Anti skate. I think something's wrong

Dear Stringreen,

Sorry for misunderstanding you earlier although I did realise that you were also referring to the "source" of the applied A/S force as per Doug Deacon’s frequent eloquence on the subject.

DougDeacon, the principal advocate of the “no-antiskate philosophy” doesn’t appear to be here to speak for himself but what you refer to is the “benefit” of removing an undesirably influential force (i.e. A/S) applied at the “wrong” end of the tonearm such that the cartridge’s suspension is unnecessarily stressed or tensioned by it, and that removal of this force is preferable to the disadvantage of not having skating compensation at all.

This type of “sacrificial” purist approach to LP replay is not new and we see many examples of it in turntable design e.g. designers such as Willie Bauer eschewing more expensive Rega tonearm’s in favour of the cheaper RB250 because it didn’t contain spring-based mechanisms for A/S etc on the grounds that he could hear the negative influence of the springs in dynamically balanced arms. Another example is the adoption of the 3-point fixing by some companies (e.g. Naim) which disregards the “necessity” of alignment flexibility & accuracy in favour of secure fixing on an appropriately equipped tonearm.

Unfortunately, I see this "zero-antiskate" approach as flawed because anti-skate is not the only way that a cartridge’s suspension can be stressed…

One example is that if an LP is drilled off centre (nearly all LPs are), the cart will be forced to ride from side-to-side instead of simply tracing the normal “regular” path of the groove. I would imagine that this sets up forces in the groove which are just as troublesome, in absolute terms, as anti-skate.

It is important to note that cartridges are actually designed to handle these forces.

Under these conditions, if one could “zoom” down to microscopic level and ask the cartridge how it is faring it would probably tell you that there’s not much difference between this and skating force, that it’s "all in a day’s work" for your average phono cartridge.

Second-guessing what DD might say, he would probably argue that LP mis-drilling “forces” are oriented at the “correct” (stylus) end of the tonearm and that the cantilever would be intrinsically less stressed than by A/S.

Not sure I’d agree with that one either because it doesn’t consider inertia. If anything I’d say it’s worse because it is causing periodic de-stabilisation but that’s the reason cartridges have suspensions.

However, variety is the spice of life and if you are happy working without anti-skate then that’s all that matters. It’s an individual choice and we’re not here to press-gang you into accepting conventional methods.

Happy listening ;^)

I think it depends on the rig that you are using.

A very tolerant cartridge (one renowned for excellent tracking) will make it harder for us to judge an optimal A/S setting (apart from clear visual indications that we’ve gone way over the top with A/S).

Personally I would never use a cart without A/S because it will cause asymmetric wear on the stylus which, eventually, will become a far bigger problem for your records (and listening pleasure) than any cartridge mechanical issue.

If you are comfortable with these caveats then it becomes a matter of individual choice.

Regarding Balance there are many possibilities. For example -

- The cartridge can be naturally unbalanced. (Not severely, one would hope)

- The electronics can be unbalanced.

- The room can be unbalanced.

- Your ears can be unbalanced.

Always check the last one first ;^)

All the best,

Stringreen said :-

"These pages exist for those who seek points of view that may require a more open mind with removal from the rear end. "

This is a tough case to answer, SG.

I’m sure that some on the Forum would benefit from “removal from the rear end” but it’s not going to happen anytime soon for purely practical reasons.

I’m assuming of course that you refer to the complete removal of the unfortunately named A/S mechanism from the rear end of the tone arm to eliminate another external influence on the tonearm & cartridge?

It should be noted many people do the opposite and deliberately attach materials & objects to their tonearms to “reduce” the resonant behaviour of the arm i.e. dampers.

In some tonearms, the A/S mechanism is secure and does not “rattle” in the way that pulleys and threaded weights might so any benefit that might be obtained from disassembling the A/S itself would be of limited value. I speak as someone who, in a previous life, was quite anal about removing energy drains and sources of extraneous resonance.

HW is also an advocate of twisting tonearm wires to effect A/S. These will also exert an influence from the pivot rather than locally at the cartridge(?) thus giving you back, to some degree at least, the very same problem that Doug Deacon has crusaded against.

Have you checked that you’ve truly “zeroed-out” the effect of the tonearm cable on your rig?

A final point about "no wear being exhibited after years of use". As you know this subject has been formally studied and many cartridges tested to destruction. The one thing they were absolutely certain of is that asymmetric wear on the diamond is a guaranteed direct consequence of either too much or too little anti-skate.

You cannot change the Laws of Physics but you can have a good time trying ;^)

BlueRanger,

We appear to have hijacked your thread with theorisations about antiskate (myself also guilty as charged). Getting back on topic I think you may be on the right track by checking levels.

