Just put the stylus in runout groove at end of record. Watch how the cartridge and stylus moves toward the spindle, it should be move smooth and steady toward spindle. Watch and see if it moves too slowly or too quickly. Too quickly, too much anti skate, too slowly, not enough. Strive for the middle ground. There exists a video on this i believe from soundsmith. As for the comment of it sounds best with no anti skate, good luck with that, as you will soon wear out your left groove wall.
Anti skate. I think something's wrong
I have an Acoustic Signiture TT with a Graham 2.2 tonearm and Ortofon Cadenza Bronze cartridge. My anti skate is set close to tracking weight and it would always dig to in inside when I would start a record. I read this is wrong so I got my Cardas test record out and placed it in smooth section and it imediately gravitated to inside. I adjusted anti skate to where cartridge slighty pulls to inside . Here is the problem. To get this I'm having to adjust anti skate to the max. I rechecked TT and it is right on level wise. I have less sibilence now and swear the two channels are more even. The right channel has always been just slightly lower than left in volume. The only qualm I have is the max antiskate I have to use. Is bearing bad? I have the blue fluid. Or I shouldn't worry and enjoy the music. Mike
72 responses Add your response
Truman, might I suggest you add one thing to your method. When you get that centered image, try to incrementally change anti-skate more and less, until you decide what you like the best. Sleep on your results, and look to see what setting gets you more excited about listening to your records. I think I found the correct setting was incrementally less than where the image seemed to lock in. This method is actually more scientific than you might think, because it takes into account things we can't/don't measure. There can be many things(electronics, speakers, etc.) that are imperfect in their balance, etc. |
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. ;^) |
Sorry, my last sentence should have read: Moonglum, No antiskate is a viable option provided VTF is great enough to prevent mistracking. This is not always an option, especially for high cu carts and low VTF. Look at the physics from a mechanical perspective. You're messing with the pressure on the groove walls by the cantilever/stylus. I don't know how anyone could miss channel imbalance with a high cu cart. Regards, |
To describe skating force as constantly changing and therefore any setting will be imperfect, is accurate but deceptive. It is accurate that skating varies with groove velocity and offset angle, but deceptive to apply the word perfect to the physical playing of a phonograph record. I don't adjust AS by seeing how the stylus behaves in a blank groove. That seems pretty stupid. If you observe the cantilever from the front while your "typical" music is playing, and repeat this observation, you might get an idea of the error your headshell position is to the centering of the cartridge. In a perfect world your cantilever should be centered over the groove. Antiskate is a force applied to the arm in an attempt to do just that. What is groove velocity? The velocity of stylus deflections (bouncing off side walls) in-groove. Since the groove is constantly moving it's the job of the arm to be both a stable platform for the cart and a perfect follower of the groove as it moves toward the spindle. Why the uneven tip wear if such is the case? Having a poorly centered cart is to encourage channel imbalance - uneven cantilever deflections with respect to L and R. If someone hasn't heard channel imbalance due to AS, then they've been using heavy trackers or lack powers of observation. This is obvious with low VTF carts where channel imbalance is more dramatic and immediate. I think you'll find, there is no completely right answer. With lower cu carts you're choosing between physical centering and increased torsional affects on the cantilever from AS. fleib |
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. |
moonglum wrote: 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.Oops, wrong guess! 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. ;-) If eccentrically drilled LPs are bothersome, get a TT with an adjustable spindle or ream out the hole and center the LP before play. Problem solved. *** For the record, I never "advocated" for zero A/S. While zero A/S sounds best in my system, I’ve heard other systems where *some* A/S sounded best... Dan_Ed’s for example. FYI, Dan agreed with my take in both cases. Neither of us advocated for anything but making an informed decision. In using zero A/S I acknowledge the probability of uneven stylus and/or groovewall wear. These effects must result from skating forces if left uncompensated for over time, as PL amply documented. For me, A/S decreases my enjoyment of music sufficiently that I’m willing to accept those risks. I’m gambling that I’ll be deaf or dead before I hear much deterioration from them. In the meantime, I maximize musical enjoyment today. This pleasant if short-sighted calculus might differ if I were in my twenties. Regrettably, I’m not. As skating forces are constantly changing, there is no perfect A/S setting and never will be. The optimal setting is therefore an individual matter. So long as the decision is made with understanding and well tuned ears, it will be a good (though imperfect) one. The OCD-prone may find this profoundly unsatisfying, but this particular parameter is not susceptible of perfection. *** To the OP:
