One key problem of our present day existence as an audiophile and/or listener of recorded and reproduced music is, that throughout our life from early childhood onwards we are told and educated to trust our eyes only and to believe what is "written black on white".
The ear is our very first sense (working long before we leave our mothers body), but we are trained to mistrust our hearing and a huge majority of audiophiles in the western hemisphere have a very strong tendency to rather believe in written articles about 2nd hand listening experiences of others than trust their very own ears.
You are not doomed to misery, if you listen like an audiophile.
But you are certainly doomed to misery if you read like an audiophile and if you mistake reading for hearing.
Listening like an audiophile can be delighting and enjoyable, but it is VERY hard and will hardly ever leave you in an elevated nor completely satisfied state of mind for more than a few moments.
Listening to recorded music is one of the very few truly revolutionary inventions of the past century and has enriched the lives of most people.
The beauty in music does not need any audiophile attitude.
To enjoy the mere beauty of sound and the pure sensation of realistic sound puts you on an endless journey.
Its then up to each where to draw the line and to choose the individual position.
It however can be a very enjoyable journey and once you clearly see the mountain top, the last steps are very clear and quite easy.
Happy new year 2010........ |
Listen to Doug and Raul, and while you're at it, learn to play a musical instrument or to sing. This will help you to trust the most important component in your hi-fi system - the "ear-brain"
I spend more time in my conversations with customers on this topic of musical appreciation and how you approach setting up your system.
Most mainstream dealers/manufacturers would pose the following question to you: "who are you going to trust - the reviewers (and the specs) or your lying ears?".
I vote for training your "lying ears".
Take some basic music lessons. For the price of an interconnect, you can buy a keyboard or an imported guitar. A harmonica is even cheaper.
This will open up entire new worlds of musical enjoyment as you learn to understand how musical patterns unfold.
This azimuth thread is a prime example of my experiences of demonstrating azimuth setting to customers.
I'll demonstrate the process using a mono Ella Fitzgerald record. One particular cut I use is her version of "I Love Paris".
When everything is dialed in right, the distortion drops away, the bandwidth increases, AND her body takes on a robust, 3-D image - instead of sounding like an isolated cardboard cutout in space.
There's a sudden physicality in the performance when everything snaps into focus.
Some folks I demonstrate this to get it immediately.
Others (poor souls), notice an increase in surface noise, and think that the setting is off.
Guess what? You're picking up the noise from both groove walls, and yes ... a correct azimuth setting is ultimately about getting the stylus aligned orthogonally with the record.
The technical treatment of azimuth by Victor Khomenko is absolutely correct, and I even link to one of his Vinyl Asylum threads in the Tri-Planar section of my forum, but I'm having doubts about leaving that link in place.
Drawing attention to the theory runs the risk of taking people's focus away from what they're trying to accomplish. It serves those of us who are technically inclined, but most people begin to trust themselves and their ears less.
In your hi-fi travels, if you listen with musical values, you'll be a happy boy.
If you listen like an audiophile, you're doomed to misery.
You get to choose.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Dear Larry: IMHO the best way to " minimizing wear/damage to the stylus and to my records " is not hear/touch it ( kidding. ). The life is to short like not full enjoy your records because that trade off, at least for me.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Istanbulu,
Your link to the Mint site raises another consideration -- whether azimuth should be set to optimize electrical performance or to physically align the stylus perpendicular to the record surface. Imperfections built into the alignment of the stylus with the generating element of the cartridge may mean that both cannot be optimized at one setting.
I personally align my cartridge optically, as per the Mint site because I am more concerned with minimizing wear/damage to the stylus and to my records than getting the last iota of performance out of a cartridge. I use a pair of high quality magnifying glasses for that purpose. |
The Danger Zone... so true... arrggghhh!
