antiskate disc

jw944ts

... ALNIC AMBER cartridge which has a FRITZ GYER S stylus....it is so fine that it immediately cuts its own groove in the vinyl blank disc, making subsequent passes impossible ...

That sounds unlikely. If true, it would render most LPs unplayable. What the heck are you using for VTF?

Here’s what I do, and I don’t claim it’s the only way to end up with an effective amount of AS. (There is NO exact correct setting.) Play a stereo LP with music and set AS to zero. The result should be some audible distortion in the R channel. Now add AS in very tiny increments starting way below the recommended amount, if there even is such a value. As you add AS, listen to the same passage. When the distortion in the R channel is ameliorated, stop.

@cleeds,,, i use recommended tracking force. The vinyl

of the test LP is clearly scratched or etched by the stylus  

The skating force exists because of friction between the stylus contact patches and the groove walls.  Blank LPs don't have grooves, obviously.  So a blank LP is not a really good model for creating a skating force and then correcting it with AS. I know that some gurus do use a blank LP. I strongly disagree with that method for the reason given. Your observation that the stylus scratches the blank vinyl is neither here nor there.

You might find this helpful!

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=using+a+mono+record+to+adjust+antiskating&mid=6D30433C29808400F07F6D30433C29808400F07F&FORM=VIRE

@jw944ts 

l can’t answer the debate on blank test records, but what you observe with scratching the surface when using one is quite normal.

Even if you are tracking at 1 - 2 grams will leave traces from the stylus on the virgin flat vinyl. Don’t listen to any nonsense about your tracking weight being wrong. @cleeds “That sounds unlikely” “What the heck are you using for VTF?” is misinforming you. A stylus never tracks the absolute bottom of the groove. It rides on the modulations on each side of the groove. The tracking force is spread over a wider area of the stylus profile, and not to the tip of the stylus when playing a record.

The reason you have noticed (and quite correctly) the scarring on the test record is because the full tracking force is applied to the tip of the stylus. No force is imparted to the sides of a groove as there is non present. Anyone who has ever had a test record with a test band for bias (anti-skate) adjustment can tell you marks are left after playing.

l would suggest using the test band to get a rough average setting. Then use the advice given by @lewm to fine tune your arm and cartridge. Different stylus profiles can change the results you will get with your test record, so use your ears for the minute tweaks.

mylogic

@cleeds “That sounds unlikely” “What the heck are you using for VTF?” is misinforming you.

Where exactly is the misinformation there?

Anyone who has ever had a test record with a test band for bias (anti-skate) adjustment can tell you marks are left after playing.

What was the sample size of your study that led to that pronouncement? Hint: It wasn't big enough.

Yogi, there are many factual errors in that video. Some are as follows:

He says that early tonearms did not need AS because VTF was very high for early ceramic cartridges. Wrong. The friction force is directly proportional to VTF. So high VTF means high force means there is a stronger skating force that needs to be corrected by AS, so far as that is possible.

He advises setting AS to a level on the AS adjuster equal to VTF. That’s usually way too much AS.

He uses a CD to demonstrate skating and the effect of AS to counteract skating. That’s ok for a demo, but one would never use a CD to set AS for playing vinyl LPs.

There’s more, but why bother? I advise anyone who needs advice on AS to ignore that video.

I agree with @lewm 

This is what I use https://www.wallyanalog.com/wallyskater

@cleeds 

A stylus imitates a cutting head. Why would it not try to cut a groove on a blank test disc?  Please read again carefully my reply to @jw944ts about how a stylus tracks a groove. Don’t suggest he is carving up his records…. “If true, it would render most LPs unplayable” Your words

“What is the size of your test study?” Your words to me. Please don’t make me laugh, admit you got a bit hot. Ask anyone with a Shure trackability obstacle course LP to have a look at their blank “anti-skate” test bands and come back to me.

Any neutrals out there wish to give cleeds a “pronouncement” with their findings to save him the bother?  It would greatly help increase “the sample size” of the “study”

+1 macg19

+1 macg19  too.

the wally tool is something that one must take a serious look at. I have not used it nor do I own one. but people who used it to setup people TT say it is a very good tool to have.

mylogic

A stylus imitates a cutting head. Why would it not try to cut a groove on a blank test disc?