|
Few tonearms have accurate anti-skate markings. Add in the difference between stylus shapes and you have what I persona;; have only seen Grace address. Their instructions, at least for my friend's 707, says to look at the stylus when you start the platter, note which way the cantilever flexes, and adjust accordingly. |
I believe I can help cut through this anti-skating complexity by just applying our audiophile mantra "just listen". Re-reading the Soundsmith set-up instructions, I was pleased to see confirmation of my suspicion that more anti-skating means more pressure on the right channel (outer groove)! So, first, start with a properly set up system, i.e. soundstage with a perfectly centered "center image" using a cd player and several different recordings (no doubt you've already done this). Then, play one of your favorite records that has a center image - middle of the record. Adjust A/S until the center image is perfectly centered, more A/S to adjust the center image to the right & less to adjust it to the left. I'm thinking this is equal pressure/wear on the stylus and on the records, adjusts your soundstage to be the same as your CD's, and even takes into account Soundsmith's variable of type/loudness of music because as your favorite, that's the type you will be listening to most. -You'll hear the difference and know that it's right. |
Cleeds said :
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... ;^) |
rauliruegas "... The analog experience is a nightmare. " I think that's a myth. Yes, proper setup can be a tedious process. You need the right tools, and everything has to be precise. Yes, it's typically expensive to do it well. But it's a mature technology, so pretty much everything that's a factor in LP playback - I assume that's what you mean when you refer to "analog" - is a known entity. Excellent playback gear, from cartridge to phono preamp to cables, is readily obtainable ... for a price. That it is complex and easy to get wrong shouldn't make it a nightmare for anyone with experience. There are those that want to make LP playback a mystical, ethereal pursuit. But it's really fairly basic physics and geometry. |
No anti skate, and no arm to junction box cable twist, on my VPI arm. I do use a VTF about 0.1 gm above recommended optimum. Remember anti skate is never completely correct across the LP. Also the stylus vibrates in three dimensions during play, making tracking error less important than many claim. I hear no inner groove distortion on any of my 2000 Lp’s. |
Dear Stringreen: "
The object of all of this is to get sound that is closest to a live performance.... " well my target is to stay closer to the recording. Anyway, what need we to stay closer to the recording?: a nearest " perfect " cartridge ridding/tracking to the LP recorded grooves. At least is the primary characteristic to achieve that goal. The cartridge stylus/cantilever/suspension has a very hard days trying to track the LP grooves because the existence of so many forces that has influence during the tracking job all over the LP recorded surface. The ridding of the cartridge stylus goes from one side to the other and running at the same time up and down even if the LP is flat. Additional to that the excentricity of the LPs introduce additional movements/forces to the free cartridge tracking as the LP waves too. Before the skating force the cartridge is against many other micro vibrations generated by the action between the cartridge/tonearm and from the TT too and all the feedback of those generated diferent kind of vibrations with diferent kind of amplitude. Now, on all those overall " forces/vibrations sea " lives the skating force with an additional influence that we can't just disappeared in some ways, perhaps we can set up at minimum for almost no influence but we can't be sure we can do it and with so many variables surrounded the skating force is really dificult to aisle its critical influence in the performance quality sound level. Yes, you said: I like it what I listen more with out a/s and I'm with you on this subject or at least I was w test with the Telarc 1812 recording where I found out that some cartridges tracked in better way with a/s that with out it. Because I want to be nearer to the recording I prefer to use a " minute " kind of a/s till I found out a way that improve the cartridge tracking with out the a/s. That more open sound with out a/s that you mentioned was my experience too and now I think that that " better " sound quality could be a form of some added distortion. My test was performed using the vintage Lustre GST 801 tonearm that has a magnetic ( not mechanical. ) a/s mechanism and I think the EPA 100 too. In a few days to come I will try to do it again with other today tonearms and se what happen. The analog experience is a nightmare. Everytime we change the VTF in theory we have to change the a/s too and other related parameters. Regrads and enjoy the music, R. |