Interesting about shimming because Yip of the Mint LP Tractor has the following in his "best tips for customers (down the page a bit):
http://mintlp.com/best/bestips.htm
:) listening,
Ed |
For clarity, I think we all agree that shimming is sub-optimal. The method Thom and I described and the link I posted are a band-aid for a problem that shouldn't exist, at least not on pricey tonearms. Shimming works for azimuth but it also has sonic side effects in at least two areas:
MOUNTING RIGIDITY
The more rigid the coupling between cartridge and headshell, the more accurately cantilever movements are translated into electrical signals. Looseness in the cartridge mount slurs transient responses, reduces amplitudes, adds overhang to every note and raises the sound floor - slop, slop, slop.
The solution is self-evident: if you must shim for azimuth, use a rigid, non-compliant material.
ENERGY TRANSMISSION
As Larryi already described.
The precise sonic effects of altering energy transmission between cartridge and headshell will vary with individual components. Nevertheless, inserting two new material interfaces increases the frequencies that will be reflected back into the cartridge. That necessarily raises the sound floor.
Shimming's a reasonable band-aid, that's all.
And what Syntax posted! ;-)
|
.. trust that biological yet fairly complex device inside our brain - the hearing. The Danger Zone. |
Dear Dougdeacon, - nice link. It works very well indeed. It does not cure the cancer either, but it surely will prolong life and restore its level ( of performance ) into the high 90 percentage. |
Lewm is right. Correct azimuth is in the very first an optimized geometrical position of the polished areas (NOT the mere stylus...) of your stylus vis-a-vis the two walls of the record groove. Lets further assume, that hardly any cartridge on earth is blessed with two identical coils giving identical output millivolts. This leads to the cruel thought that "optimizing" the electrical figure "crosstalk", without determining the individual electrical output of each coil first, might not necessary give the geometrical correct position.
As tempting as computer-analysis may be (and we all (me too...) are long used to computer-generated convenience in many respects of our everyday life .... and even more to come..), it does not necessary give the correct result in adjusting phono cartridge azimuth on a electrical basis.
Here once again we have to "walk the distance" and should by all means trust that biological yet fairly complex device inside our brain - the hearing.
Take a purely acoustical recording - old Opus3 records do work marvels here... - with a solo voice accompanied by solo instrument with resonance corpus (a guitar, bass, piano - you name it).
You will hear it when azimuth locks in. |
Dear Psag: +++++ " Would appreciate it if anyone could comment on the pros and cons of this design decision. " +++++
IMHO there is no single pro about. From a stand point of tonearm design one main tonearm target is to permit/accept the right cartridge set-up, a today tonearm that don't permit the right cartridge set-up can't honor the tonearm name.
All this tonearm customers/owners could think that they are hearing almost the best of the cartridges they mount on that tonearm but the reality is that they are far away from what is each one real quality cartridge performance in that tonearm.
IMHO there is no valid excuse to design a tonearm with out azymuth adjustment and I belive this does not matters if the tonearm price is low or high: it is by design principle, period.
The azymuth tonearm control subject is something like a car where you can drive it if you never want to turn to the right ( because in that car you can't. ), no one buy a car that only turn around the left!!!! ( a dramatization. )
I hate to talk about this kind of topics because IMHO there is ( one way or the other ) a total scorn to the un-knoledge customer and due to this non customer know-how an audio item designer/builder ( like that tonearm in this case ) makes money against the true audio customer necessities ( what we need. ), again: no excuse for that especially at that price!!!!
Btw, the subject of soundstage/focus ( as important as is. ) that " suffer " through a wrong cartridge azymuth set-up is not so important like both frequency extremes that " suffer " more ( and alter the whole tonal balance and increment distortions/colorations. ) because a wrong azymuth set-up preclude the tuneful bass range and the transparency on the highs ( between other things. ). If with some recordings your bass is not tight or comes with a high bass overhang then could be a wrong azymuth set up.
The azymut cartridge set-up is the difference between a very good performance and a great one and you can't enjoy this last till you can have the right cartridge set-up!!!!
Today I don't buy a tonearm with out cartridge azymuth control mechanism.
Btw too and like all posted here the " solutions/help " to non-azymuth tonearm mechanism like shims/spacers and the like these " medicines " are worst than the illness.