No, a playback stylus does not "imitate" a cutting head. It’s true that modern stylus profiles do come close to replicating that of the cutting head, but that’s pretty much where the similarity ends. For example, the cutting head is driven by an amplifier, and subject to cooling to offset the heat that results from cutting the disc.

Please don’t make me laugh, admit you got a bit hot ... Any neutrals out there wish to give cleeds a “pronouncement” with their findings to save him the bother?

It looks like you want to make this personal and argumentative. That's unfortunate. Have a nice day.

@cleeds

The stylus when placed on a blank test band when rotating will imitate a stylus cutter. No amplification required. A cutter with no signal would produce a groove with no modulation, the same as the silent gaps between tracks. 
 

You initiated all this denial of any (quite normal) scarring made by a stylus as observed by the OP, and clearly visible on his test record. He clearly replied saying the tracking force was correct. Your suggestion that there should be a wide “study” to quantify this is plain bonkers. To further suggest my input was a “pronouncement” was purely an intended sarcastic and uncalled for remark. Giving also a “Hint” on something you have never experimented with or observed yourself is completely unfounded and unsound. You obviously can’t tolerate being corrected. 
 

Try the test yourself, and then criticise. If you don’t know anything for sure, l suggest politely to belt up.

mylogic

You initiated all this denial ... Suggesting there should be a wide “study” to quantify this is plain bonkers. To further suggest what l said was a “pronouncement” was purely an intended sarcastic and uncalled for remark ... You obviously can’t tolerate being corrected ... If you don’t know anything for sure, l suggest politely to belt up.

I'm not sure why you've made this personal. If you have any complaints about my postings I suggest you take your complaint to the moderators.

Whatever observations I make here are based on my personal experience.

@cleeds 

l have no problem, l am just reciprocating.

You have driven the discussion in this direction. I am purely responding each time you post, to put the record straight (so to speak)

Throwing in another vote for the Wallyskater. It is what I use. I have found that I must suspend the tonearm itself (and not the finger lift) in order to get an accurate reading. But my tonearm is weird.

Here’s what I do and have learned 

play any music track and listen carefully at the last 10 seconds 

Just before it becomes inaudible you will hear the last bits of sound from the left speaker 

Now adjust your anti skate higher until you hear the last bits of audible sound coming from the center equal from both speakers.  
Foolproof 

Good luck Willy-T

@willy-t “Here’s what l do…”

You have thought of something alternate here.

Normally there are three ways of doing something.

1. The recognised right way

2. The wrong way

3. A new better way   Possibly your way? (and more accurate with a mono record?)

Agreed 

Antiskate force is, was, and always will be controversial.  'Twas ever thus.  For the last 2 or 3 weeks as I have been immersed in learning how to setup my turntables using AnalogMajik, and of course setting antiskate has become a part of this process.  AnalogMagik, in their tutorials, says that for 12" tonearms antiskate probably isn't necessary.  On my VPI HW 40, which has a 10" tonearm, it proved unnecessary.  On my Technics SL1200GAE, which so far has been my focus with a Ortofon 2M Black LVB, I have found that varying the antiskate setting over a fairly wide range makes only small changes in distortion.  Therefore, I decided to just settle on using the factory setting, which as I understand it is approximately 10% of VTF.  Again, though, the setting could be +/- 0.5gr of that point with only small changes in measured IM distortion.  I am certain, too, that the results would be different for a different cartridge.  In conclusion, don't assume anything as YRMV.

billstevenson

Antiskate force is, was, and always will be controversial. 

That's likely true. It's probably complicated by the fact that some users, and some manufacturers too, advise against using antiskate force altogether.

One thing to keep in mind is that the skating force will vary from record-to-record (depending on the level at which they're cut) and it will vary as you play the record as well. So the best anti-skating setting can be no better than a best approximation. That's probably part of what drives some users to linear tracking arms. (Although, as I look at how some are propelled, I'm not convinced that all of them avoid skating force completely.)

Always entertaining, sometimes educational 

@lewm you are absolutely correct in your statement.  I am not sure how these forums get so testy and a lot of times someone disagrees it get this way.  Vinyl is so subjective and opinions vary.  We get new vinyl users or some with not a huge amount of skill in setup and we do them or these very forums a disservice for this type of behavior.  Setup is just that with small adjustments that mean the difference between a great sound or just OK sound.  I have use no anti-skate to a little anti-skate as I use what I hear first and also check how the stylus tracks in the grooves.  
 

