Adjusting SRA using macro lens vs microscope

Glai,

You'll certainly see/learn something with the microscope. It should help you find a "close approximate starting point". Don_c55's statement that 80% of all LP's were cut at precisely 92 degrees is not consistent with my experience, but my collection extends from very early LP's from before 1955 to current releases, 4000 LP's on dozens of record labels. If a collection were limited to recent releases I'd agree with him.

Of course within reason it really doesn't much matter where you start. What matters is where you finish. :-)

Suggestions:
First, please start thinking about SRA, not VTA. They are two different things. What you'll be viewing with your microscope is SRA. The changes you'll hear as your listening skills advance will be primarily due to changes in SRA, only secondarily to changes in VTA.

Skipping over the correct SRA setting is very easy because the window is very small. This is especially true with modern line contact or micro-ridge stylus profiles. Until you become practiced it's helpful to hunt in very tiny increments, no more than 5 points on the TriPlanar's 100 point dial for example. Our recorded height settings on about 1000 LP's are to the nearest 1/2 point on that dial (1/200th of a turn). If you crank the dial around in big moves you'll skip right by and not know it, especially if you're not attuned to what to listen for.

P.S. With the TP or any threaded adjuster, don't forget to always approach the desired setting from below, which takes up the backlash in the threads. Otherwise you'll just have chaos.

What to listen for?
Frank Schroeder describes it as "the integration of fundamental and harmonics across the time domain". What????? Actually that's a perfect description. (FWIW, in less resolving setups you'll hear a shift in perceived frequency balance, but that's due to system-induced mud. Your system appears to be more resolving than that.)

Every note from a real, acoustic instrument is composed of a fundamental plus higher order harmonics. If the arm base is too high, you'll hear the higher frequency harmonics BEFORE the fundamental. The ring and hiss off a cymbal begin before the actual tap. (In that less resolving system it'll just sound "bright".) If the arm base is too low, you'll hear the fundamental followed by an unnatural time lag before the harmonics. (In that less resolving system it'll just sound bass-heavy.) When SRA is just right, the tap and the resulting harmonics will be tight and properly integrated in the TIME domain, as Frank said. (I heard all this before I heard Frank offer that description, but I can't think of a better or more succinct one.)

Remember, all this change happens in that very narrow adjustment window, 1/2 a turn of the TP's dial or less. If you're outside the window you may not hear anything at all from a height change. Work patiently.

As to particular records, forget any amplified instruments or anything with added reverb. Both of those totally screw up time domain information. Acoustic instruments, well and naturally recorded, are the best for building listening skills. Notes with clear leading transients are easier than sustained tones (adjusting SRA using a sustained organ or flute note is almost impossible). Vocals are possible to use if they contain lots of voiced fricatives and explosives (S's, T's, D's, K's, hard G's, etc.). No one can set SRA from "la-la-la".

It's pointless being more specific because different ears react differently, though they should lead to the same result.

Example:
I hear SRA changes best in higher pitched instruments with quick transients and a good decay. Plucked string instruments of any type, cymbal taps, etc. My partner hears SRA best in low frequency instruments. Despite this difference in what we're most sensitive to, we invariably agree on the best setting. Not knowing how your ears work (even you don't, yet!) I suggest focusing on different sounds until they "get" it.

Now get to work! :-)

Here we go again. You'd think people who advocate pre-setting SRA to some arbitrary number would explain why we should bother.

Before asking HOW to do something, ask WHY to do it. What is the goal? Does a recommended method meet that goal? In this case the answer is an unequivocal "no". Setting SRA by eye is a waste of time, so asking which tools to use is pointless.

1. The only correct SRA is the one that conforms the playback stylus to the grooves of the LP you're about to play. This is the only SRA that matters.

2. Each LP's groove SRA is different. Everyone knows groove SRA varies with record thickness. What the set-by-eye crowd forgets, if they ever knew it, is that groove SRA varies MUCH MORE by record label, cutting plant and the era in which the LP was made. The SRA of a 180g Decca is nowhere near the SRA of a 180g Mercury, or RCA, or Erato, or...

3. Since each LP's groove SRA is different, any pre-set SRA is arbitrary. It won't bear any relation to the SRA of the next LP we spin.

4. Spending time or money pre-setting some arbitrary number that we have to change anyway is pseudo-science for the naive.

So, make the cartridge roughly level by eyeballing. That's as good as any other arbitrary number, it's where most manufacturers design cartridges to play, it doesn't cost any money and it takes all of 10 seconds. Adjust by ear from there.

Example:

Last Saturday I joined some other audiophiles to play with some gear, including an Ortofon A90. The A90 has the hardest-to-see stylus I've ever met. We wasted an hour trying to set SRA by eye per the manufacturer's inadequate instructions. After giving up in frustration we came to our senses, levelled the damn cartridge and began spinning LP's.