Dear friends an Aspirine does not heal/cure a Cancer.
Some one posted ( and I agree with ): change your tonearm!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Jazzgene, The primary objective in adjusting azimuth, if you are using electrical criteria and based on my reading of two long treatises on the subject (see below), is to get the best possible numbers for each channel, but not necessarily to expect that the crosstalk will be EQUAL in both channels. So, if the cartridge in question gives -38db and -29db, respectively for the two channels, these in fact are very good numbers based on the 4 or 5 cartridges I personally have measured using the Signet Cartridge Analyzer and a test LP using the 1kHz test tone. It may well be that soundstaging is very good at this setting. However, with a little tweaking of azimuth, you may be able to get a bit less crosstalk in the channel that reads -29db, and this may result in a little more crosstalk in the other channel, which will bring them closer to equal, but equal is not the goal. (In fact, crosstalk might go either way in the "good" channel if you adjust the "less good" channel to get a better number.) In the end, after you make an adjustment based on electrical measurements, you have to listen and decide for yourself what compromise is best. If you go to Vinyl Asylum, do a search on "azimuth" and look for the long posts by Brian Kearns and Victor Khomenko, respectively. Those two guys are my gurus on this subject. |
Thom is correct. Optimizing azimuth for any particular cartridge requires a MUCH finer adjustment than 0.5 degree, at least 10X finer I'd say. I don't believe any set of differential shims you could easily buy would provide the necessary precision, except by dumb luck. Despair not. As Thom suggested, rather than inserting shims beneath each cartridge screw, try running one skinny shim longitudinally down the center of the cartridge. A ~2mm wide strip of thin tape works well. Adjusting the mounting screws "rocks" the cartridge L or R as needed, and provides an almost infinitely small range of adjustments. (If your cartridge is really off, use two layers of tape.) Credit to Wally Malewicz. You can see a photo here. This works. |
Most arms are designed to dissipate and/or transfer vibrational energy so that little is reflected back to the cartridge. The first step in that transfer is the interface between the cartridge and the headshell. Spacers would probably reduce the effectiveness of that transfer. So, once again we are talking about tradeoffs if shims or other spacers are used for azimuth correction. |
Hi Jazzgene,
sorry, but the software never ever would recommend to twist by 45°.......
Cheers,
Chris
PS: You have mail |
I use the Feickert software for azimuth. I had an interesting experience. A cartridge I tested showed the correct azimuth when it was literally way off from vertical. I thought I had a bad cartridge. I sent it to PL for evaluation.
According to PL, this cartridge was great and wonderful. I asked about the fact that when it was perfect vertical, one channel showed -38db and the other -29. His answer was "it is what it is" and this is very common. Another words, correct azimuth can show wide discrepancy between channels regarding crosstalk.
So, in this case, I could not follow the recommendation by the software as it told you to rotate the shell 45 degrees to have similar crosstalk numbers... |
Hello Ebalog, 0.5 degrees is FAR too coarse of an increment for setting azimuth. I don't care what the numbers tell you. Now, you could get lucky and effect an improvement (say for example that you're off by 0.7 degrees and reduce the error to 0.2), but the odds are against your geting your azimuth dead-on. If I recall, Wally used to make a device that mimicked one of the Ortofon(?) cartridges - essentially, a knife edge pivot that runs longitundinally along the cartridge body and between the two mounting screws. The idea is to tighten one screw and loosen the other in order to induce a tilt - with contact between the cartridge body and headshell consisting of the two screws and the knife edge. Now, the obvious problem here is that you're introducing another material interface between cartridge and headshell. You're also changing the contact surface area. Either change could have an overall deleterious effect on the sound ... or not (not even considering azimuth changes). You might try experimenting with various materials and actually improve things from an energy transfer perspective. You never know where you're going to end up in this ballgame when it comes to material interfaces, and keep in mind that what works for a titanium cartridge body may well not work with aluminum, coral, ebony, etc. Try a thin strip of copper. It's easy to cut with a pair of scissors. You should be able to find it in a hobby shop, or alternatively, over here: http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Supplies:_Shielding.html. You might also try aluminum foil. Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
Does anyone know of a source for washers/shims that will alter azimuth by 0.5 degrees?