mmakshak, In your post of 4-15, I am not sure what you are referring to. I took no issue with anything PL said about stylus wear. I only noted that his brief reference to headshell offset angle as being THE cause of skating force is not quite accurate. Otherwise, I would never dare to doubt anything he says about cartridges, especially one he personally has examined with his own eyes. By the way, it's Lew M (or Lewm), not Lew N. You're not the only one who misreads the "M". Thanks. |
I am curious about a long length, underhung tonearm. None seem to exist, yet it would appear to be an interesting option, curing one of the problems with the available underhung tonearms (they tend to be short in length which increases the tracking angle error on both sides of the single null point) and at the same time avoiding the necessity for headshell offset. Something like 12 inches with no headshell offset angle. Seems to me that Nottingham made a 12-inch tonearm with no headshell offset, but it was not "meant" for under hanging. One could try that though. Probably there is nothing like that on the market, because of the fact that it would require quite a lot of real estate back at the pivot point. It might require a custom-made plinth/arm board. |
I think all this discussion of anti-skate is interesting. My object for deciding to us a/s or not is that when listening to a record, there is an ease in the sound that changes to something else when I apply a/s. The object of all of this is to get sound that is closest to a live performance (I know that I can get it close but somehow..) Anyway...s/f is applied to counteract the inward moving force of the arm. What we forget is that the arm is succumbing to that force by moving in that direction anyway. I am a musician, not a physicist, but the thing simply sounds better on MY system with any cartridge I have installed with no a/s. If that damages my stylus so be it....I don't have a balloon raise my car off the ground to safeguard my tires...just the cost of doing business. |
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 :
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, |
Lewn, while theory is a good place to start experiments, you still have to try it out in real life. While it's possible that Peter Lederman was predisposed to look for that asymmetrical stylus wear to prove what he believed, it's also possible(and maybe more probable) that that's what he actually found. |
I suspect that there is always a tiny amount of tracking error and a tiny amount of skating force and that both are so small in magnitude and so relatively constant across the LP surface that these two qualities (small and constant, compared to a pivoted tonearm) account for why we hear linear trackers as sounding different from pivoted tonearms, although not perfect. |
Flieb, Thanks for saying exactly the same thing that I said in fewer words and without the physics lesson. If my point(s) were moot, your points are moot-er. I realize that an experienced person such as yourself would have the facts well in hand. My post of 4-13 was aimed only at those who might not. The RS-A1, and any other tonearm designed for "underhang" and lacking any headshell offset, WILL achieve zero skating force at the one (not two) points across the LP surface where it also achieves tangency. (Because the stylus underhangs the pivot, there can only be one point on the arc where tangency to the groove is achieved. However, at that one point, there is no headshell offset to generate skating force.) I know you know this, Fleib. Why is there no skating force on a linear tracker? The whole idea, as you know, is that there is ALWAYS tangency to the groove, and there is never headshell offset angle. Thus, no skating force. However, in practice, if there is even a minute error in set-up; if the stylus is not exactly on the imaginary line that describes the radius of the LP, then there will always be that tiny amount of skating force. Also, if there is any play in the bearing such that the stylus can describe even microscopic arcs as it travels across the LP, this too will generate a small skating force. The Rabco/Goldmund linear tracker actually depended on its loose bearing to periodically activate a servo motor that dragged the assembly across the LP. That was not a good design, IMO. I know you know this, Fleib. |
Lewm, Your point is moot. Obviously skating is caused by friction, but why is there skating on a pivoted arm and not on linear? Skating is caused by both lack of tangency and offset angle, and is still present at null points due to offset. Why does a pivoting arm with no offset (RS Labs) still have some skating? Lack of tangency. Regards, |