@jw944ts I hope you get the answers you are looking for and let’s settle down some on the responses and try to give this member some useful information he can actually use to hone his setup skills with his table.

I read AR XA inventor Edgar Villchur’s “Understanding High Fidelity” as a young man, and his position was that antiskate correction was unnecessary because it’s not the skating force you care about, it’s the groove damage caused by mistracking that you should be concerned with. His suggested solution was to use the higher end of the recommended VTF range to minimize mistracking.  The contention that lower VTF meant less record wear was a commonly stated falsity, promoted by cartridge manufacturers Shure, and ADC that research done by Decca in the UK and Nippon Columbia in Japan found no support for, as I recall…hence their own cartridge models tracking above 2 grams.  
 

On the original topic, I used to use a copy of Johnny Winter’ Second Winter, an album with 3 recorded sides, to do rough antiskate adjustment, and yes, the stylus left a mark…but not enough to become a groove…maybe the FG has a pointier tip!

@dynacohum  VTF

Knowledge about record wear and antiskate.

The discussion about record wear you posted reminded me of the general opinions in the earlier days of Hi-Fi and when it was evolving. Shure and Goldring were always trying to lower the tracking force of their cartridges. The old mono high fidelity players tracked much heavier than the 1.25 grams these brands tried to achieve.

Record care was the name of the game when Stereo records were the way forward with lower noise levels demanded. Lower VTF also meant less chance of damaging the stereo records with narrower grooves.

The problem was literally a balancing act, how light or how heavy should the stylus track the groove. The consensus in the 60s and 70s was that it was better to track on the heavier side of the individual cartridge manufacturers specifications. Too light and the stylus surfed the grooves, and was insecure increasing record damage. Tracking heavier was deemed to increase stylus wear, but with more groove contact would result in less record wear or damage.

So l agree with your own findings. If a cartridge was quoted as say .75 - 1.5 grams with a nominal 1.25 recommended l always found the nominal was the accepted trade off (low v high). l myself found that increasing to 1.3 or 1.35 was audibly better for the Shure V15 series and Goldring’s G900 series.

To sum it up, better to have a stylus accurately tracking a groove as it is less likely to increase record wear. The antiskate setting was another argument, but was accepted as a crucial thing to get right so that the stylus tracked the centre line of the groove.

Say what you may about the low recommended VTF of Shure, ADC, and several other vintage cartridges, but the fact is they had very high compliance and tracked LPs just fine at the factory recommended VTF. It’s not logical to condemn low VTF per se unless you’re setting VTF below the recommended range.

And when a cartridge tracks well at low VTF, you get the added benefit of less skating force. 

Come to think of it, when the original AR XA was marketed (late 60s or early 70s), most of us were using very light weight, very low VTF MM or MI cartridges (e.g., Shure and ADC).  Low cartridge weight and low VTF make for a low skating force, compared to the modern era of high effective mass tonearms and low compliance cartridges that require higher VTF. So maybe that is why or how Vilchur could justify the absence of an AS device on his tonearm, which probably was really left out to reduce cost. Then there is my experience with the underhung Viv tonearm, which trades skating force (not compensated for but lower than for any overhung tonearm) for tracking angle error (higher than for any overhung tonearm), and does it quite nicely.

The AR turntable was not my favorite.  From 1970 to 1980 I worked in high end hifi stores through college and when I was not at sea (I was in the Navy) and was a TT setup specialist.  The AR turntable wore out a lot of cartridges unevenly and the records it tortured.  I cannot say it was only because the thing did not have antiskate because the arm also had a lot of friction.  I owned one that I bought in 1969 before I understood it's limitations, but traded it for a Dual 1219 a year later, which actually had an excellent arm.  Then a couple of years later I traded it for a Thorens TD-125 MKII with a Rabco SL8E arm which I fought with for about 2 years before getting smart and switching the arm for an SME.  I still like that 3009 and have one on my VPI HW-19.  Some things are just right you know.  And some things are not.

Yeah, the AR XA tonearm had many more flaws than merely the absence of AS. But Vilchur was an articulate and erudite defender of it.

Clearly the XA bearings were primitive in terms of machining and design, especially the cockamamie vertical needlepoints with the silicone oil damping contraption. Later models like the 77XB I have used a simpler one piece part. I run an AT-71 on it and it tracks at 2 gr just fine. One of my 4 working turntables.