I'm interested in Dr Feickert's software and have two tonearms with no built-in provision for azimuth adjustment. I understand I will need to do 5 (or 9) measurements in 0.5 degree steps, and it is apparent how washers can be used for this, but I'm not sure where I can obtain washers that are exactly the right height.
(I haven't done the math (trigonometry) to determine the required washer thickness to cause a 1/2 degree change based on the distance between cartridge mounting screws -- but, even if I do that calculation I don't have a tool to measure that height with the accuracy I need.)
I know that Dr Feickert's kit includes a spirit level, but that does not seem useful in my case as it is not the angle of the headshell that is being altered but, rather, the angle of the cartridge below the headshell.
Thank you! |
Lewm: While the Feickert software measures crosstalk, it also measures phase, to which the ear is more sensitive. The azimuth angles at which crosstalk and phase error are minimized don't always coincide, although they are often close. Since minimum phase error is of most interest, whether the channel output levels are identical is not so critical. Several months ago I measured an exotic cartridge which had been problematic for a client; as it turned out there was severe channel imbalance on the order of 4.5 dB, so it was replaced with a conventional cartridge...the improvements with the azimuth about 2 degrees off level were mind blowing. |
Pro: Most mechanisms for adjusting azimuth introduce some compromise into the rigidity of the cartridge-headshell-tonearm-pivot linkage. Leaving out the adjustment eliminates such theoretical "issues".
Con: You cannot adjust azimuth. You therefore may be missing some of the wonderfulness that comes when soundstage snaps into place and sounds "right". As has been said, you may be able to correct azimuth by the judicious use of shims here or there. But after living with the TP for the last 15 years, I would hate to go back to that method. |
Lewm,
Thank you for redirecting this thread towards the realm of commonsense.
No, the magnificent DaVinci Grandeeza tonearm has no provision for azymuth adjustment. Would appreciate it if anyone could comment on the pros and cons of this design decision. |
As I understand it, the goal in adjusting azimuth is to minimize crosstalk between channels. This means that the amount of crosstalk will not necessarily be equal for both channels (in fact it almost never will be equal) but merely that it will be as low as possible for each channel. The goal is not to achieve equal crosstalk but rather minimal crosstalk. (This usually involves a compromise in my experience doing it with a Signet cartridge analyzer and a test LP; when you get to the lowest crosstalk for one channel, the crosstalk in the other channel is frequently unacceptably high and can only be reduced by adjusting azimuth further, such that there is some small sacrifice in the db of crosstalk for that first channel one measured.) As one plays with azimuth by ear crosstalk reaches a happy medium, which we hear as "good soundstage". I am not familiar with the Feickert method, but if indeed it does allow one to measure and minimize crosstalk, it should work to bring one closer to "goodness" (optimal soundstage). The fact that nearly all cartridges will have slightly unequal outputs between channels will have no effect on this process, although it probably has a small effect on the actual numbers of db one measures. This is assuming that no cartridge that is not "broken" will have more than a 1.5db or less difference in absolute output between one channel and the other. Ergo, I would say that DT is off-base in his statement that one must know the difference in output between channels (which anyway one could measure) or that a cartridge has to have perfectly equal output between channels, to properly adjust azimuth using an electronic device.
One of the main reasons I bought my Triplanar many years ago was the demonstration of the effect produced when azimuth is properly adjusted and the ease with which this goal is achieved using the TP. I am really rather shocked to learn that the DaVinci has no provision for this important facet of tonearm function. |
Hi Dertonarm, so the following lines were not written by you? As for the Freickert-software... it implies for correct function in azimuth-adjustment mode, that both coils of a given cartridge do have 100% identical output.