Peter Lederman probably has forgotten more about vinyl set-up than I will ever know, but I do have to disagree with him on one small point; the genesis of the skating force begins with the fact that 95% of tonearms are mounted so as to have the stylus overhang the spindle (by, typically ~15mm). This is done to obtain two points on the surface of the LP where the tracking error can be null, but the trade-off is that (without also introducing headshell offset angle) the cantilever can never be parallel to the groove. This is proven by the Pythagorean theorem, where the tonearm is side A of a right angle triangle, the radius of the LP from stylus to spindle is side B, and the P2S distance is side C. Because you start out with a situation where A>C, due to overhang, then the Pythagorean theorem that governs the size relationships of a right-angle triangle can never be met (C-squared = A-squared + B-squared). Headshell offset angle, in conjunction with overhang, allows for two points on the LP surface where the cantilever IS parallel to the groove, but some skating force is present even then, because of headshell offset angle. Those two null points for tracking error are the only points where ALL the skating force is due to headshell offset angle. Otherwise, it's both overhang and headshell offset that cause skating. |
It's been awhile since I adjusted AS, but maybe(and this is done with a gimbaled tonearm) my final result, which was just less than where the sound becomes locked in(in a way-maybe where everything, like channel balance, seems to be correct), has to do a little bit with the "opening of sound" he talks about. i do remember sleeping on what appeared to be the correct setting(based on channel balance, etc.) and was less enthused about listening to music. When I put it back(remember these changes to AS were almost imperceptible movements), the magic came back. |
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 ;^) |
fleib is right on about anti-skating! Soundsmith has the same conclusion! Any tone arm with a headshell that is angled to provide best overhang performance (zenith) creates a substantial skating force - NO EXCEPTIONS. Antiskating IS always therefore required, although it is often applied incorrectly. The force required may seem insignificant to many, but if you were to look at the many thousands of cartridges I have looked at over the past 43 years, you would undnerstand that it is required. The scale of the tone arm does not allow most people to understand that is happening at the scale of the stylus/groove wall interraction. These forces are NOT insignificant. |
Years ago ('80s) part of my job was checking for stylus wear. Ever see a tip well worn only on one side? Think skating might have something to do with that? The purpose of anti skating is to keep the cart moving assembly centered in the groove, putting relatively even pressure on each groove wall and consequently having appropriate deflections from said groove walls. If your image is consistently off to one side or the other, perhaps it reflects uneven cantilever/tip centering as a result of incorrect AS applied to a pivoting arm. This is a type of distortion. The information on the record is not being reproduced with correct amplitude, channel to channel. Some information will tend to get buried in the mix, and other info. might be more prominent than intended. Why are heavy trackers more immune to the affects of skating? The down force (VTF) is great enough to overcome most of the skating force If your goal is to reduce torsional forces on the cantilever, then look to arms with no offset. fleib |
Dear friends: On the whole AS subject I think that no one of use has the " bible " about. By the physics laws AS always exist in a pivoted tonearm, so we can dissapears it only because we can't detect its " microscopic " influence in what we are listening. Like is the case of SG and some of us. Example, I change to often of cartridges and is a " pain in the ass " the AS set up that is related with all the oother cartridge set up parameters. So I decided for some time forget about but I know is not " right ". Problem with the AS subject is that we don't know yet ( at least me. ) a precise methodology to set up the " Right " AS because several obstacles: is changing all over the LP surface ( iws not static but dynamic. ), we don't know on each LP recording its diferent recorded velocities over the LP surface and the difference in cartridge stylus shape has influence too on the amount of AS ( in this regard I remember at least one of my tonearms AT where its AS mechanism noted diferent AS position for: sherical, ellipthical and line contact stylus shapes. ). So, AS set ub is a night mare for say the least. Today and only for a " mind in calm " I use AS at minimum posible. How knew it's at minimum? I did not. Cero or at " minimum " is wrong but everythink we make about is wrong. Maybe the real subject could be which kind of AS set up makes the less " damages ". Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear lewm: Agree, AZ per se ( normal conditions. ) can't change the SPL on one channel, perhaps on " extreme conditions of a very bad AZ set up. Same with AS. Now, what I was thinking is that in a wrong set up exist an accumulation of " errors " on diferent parameters that even if the SPL is not impaired we can perceive the sound as unbalanced one. I think that blueranger can take the " short/path/road " to fix the problem: - listen in the same analog rig a diferent cartridge looking if exist the same unbalanced quality sound. Here he can discern if the problem is in the Ortofon Cadenza Bronze or not - Listen to his CD player looking for that channels unbalanced sound. If persist then is not a cartridge problem or phono stage problem but: line stage/amplifiers or speakers or even some kind of problem in the tonearm. From here, he has to follow tests on each of those single system chain links. Now, we can follow give any kind of advise to blueranger but it's not easy for any one of us to say with precission where is the real trouble. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
...what I say is that a/s can never be adjusted properly...And therefore any anti-skating setting, including zero, is a compromise. Which says nothing as to whether zero may be a better compromise or a worse compromise than any other. As I mentioned earlier, I have no experience with low compliance cartridges. But I can say that with cartridges having compliances in the higher parts of the spectrum setting anti-skating to zero would result in cantilever deflection toward the outer edge of the record that upon close visual examination is so severe that it would seem to me to be absurd to even try such a setting. Yogiboy, thanks for the link. Very informative article, from an unimpeachable source as you implied. I note, btw, that in Mr. Ledermann's reference in the article to looking at cantilever deflection he limits its usefulness to cartridges having medium to high compliance. Although he is addressing its usefulness as a check for gross error, rather than with respect to the adjustment procedure I described above. Regards, -- Al |
now, now boys......what I say is that a/s can never be adjusted properly,.. and does harm to the end result than to use it. It produces a force which prevents the stylus from being free to respond to the undulations of the record, and thus closes in the sound. The absence of a/s opens the sound and I certainly can hear it on my system. I wrote what I did to encourage people to listen with and without to determine what’s best for you. Soundsmith proposes using it because he fixes cartridges and it seems right for him. Harry builds turntables and doesn’t use a/s on his tables, but includes the mechanism because of market wishes. I don’t use Harry’s twist method which is another means of using anti-skate. I don’t care if anyone uses it or not...only recommend listening and deciding for yourself. That’s what these pages are for. I can tell you that with my system if I use my Ortofon, Benz, or Dyna cartridges, they all sound better with no a/s....and not only is the sound better, but I never have tracking issues with any of the cartridges...no sibilant S's, no unexpected fuzzy sound in the louder sections... nothing. |
To all the anti anti-skaters! This guy should know more about anti-skating than you do! http://www.sound-smith.com/do-i-need-anti-skating.html |
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 ;^) |
Inna....if you can't hear that no a/s is better, then your hearing is impaired, your system is not good enough or set up carefully enough. Harry of VPI doesn't use a/s either. I have had cartridges for years with no ill effects of not using a/s. These pages exist for those who seek points of view that may require a more open mind with removal from the rear end. |
I guess we shouldn't post any longer to this thread, because Inna is bored, but I was rather surprised to read that go4vinyl and Raul suggest the problem of unequal gain in one channel vs the other could be due to azimuth maladjustment. In fact (this has been said many times too, Inna, so you can stop reading here), azimuth has very little effect on channel balance and adjusting azimuth is not a good way to address channel imbalance. As to why the OP perceives that AS is affecting channel balance, it could be because badly out of whack AS is inducing distortions that are perceived as more or less output on the affected channel. Just a guess. Cleaning all mechanical contact areas, as Raul did mention, is a good idea. I agree with a few others who stated that AS should be adjusted while playing music with the stylus in the groove, not on the run-out or grooveless surface of an LP. Since skating force is due to stylus friction in the groove, a smooth patch of vinyl does not generate a force that is representative of the problem. Almarg's method for adjusting AS seems fine; I just don't have the patience or the visual acuity for that. I am not quite in Stringreen's camp, either. I just set AS to the most minimal value possible, and then I forget about it. |
