Going back to the OP’s opening question, I plan on using the Shunyata Venom as well. It was recommended by my table supplier. I actually have that cable, but it is doing duty in my phono stage currently. I have a new and better cable on order for the phono stage that will allow me to reassign the Venom for my 1200G. The phono stage can take a big cable and it deserves the best I can afford.
I will need to put the Venom aside however to let the new cable break in first. I don’t want to try two cable changes at the same time. I want to be able to judge the impact of the change on the TT independently.
How does the Venom sound vs the stock PC, for those who may have tried it?
I was told that Technics uses Stevenson and when Mint said the protractor was Stevenson, they were obviously different. I did not know Technics had their own stevenson.
@pryso Baerwald is precisely the same as Lofgren A, which was invented several years before, as you’ve posted. Credit should always be given to Lofgren.
invictus005, I believe Baerwald is a real alignment. This link is for his AES paper of 1941. He acknowledges Lofgren who developed a similar alignment in 1938.
Anyway, it is common to see Baerwald identified for this alignment. I'm not certain if it is precisely the same as Lofgren A, at the very least they are nearly the same. You likely know Lofgren later developed a different alignment known as Lofgren B.
The point is that multiple alignments have been developed over the years for pivoted arms based upon minimizing distortion within specific areas of the transcribed arc. It is up to the user to decide which suits their preferences the best.
In my house too, the Technics gauge ends up being about 1/8" different in end place mounting of the stylus versus my Feickert protractor and GeoDisc.
But, I’m not expert, and I think Technics does have some reasoning for this--that it’s not a mistake. Well, that’s my assumption as Technics is clearly nuts about tolerances, fit and finish, and objectives.
I like the sound of both. My AT ART9 cartridge tracks impeccably using either setup tool.
@ericsch That is all that's required to perfectly set it up to Technics' alignment. But if you want to experiment with other alignments, then you'll need additional protractors.
Alright, I’ll chime in here. I used Baerwald with the Freickert alignment tool. This morning I checked the overhang with the Technics overhang gauge and it was spot on. The reason I chose Baerwald was primarily because that is what Fremer used in his review. After my Hana SL breaks in, I will probably experiment with Stevenson and/or Lofgren geometry.
@invictus005 The Technics manual is excellent, however, it does not go into a lot of detail about mounting the cartridge. Are you saying that just using their overhang gauge and making sure the cartridge is parallel to the headshell (as stated in the manual) is all that is needed for proper alignment? This was never mentioned in any of the reviews I read. Keep in mind that my prior TT was a Rega, 3 screw mount.
I have had my table up and running for about 10 days and it is quite amazing.
@tzh21y It's a proprietary Technics alignment, that just like Stevenson, it favors inner groove distortion. It's actually very close to Stevenson, but not exact.
If you prefer the standard Stevenson A, that's perfectly fine. I prefer Lofgren A, or B myself.
Just don't knock the Technics' gauge. It's not off, nor is it wrong. Just an alignment Technics' engineers like and designed the table/tonearm for.
@tzh21y You're like a broken record. Who cares about Mint's Stevenson? Technics has a proprietary Japanese alignment. Of course it will not match to the Stevenson A. But why should it? And how is it off or wrong? Technics' gauge will allow you to alight the cartridge to Technics' proprietary Japanese alignment, which is similar to Stevenson A, but slightly different. Tonearm was designed for this special alignment.
Now of course you can allign the cartridge to a standard Stevenson A, or Lofgren A, or Lofgren B because of the slotted headshell, but that's just you deviating from what the tonearm was designed for.
You shouldn't spread false information that Technics' gauge is off. It's actually absolutely perfectly right on to the Technics' chosen alignment.
The overhang gauge supplied by technics was close to an 1/8 inch extended beyond the stevenson protractor from mint lp. The difference was easily heard. Tried baerwald and did not like it as much. Maybe Mint alignment is off but I doubt it. Sounds much better now.
I am happy that there is varied discussion about the Technics table. The only thing that is now cautioning me is; Do I really need (3) TTs ???.
Will the Technics alone convince me? How about; with a Trilplanar tonearm and custom power supply; the right mat, right cables, record weight etc. really “knock my socks off” and be my retirement TT? Opinions Please.
@jtsnead "Off" indicates that something is wrong with the Technics. Why does it need to match the Feikert and why is it considered off or wrong if it does not match it?
@invictus005, I think he means compared to a protractor, the overhang tool seems to set the stylus further back when I compared it to my set up with the Feikert protractor
@zh21y yes I feel the table does need to run in some it does seem to be quiter after a couple of months. It gives a very resolving presentation, I hear more detail and resolving hall information
Its off, trust me about an 1/8th inch. Maybe it was just me and I eyeballed it wrong but it did seem off quite a bit. Just trying different mats. The original rubber mat is actually not bad at all. I also have a cork music hall mat and the funk firm achromat. Waiting for the Delos to run in. It only has little under ten hours on it. The arm is very good on this table. I know Ralph likes the Triplanar. I bet it would sound amazing on this table but the stock arm is no slouch. One thing I am hearing is how good older recordings sound on this table. Originals for the fifties, Living Stereo stuff is just amazing. Silky violins just incredible. I have been told this table needs at least 200 hours to really start to hear the potential. It sounds pretty good right now.
On my lenco with massive aluminium plinth a shielded AC cord was easily better. Then putting the TT on the ground was another improvment. In the sixties the TT in Europ has just a two pins AC cord.
Why do this? Why would it be especially important for a DD turntable? TT's are most often guilty of putting noise back into the AC supply for the rest of the system, so it would be prudent to isolate the AC supply to the TT. Likewise, shielding might be worthwhile, to prevent RFI from contaminating the supply to the TT. So, I could imagine that a shielded AC cord would sound different from an unshielded one, in a high RFI location.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
