. So is pedophilia. It was around in 1957, but there was no mass media. People used coded language when they discussed it and it usually went unpunished.
When I got my drivers license in 1972, nearly 70K people were killed in traffic accidents. Today, it's about half that number despite a much larger population, more vehicles on the road, and many millions more miles driven.
There are things we could be doing better, but we're doing a lot of things a lot better than we did 50 years ago.
That's coming from a pessimist. IMO, there's nothing more depressing than optimism.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
In the 1950s, one never heard of mass shootings like Columbine, or any of the church/synagogue shootings. Just didn't happen back then. In fact much of the gun violence we see today never happened back then. Today we see the near total breakdown of the family unit. Parents are afraid to discipline their children And we wonder why there is a generation of illiterate snowflakes.Being of a conservative (actually Libertarian) bent, I would not even think of attending college today, yet in 1964 I didn't hesitate to leave home for college.
You can think today is better than yesterday, just don't try to convince me.
Opus 33 1/3
Edits: 07/09/20
There were mass shootings in the 1950s. Not nearly as many but it still happened.
On the other hand, my grandparents died from diseases easily treatable today. They were younger than I am now. My dad's parents died before I was born, my maternal grandparents died in 1957 and 1958. They never got to know us, we never got to know them.
As I said, there are a lot of things we could and should be doing better, but we're also doing much better in a many ways than we did way back when.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Later Gator,
Dave
Well, I can say the Vietnam war was a raging until I was in grade school when it finally ended in 1975. Plus there was Watergate, and then the fiasco of Jimmy Carter, all while a kid in the 70's. :-)
My dad always had inside info, which stations were going to get gas. He and I would sit in line for a hour waiting for the place to open. Getting a tank of gas was pure triumph.
When the steel industry pulled out of the Mon Valley in the early 1980's it was like the end of the world.
Things are a hell of a lot better now.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Don't recall much the '73 Opec crises, but do recall, somewhat the '79 version as by then, I was in 8th grade/9th grade when it happened.
Most states went to odd-even rationing--the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania even sold T-shirts with a representation of a PA license plate that read "I'm Odd," or "I'm Even"--and that solved the issue with long lines.
We got stuck with the double-nickel after the '73 shock. President Nixon ordered gasoline stations to close at night and on weekends.
You wanted to take a trip to see the relatives on Saturday, you better tank up on Friday.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Just a thought: I love music as much as the next guy but if you have to mess with a technology each time to get the most out of it it doesn't seem worth it. I think life has enough variables to navigate to add to them with your stereo.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: