Finally received the Fozgometer after a 2 month backorder. In the past I have always used a loupe and a front surface mirror to set the azimuth on my Tri-Planar with Dynavector XV-1S cartridge. According to the meter, I was very close to a correct azimuth. I wasn't prepared for the effects that a very slight adjustment would make. Nailing the azimuth has brought my soundstage into tight focus. I have never experienced this kind of solid imaging in my system. I know that the $250 price tag is a bit steep for something that won't get a lot of use, but this is not a subtle improvement. There are other ways of measuring azimuth, that I am not very familiar with, but I would doubt that they are as easy to use as the Fozgometer.
Thanks, Ecir, for that insight about quality control. That plus the lack of a good owners manual goes a long way to explain all the consternated owners who have posted here and on Vinyl Asylum about problems with the Foz.
Hey Tom, agree the marketing, quality control and reports of users having problems have given this product a bad rap and rigtfully so.
To the spectators if you could see and work through the above you would be rewarded with a nice tool. Another thing is I would recommend using the recommended test LP due to it is cut hotter than others which should help with the readings.
Hi, Mauidj; the Fozgometer also uses a record and test tones to measure crosstalk and determine any adjustments needed to correct azimuth.
Brad, thanks for the post. The Fozgometer is being criticized by people that have never used it to set azimuth. And the complaints by people that have used it may or may not be related to how well the Fozgometer functions. I get the impression that 1) there may be cartridges that are at the limits of "acceptable tolerances" that are causing problems, 2) there MAY be some Fozgometers with quality control problems, and 3) some people may not be using the Fozgometer properly.
I agree with Lew that the documentation about, and the user guide for, the Fozgometer is minimal (probably intentional) and so speculation and the possiblity of user error is elevated.
The foz works as advertised, the problem is quality control from whomever is building them for fosgate.
As stated above check to make sure the lugs for the meter are not shorting to the chassis. Mine was like this when received it, you could just insulate with electrical tape as a short term fix or put a dremel to the lugs like I did.
Another control issue, this is something you will need to do now is recalibrate since you played with the trimmers, is that between the two that I have had on hand to use one was not claibrated correctly from the factory.
Just sayin' that when I saw the actual size of the Cartright, I was surprised since some of its announced capabilities normally require a bench full of equipment. But, like you, I have an open mind.
Lewm: Unlike the Foz the Cartright is based around a record and test signals. Plus I'm not sure I understand what size has to do with it ;-) Yes Peter is a unique character in out hobby and deserving of respect. Let's wait and see what he comes up with. It should be revolutionary for sure knowing him.
Left out a word; should have written "if indeed they gave you..."
Frankly, I am a bit suspicious of the Cartright, because it claims to do so many things in a package that is not much larger than the Foz. But I have an open mind, and I do respect Peter Ledermann. (I respect Jim Fosgate, too, but I wonder what he was thinking when he marketed his product.)
Dear Madfloyd, You are the umpteenth person to be stumped by the operation of the Fozgometer. I have not even seen one first hand, but I wrote above and elsewhere that the instruction manual must be sorely lacking, if indeed gave you one when you buy the Foz. My point: have you read and re-read the owners manual, assuming there is one? Does it address your issue? If not, call the maker. None of us here will know as much about this product as they do (or should). I think that to assist you properly, one must understand how the Fox is supposed to work, how it arrives at what it calls proper azimuth adjustment. There are several electronic methods and several endpoint goals one could aim for. The best set of tools I ever saw for azimuth is the Dr. Feickert kit. Unfortunately, it is even more expensive than the Foz.
Tbg. Many thanks for the insight. Yes...had I thought through the meaning then I would have spelt it correctly. How often we say things without being fully conscious of what we are saying. Aloha!
Some people will spend $5000.00 on a cartridge and another $5K on a tonearm in a blink of an eye but will cheap out on a "proper" alignment protractor and digital scale and on and on... and rely solely on their "trusted" ears.
I do not have a FOZ. The Cartright...... where do i line up??
Call to Peter Lederman. Stop making cartridges for a few weeks and get this thing tested and on to the market. The market is flooded with all kinds of cartridges. We need something to align them properly. Not more cartridges.
Mauidj, I thought "baited breath" looked funny so I googled it. It actually should be "bated breath" where bated is a contraction of abated or almost not breathing in anticipation. Thanks for the fun of looking up all these crazy words and phrases in English. As usual, Shakespeare is credited for first using it.
I just had a look at the Cartright. Now THAT is what I call a TEST INSTRUMENT! All the more credible because of the vast phono cartridge experience of the designer.
No disrespect to Jim Fosgate, he certainly has lots of experience with phono reproduction, though with more emphasis on multi-channel and noise-reduction designs. If the Cartright can do what it describes, then it's definitely worth the price of four Fozgometers!
Like Doug and some others, I tend to cast a jaundiced eye on "setup aids" of all stripes -- in my case, usually, for these two reasons: 1.) I'm cheap, and don't want to spend a lot of money on something I may use only once or twice (my time isn't worth THAT much ;--) 2.) I'm smart enough and clever enough to (usually) come up with a DIY test solution that is as good, if not better, than the 'store-bought' variety. Lucky me . . . .
But if the Soundsmith device can do what it claims, and in such a simple/elegant/efficient way, than I'm going to start saving for it. I'm in! .
I am also going to await the arrival of the Soundsmith Cartright. It does so many more things and apparently it has been designed to account for the inherent differences in cartridge geometry and output. While things like the Fozgometer are spot on for some carts and completely misdirect you with others. Pretty much like most of our hobby.....your milage may vary! Apparently the Cartright will be able to take these conditions into consideration.
I spoke with Peter recently and he is so buried building cartridges that the Cartright is on the back burner right now. I await it with baited breath.
I just tried my Fozgometer for the first time. I have a Dynavector XV-1s which is low output so I hooked up the outputs from my phono stage (Tron Seven) intead.
The meter correctly identifies left and right signals but doesn't show any movement on the meters.
It looks like there is a calibration of the meters and I tried that; the meter moves a bit as I turn the calibration screw but always goes back to zero.
good luck but the fozgometer makes huge difference. Even inner groove distortion has been minimized to some degree. Wish they have a device similar to like this but can guide you to a "better" alignment.
Nolitan, I was about to buy one when I found the Soundsmith Cartright at the RMAF. I am going to wait for it as it does VTA, azimuth, overhang, and SRA.
This device works like a charm. Highly recommended. After 10 minutes of adjustments with this device & the test records, imaging is now more precise, more solid focus and fuller sound.... Highly recommended
I couldn't agree more!!! The more time in the chair the better!!! I too borrowed a friends and was able to adjust my stylus to a perfect match, noting that I was off about 2db. Well it made a pretty big improvement in sound quality to say the least!!!
In the included manual for the Fozgometer this is whats said about its way of determining azimuth.
The Fozgometer represents a breakthrough for adjusting phono azimuth. The Fozgometer incorporates a "Log Ratio Detector" developed for surround processor steering logic circuits to measure channel separation over a wide range of signal levels down to -70db. The readings are virtually independent of overall signal levels, and can be made with a wide range of input signals without effecting accuracy. It is a small portable battery powered unit that is used in conjunction with a test record. It measures channel separation, channel balance, and signal direction quickly and accurately.
I borrowed a friends and just because of its ease and ability to get you so close to right on i bought one for myself. I understand about the hands on of vinyl playback and its one of the things i love. In the case of the Fozgometer the time saved is a valuable thing for me as i can spend more time in the listening chair instead of up and down to the back room for adjustments. I believe this tool should be right there with your wally tracker and digital scale.
If with Fosgate, all you are doing is balancing the crosstalk between L and R, then I think it is not worth it.
You need to take into account the difference in output between L and R on a cartridge.
I setup a Grado The Statement by eye (which is the way John Grado recommended along with a tip to stay away from test gear and test records) and then measured with Adjust+ Pro. The reading showed the same exact phase angle and crosstalk difference of less than 0.5 db between L and R. So in this case, both the eye and test gear method worked quite well.
I used Mac The Scope software before I used the Fozgometer. The results were identical. However, the Fozgometer appears to use a filter because the needle read out is very steady. It's also extremely sensitive to the slightest azimuth adjustment (duh) and can take the signal directly from the tonearm (no need to go through the phono stage). I have a low output MC cart and it gave plenty of signal. Easy-peezy, and looking at high magnification, it's perfectly straight.
Capnbob, As Larry inferred. There is no doubt that one could do the measurements done by the Foz "manually" with a proper test LP, a fine quality voltmeter, and/or a 'scope. The Foz is a matter of convenience and rapidity, plus you can be uninformed and still get it right, electrically at least. Also, good 'scopes and meters are not exactly cheap. Nor are the brains to use them correctly common among us audiofools. My only questions about the Foz are like those stated by Larry; I really would like to know exactly how it arrives at its "correct" azimuth setting, because there is more than one opinion on the definition of correct azimuth, even in the electrical sense.