Suggest checking :

1. The platter using 2 small opposing spirit levels in 2 axes.

2. The armboard (over its whole surface and in more than one axis). If the armboard is cantilevered/assembled there may be interference between armboard and chassis or the armboard itself may be distorted depending on what material has been used.

3. If possible, the headshell or tonearm level.

The idea is that 1-3 should be always be “square” with each other in all axes.

If you can check the chassis itself that might be useful in case the main bearing/chassis itself was distorted or misaligned.

I’ve heard of turntables being shipped with heavy platter semi-assembled but decoupled suffering a warped main bearing in transit. Choice of materials could even lead to the chassis itself being warped. Either way a chassis error would undoubtedly reveal itself eventually.

 For the purpose I can recommend these :

 http://www.russandrews.com/bubble-level-twin-pack-50219990000/

 Let us know how you get on.

All the best,

Cleeds said :

"There are those that want to make LP playback a mystical, ethereal pursuit. But it’s really fairly basic physics and geometry."

That is until you use your ears and find that the "basic physics & geometry" didn’t go according to plan....or until your eyeballs can’t see that graticule quite as clearly as they used to. (...or until you’ve done your 20th cartridge in one day as Raul has probably done). Then it becomes a "nightmare". ;^)

I’m also one of those old fashioned guys who doesn’t like to stress gimballed bearings so whenever I do something as simple as tightening cart screws after a cartridge reposition I’ll strip the entire tonearm off the turntable.

Raul undoubtedly uses the term nightmare rather than PITA but I know exactly what he means... ;^)

Lighten up Cleeds....I was giving Raul the benefit of the doubt....  ;^)

Detachable headshells and interchangeable armwands....it could be done ....  ;^)

Dear Fleib,

Regarding your comment on channel imbalance, do you have a flame-proof suit? ;^)

DougDeacon wrote :

"In a discussion of A/S settings, the forces generated by eccentrically drilled LPs are merely a non-sequitar, since no A/S device compensates for them. ;-)  "

Hardly non-sequitur, Doug! The context is that anti-skating force causes "audible stress" on the suspension.

Lateral movement due to mis-drilling also causes suspension stress (continuous but alternating) whether it is possible to compensate or not?

As you know, even well-optimised A/S doesn't truly "compensate" for all operational conditions because skating is a constantly moving target.

Dear Fleib,

No worries.

Yes, it’s interesting to get a general overview of how successful folk are at keeping VTF within reasonable limits. Most people tend to live at the top end of the spectrum. Sometimes this is because others recommend it or perhaps because they’ve used Test Tones resulting in a "maxxing out" of A/S.

Indeed there is a minority "Cult of Excessive VTF" (i.e. beyond the manufacturers recommendation or max limit) which is not always discouraged by manufacturers on the grounds that the customer is always right (Why argue? Whatever makes them happy!) ;^)

Now, I’m not saying that any of our illustrious "zero A/S" contributors here are getting anywhere near that level of VTF in their quest for zero anti-skate just that there are others out there compensating for different reasons.

For the benefit of those who may be misled into maxxing out on VTF (or over-Maxxing) we should publish the standard warning that VTF increases skating force and thereby unilateral wear on the diamond. There is a price to pay...

Don’t know if you’ve tried the following experiment? Several years ago I performed multiple needledrops of one side of an LP, bracketing the optimum A/S setting ranging from “A/S max” to a setting below the optimum. Then I was able to rapidly switch between them on an HDD running them effectively in parallel with each other.

(This of course assumed that VTF should be identically/ideally "mid-range" for all needledrops.)

As you quite rightly say, changes in general balance between each setting are clearly audible (whether there is an actual voltage amplitude difference is contentious for some). Subtle though the differences are when AB-ing, what was interesting about this was that listeners didn’t hugely dislike any of the settings but would eventually arrive at a preference with some difficulty.

On the other hand, doing a similar experiment "the hard way" by adjusting the T/T then using a fading musical memory of the programme material to compare will of course still work, albeit less successfully because few people want to wear out the same snapshot over & over again on an LP, so for the purposes of comparison it’s undeniably easier & quicker to switch between samples and instantly replay on an HDD.

One of the rare advantages of digital technology...it’s consistent. ;^)

Dear Etone,

"Ortofon jubilee set at 2.2 grams if I raise a/s higher than 2 won't track in silent part of test record..."

I'm slightly puzzled by this comment.  Is this test not intended to highlight bearing noise/rumble rather than mistracking?

Can you explain?