As I do with any good cartridge I adjusted arm height for each LP by ear. Even though I was in a strange system using tonearms I don't own, it took no more than 30 seconds per LP and cost zero playing time, since the tonearms were adjustable on the fly. The A90 is extremely sensitive to SRA, yet I dialed it in easily. Presetting it to ninety-something degrees, even if we'd been able, would not have helped a bit and trying to do it was a waste of time. You'd think I'd have learned by now... ;-)

Agree with Dan. The system had few commonalities with ours, so whatever anomalies Paul and I noticed might have been attributable to many things.

FWIW, the A90 is one of a very few cartridges I've used that has as narrow a range for VTF, SRA and azimuth as a UNIverse. It is very easy to set up sub-optimally. As with a UNIverse, that results in sub-optimal performance and could cause one to mis-judge the A90's capabilities.

We found it easy to hear when SRA or VTF were "off" and easy to decide which way to go. That suggests a nicely linear design. A cartridge that's unclear about which direction is right may end up sonically flawed even when optimized. The A90 was admirably clear.

Apologies to Glai for the thread-jacking.

Lew,

I don't have experience with enough MM's/MI's on rigs with adjustable arm height to generalize. I own one decent MM and tried a friend's MI for a spell, but that's about it.

Your speculation that stiffening of the suspension may explain why some of them prefer a "positive VTA/nose down" attitude makes perfect sense of course. From curiosity, how do these cartridges' sonics change when you play them this way vs. level?

Glai,

Piano's excellent. It's percussive, which gives you a well defined leading edge, but it also has a complex harmonic trail. Choose something dynamic (Beethoven) rather than a soft legato (Debussy). Listen for the relative timing between hammer strike, string fundamental, string harmonics and body reverb. A piano-forte or harpsichord are even better than a modern piano because their sounds are crisper, clearer and tighter.

On Saturday we heard Emanuel Ax from the 5th row of Hartford's fairly intimate Belden Theater. He played Beethoven's 4th concerto and also a Mozart double concerto, with Mrs. Ax on the other piano. She's a technically strong and rhythmically solid pianist. He's... almost indescribably beyond that. His technique and sense of the music's internal rhythms are so solid you don't even hear him being solid. You tend to notice his gloriously complex tone and long, singing lines. Within an infallible rhythm Ax somehow caresses each single note: iron fist within a velvet glove. The audience was properly ravished.

... and of course they both played with perfect SRA. ;-)

***

What's wrong with the HFN record's anti-bias tracks is self-evident if you think about what they actually do. Those tracks bear no relation to the amplitudes and frequency mix of real music. They're not designed to emulate real music. They're designed to present progressively severe tracking challenges that will CAUSE your cartridge to mis-track. This ennables one to adjust A/S to balance lateral groove pressures for the absolute worst-case scenario.

If every record you play is that extreme, then by all means use the HFN tracks. If, OTOH, you play real music then adjusting A/S for the worst case scenario will result in too much A/S for all other records. Adjusting your car's suspension and tire pressures for 180-200mph laps on the track may not give you optimal performance or ride when tootling around town at 35.

It's more accurate and realistic to adjust using real records and it helps train your ears. If some amount of A/S makes your soundstage more organized to the right or, like Peterayer, it helps with body and presence, then by all means use that amount. That's the method I've always recommended based on real music, not intentionally unrealistic test tracks.

@Peter, your A/S description gave me some idea what to expect from your system when we visit. Now I'll have to apply some anti-bias of my own! ;-)

Wntrmute2,

It's not clear who you were referring to when you said people "dismiss" anti-skating, but as one who currently plays without it I thought I'd address your question.

Playing with zero A/S does not necessarily constitute dismissing it. That would be true if one played this way (or recommended that others do so) without actually investigating what level of A/S is optimal. I've never done that, nor do I know anyone who has. What I and others recommend is experimentation: train your ears to recognize what A/S value works best on any given rig.

I analyze and adjust A/S the same way I do VTF or SRA or azimuth - by listening. I tweak VTF and SRA for virtually every LP. With some cartridges I've had to do the same for A/S. With one cartridge I tweaked A/S on an individual LP basis for months and heard the difference that even the tiniest change makes. This is not "dismissing" A/S, it's just the opposite: developing a full understanding of it.

It's true the optimal A/S value for my present cartridge happens to be zero. Further, since the A/S device itself feeds noise into my tonearm I've removed it. But a different cartridge might well need some value greater than zero, in which case I'd reinstall the device. Not dismissing; listening, analyzing and adjusting.

One thing is for sure the setup parameters for vinyl playback are a web sites best friend for posting.

LOL. They should charge us by the word. ;-)

Raul,

Skating forces do indeed exist. I said so myself. But we are not logically compelled to compensate for them. If existing anti-skating devices cause more problems than they solve, we may logically choose not to use them. Better to live with an inaudible problem than create an audible one.

Like Stltrains my ears prefer zero A/S, for reasons I've explained and demonstrated many times. In my system the anti-skating solution is worse than the skating problem. If the opposite is true in some other system, so be it. There are no perfect setups, as you correctly said.