I believe the way this is done "manually" is to convert millivolts to db, then you would do a left minus right and right minus left calculation to determine crosstalk. A straight reading of channel output would not account for channel imbalance. Also, it is possible that the Fozgometer does more than just measure voltage output (e.g., it could include filters to attenuate frequencies outside of the 1khz test signal so that the effect of extraneous surface noise is reduced. I don't know if this has actually been incorporated in the design, but, I do note that the needle does not jump around a lot whereas readings done with a VOM are more equivocal. I also don't know if the Fozgometer does or does not incorporate some kind of analysis of phase relationships (aside from doing the L-R and R-L), but that is possible since Fosgate is an expert in that field (one of the pioneers of early SQ matrix form of four channel sound).
Does anyone know if the fozgometer measures millivolts and compares them from side to side? If so, then couldn't one just use a millivolt meter or a oscilloscope to measure each side and adjust the azimuth until the voltages are the same? Or does the fozgometer measure something else?
I have the Fozgometer. It's a great tool and I recommend it. It seems like this tool still just isn't enough for some, because of the tone used to test at etc. But, put it in perspective: EVERY adjustment on a turntable is an approximation. Alignment is an approximation (pivoted arms), VTF (subjective for sound), VTA/SRA (no standard), and now azimuth. So really, theres no such thing as an absolute setting for any of this. The Fozgometer is reliable and the simplest way to get azimuth as close to ideal as possible.
Larryi, I don't deal with Acoustic Sounds any more. Chad is the definition of a manager who has his "customer base" as secondary to the bottom line! Unless you are in a different tax catagory than am I!
100% what Doug said. Getting AZ correct by listening can be problematic for even seasoned listeners when using an arm that requires the adjuster to start and stop while actually changing the AZ. This can make it very easy to lose the reference that was just heard prior to stopping to make the change. For this reason I would use my DMM to crudely minimize crosstalk with my Triplanar one time, then adjust by ear from there.
Palasr and I played with the OTF azimuth on the Talea proto at his place. I would describe the change by recalling to everyone the Bose radio commercials where the picture of that tiny system suddenly grows to some enormous size. That is how I would describe the change in sound when the AZ is dialed in and out on the Talea. You can easily hear the fullness of sound come in and out. It takes very small turns on the AZ adjust screw of the Talea.
I have nothing against the Foz, I just don't need it or Feikert's software with the Talea. Heck, I don't even need my DMM anymore, not that it was all that helpful. :-)
Of course, it is minimizing crosstalk at only one test frequency (1 kz on the Analogue Productions test lp), unless one finds other test lps with single channel signals at other frequencies.
Two reasons in one sentence why some of us will probably never buy it.
First, 1kHz is well below the optimal frequencies for setting azimuth.
Second, as Mike Lavigne and others have repeatedly explained, minimizing crosstalk provides only an approximation. One must still tweak from there to minimize inter-channel phase discrepancies. He, Dan and I do this by ear. So can anyone, with practice. The Foz doesn't do it at all.
For $250 the Foz quickly and reliably gets one in the ballpark. However, as Larryi also discovered, making the stylus visibly vertical also gets one in the ballpark, so close that "adjustment from visual, perpendicular alignment was extremely small (I cannot reliably see the difference)." How much more in the ballpark need one get than that? Why spend serious money to just to get in the ballpark? I can get there for free in seconds using the loupe and Mint protractor I already own.
As Dan suggests, azimuth is easily and accurately adjusted in two simple steps: 1) make the the stylus vertical by eye; 2) fine tune in TINY increments by ear.
The Talea makes executing step 2 much faster, but it can be done by ear on any arm with adjustable azimuth.
I ordered one from Acoustic Sounds and I had it in five days (at cheapest postal rates).
It took less than 10 minutes to fine tune azimuth with this meter (very stable, unequivocal readings). Unlike the Wally instrument, the readings held steady. Also, unlike the Wally instrument, I did not have to deal with making conversions to db to do a left minus right, right minus left calculation. My adjustment from visual, perpendicular alignment was extremely small (I cannot reliably see the difference). In other words, it is a very sensitive instrument that shows the result of VERY small adjustments.