If this is not the case - which you can count on in 99,99999 % of all cartridges - it will help you little to adjust azimuth. As it compares output of both channels to give identical readings. Well, maybe I need a visit at my doctor to have a general check of my eyes..... Cheerio, Chris |
@Feickert: as I can see from your post, you haven't read my posts. Or didn't understand them. I didn't say that your software would "balance" the outputs at all. |
@Dertonarm: As I can read from your posting(s) you didn't even read the manual properly...
The software doesn't balance outputs at all!
Cheers,
Chris |
Indeed there isn't much more to say about that software. Being one of those "anyone with the software", I can tell from personal experience that it has its faults and does not function for azimuth adjustment. A basic reflection error remains a basic error - even if masked with a nice user interface. That this error isn't realized by some doesn't mean it isn't there.
But errors are certainly human and no problem in analog set-up - if only they look smart and fancy. |
Joel,
Id like to follow-up on the second part of your post with regard to Azimuth adjustments and crosstalk measurements being different for the frequencies you mentioned above.
Based on a couple previous checks and another sweep of my cartridge last night, the crosstalk was constant across the frequency spectrum with a bit of drop (overall but still consistent) around 18-20 KHz. Potentially, a contribution in those higher frequencies may be due to sampling rates (or limited samples captured) at those frequencies.
However, the readings and results show that there are cartridge designs with measurably consistent ( and admirable) azimuth related crosstalk results over frequency. I'm not sure if this helps or ends up being useless information suitable for Jeopardy. In any event, you sparked my interest to recheck some old data/notes and check it in a more exhaustive manor this time. Now Im glad I did it.
Its nice to know how to get back to (or at least close to) what our ears tell us sounds right a little quicker.
Thanks!
Dre |
Dertonarm,
I don't think there is much else to say about the functionality of the software. It's a transfer function that is, as I stated, independent of the difference of channel balance. Anyone with the software, or a spec an, or a true RMS meter can duplicate at least the transfer function to the limit of each measurement devices resolution. Of course the other options mentioned are more tedious. What one does with the repeatable information obtained from this exercise can be the subject of debate which I will not enter into since I'd much rather listen to music than engage in turf wars about subjective opinions.
I guess we will agree to disagree since I know I can (and have done so) duplicate the transfer function using several different tools to benchmark what my [b]ears[/b] tell me.
I appreciate your interest in this discussion and how you are sharing your understanding of how you think the software works.
In the end the software is a tool, a very nice one IMO for analog applications, to be used to help the listener find satisfaction and enjoyment in music reproduction. Does the software work as I stated? Yes. Is it the final judgment on satisfaction of music playback? No, that would be the individual music listeners contentment with the quality of music playback or at least is should be.
Dre |
It reads "correct" and "each channel" and your cartridge (and - btw - me too...) do see some important difference between tracking a groove wall with most likely misaligned azimuth or being forced to generate output independent of stylus position ( one channel is always louder if azimuth is off....) ...... but if your method gives satisfying (or "proven") results for you - great! |
Dear Jtimothya, to determine the correct output for each channel you do not use a test record.
Maybe. The goal is merely to compensate for channel output differences prior to taking readings for the purpose of setting a decent azimuth. Whether you use a stylus cleaner or the stylus moving in a groove cut for a known frequency, the net result of what you're doing is basically the same. The cartridge doesn't know where its input comes from. If you have a point it seems to be about the specific frequency used to put the motor in motion. From what I know the methods described in my post have yielded proven results. Thanks for your comment. . |
Dre, I am not discussing azimuth adjustment either.
As there is nothing to discuss in a simple geometrical issue like this.
And I clearly stated that the F. software does function in a way which gives a wrong result - at least regarding azimuth "adjustment".
Period. I know it - I have it (the Freickert software...) at hand.....
So my post was purely for clarification too.
D. |
Joel,
I believe it is the later being frequency specific which is to our benefit. In practical application, it allows us to go beyond the loose standard of 1KHz if we choose to.
I apologize but my time online is short this morning.