Of course, it is minimizing crosstalk at only one test frequency (1 kz on the Analogue Productions test lp), unless one finds other test lps with single channel signals at other frequencies.
After browsing the Feikert instructions, I realize that I require a no-brainer" device like the Fozgometer. It is now making the rounds of my friends.
I don't quite understand your post, Dan. It would seem that if you own a Talea or any other tonearm with easy, accurate, and repeatable azimuth adjustment (Triplanar, Reed), then the usefulness of a device that provides an electronic method for setting azimuth is all the more merited. This is not to say that the Foz is the one and only good choice for this purpose. Once you get it electrically "right", you can fine tune by ear. IOW, I agree with the last sentence of Tom's post, in essence, altho I'm still in the dark re the Foz per se.
Dan: Nice! The Talea is a unique tone arm. It would be great if more tone arm designers and manufacturers began treating arm height and azimuth adjustments with the same importance as they do tracking force (counterweight) adjustments. With so many tone arms, arm height and/or azimuth adjustments are either lacking entirely or crudely implemented. On-the-fly adjustments may not be a priority but at least they should be easy and fairly quick adjustments.
I still think the Fozgometer offers a good starting point (an easily repeatable reference) for fine-tuning azimuth adjustment, even for tone arms like the Talea.
Sure glad I bought a Talea. Getting AZ right could not be more simple, and it is correct. Not some educated guess by someone's eye or some gadget. Just my own two ears.
Madfloyd: You will probably have to wait like the rest of us. It appears that the demand for the Fozgometer is still outpacing the supply. But the wait time should be far less than it was a month ago. Order up and it will arrive in due time. :-)
I for one would not quibble over the price of the Foz. I was trying to find out from owners how it works is all, so I could decide for myself whether it works as I would like it to do. I want my $250-instrument to take me where I want to go. Setting by eye would be OK, if you knew for sure that the transducing mechanism inside the cartridge body was completely squared away with respect to itself and to the cartridge body.
Setting VTF by ear could get one in a lot of trouble. Obviously you need to have a known measured starting point else you may crush your cantilever or damage an LP.
Slaw; excellent post! Those are my thoughts on the matter as well. Easily repeatable settings. Fine tuning may be worth the effort but if you can get to the same reference point each time with a minimum of time and effort, it's worth it's weight in titanium.
Isn't it better to be able to rule out one importantant aspect of cartridge allignment so other sensitive issues can be addressed? Example: Tom Port tried to get me to not spend "big bucks :on a VTF meter, saying you can do it by ear. Well, yeah!. But who wants to start at a far off place only to find later that their search could have been made so much easier with a quality scale?
If you want to be Daniel Boone, go ahead, My time is impotant to me and worth a lot of money.
II'd rather spend the bucks on a quality device that will get me in the right direction. This will also allow me to check any variations I migjht suspect rather than fretting over what might be!
I admit I'm not as versed on these issues as you all seem to be. Having said that, here are a few remarks...
Adjusting azimuth by eye... That seems to be the preferred and less expensive method. My issue is, why is so much written about proper cartridge, tonearm, TT adjustment and their importance, but somehow azimuth adjustment is OK by eye? Just recently MF from Stereophile had a comprehensive article on STA, (stylus rake angle) and just 2 degrees off of the standard 90 degrees makes all the difference in the world. So my point is, if this is true, should we just use our eyes for azimuth as definative setup tool. As my system has gotten more resolute through the years, any "slight" changes are extremely more noticable. Therefore, why is it not acceptable to use a $250.00 device that will take one often thought about equation out of mind, so as to explore other issues?
This is just a stab at the question: To set azimuth with my Signet, you first have to set the meter to 0 db for the channel that directly receives the signal from the test LP, so you can then measure the crosstalk in the opposite channel. When you do that in both directions, you have to have balanced the signal each time in that way in order to compare the crosstalk numbers (which are in terms of negative db, down from the 0 db reference). Perhaps that is what is going on with the Foz.
I printed out the manual for the Fozgometer (thanks Nsgarch) after a bit of figuring to keep the pages in proper sequence -- first page blank on back side, then remaining pages back to back for 2/3 and 4/5.
It all seems pretty simple but I have a question about the inclusion to measure channel balance -- what is the value of that? Once you've gone through the procedure to set azimuth you're not going to change anything to adjust balance.
I can see where this would tell you if your aggregate balance of cartridge and phono stage was correct or not, but you can do that with a multi-meter. So, is there another purpose I'm not thinking of?
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.