Dre |
Dertonarm,
I believe I stated that I'm not going to debate setting azimuth. I clearly stated the software does not work the way you described and your subsequent post seems to acknowledge that your previous assumption about the software functionality was incorrect.
The point of my post was for clarification only.
Dre |
Well Dre, the transfer function gives only correct result relative to the azimuth (= correct position of the stylus towards the grooved wall for both channels) if factor x (here: output voltage) is known and thus for each channel.
Otherwise the calculation is always a relative one (which it is here).
Dear Jtimothya, to determine the correct output for each channel you do not use a test record. You need the pure output of the coil and the best way (and most precise) to obtain that basic figure is to get it WITHOUT a groove.
It works this way: get a Nagaoka or similar oscillating stylus cleaner. This gives a 400 hz or similar impulse on the cartridge - to both channels and independent of position of stylus. This has to be measured with a precise micro-ohm-meter.
You will get perfect and stylus position independent readings for the raw output of each coil.
Simple yet effective.
If we want a figure for factor x1 (coil output) and factor x in action is a function of factor y (position of stylus polished area towards grooved wall) or factor z (relative crosstalk to other channel - which here would mean x2....) - then I would look for a way to obtain factor x1 (and x2...) without other variables depending on.
Best of all .... - it works.
Cheers,
D. |
Andre,
This is interesting: does this function average over the frequency response, or does it work for specific frequencies set beforehand?
I've done experiments with a voltmeter (like many before me) to measure crosstalk and noticed that, for a given azimuth position, the crosstalk can be completely different depending on the frequency: for example, if the azimuth position was adjusted as well as possible at 1KHz by measuring crosstalk (same method as the one given above), it would be off at 100 Hz, and also off at 8KHz--in fact the measurements were opposite at those extreme frequencies... I've used my ears ever since....
Joel |
Good post, Dre_j. Quite a bit of information about the Feickert software azimuth measurement, including the phase measurements as well, can be seen in the Azimuth compendium on his website. |
Post created for clarification only. I have no interest in debating how to set azimuth: As for the Freickert-software... it implies for correct function in azimuth-adjustment mode, that both coils of a given cartridge do have 100% identical output.
If this is not the case - which you can count on in 99,99999 % of all cartridges - it will help you little to adjust azimuth. As it compares output of both channels to give identical readings.
You need to know the exact output of each coil before using this tool.
Hard to get...... Not true. The software does not work this way. It uses a transfer function based on the output of the main channel relative to the crosstalk channel (20*log(Vx/Vy)). Your assumption of how the software works is incorrect. It does true azimuth calculations. If there is a 1.7 dB difference in channel balance the software does not care as it does not rely on matching channel balance. Dre |
You're no less an audiophile if uncertain about your ability to detect single digit decibels of difference from vertical perfection. To confirm a setting or what you hear azimuth-wise, you can measure the differences in channel output with a voltmeter and test record. Check this thread: How to measure crosstalkOne place to find the Cardas test recordYou can compensate for channel differences in cartridge coil voltage output by getting a level set for each channel then adjust the output with your preamps L/R balance control. |
|
Well, if the arm post is not vertical........ I would suggest changing either armboard, tonearm or hobby. |
If the post is not vertical, I think the shim should go between the post collar and the armboard. However if the headshell is the problem, I think the shim should go between the headshell and the cartridge. |
Essentialaudio - agreed. That is at least a suitable option - if kind of archaic with tonearms asking $5k to $11k in retail price..... |
Hi Doug,
if the arm-post is tilted relative to the platter (not 90 deg.), the azimuth keeps on changing from beginning to the end of the record, aye.
Why? Because the bearing (most usually has a ~ 20 deg. off-set relative to the straight axis of the arm). One thing I learned real fast when using some cheap arm (Pro-Ject 9c) with a sloppy arm collar for setting VTA.
Go figure... and Dertonarm should concede being in touch those Egyptian geometrists :-)
Axel |
As for the Freickert-software... it implies for correct function in azimuth-adjustment mode, that both coils of a given cartridge do have 100% identical output.
If this is not the case - which you can count on in 99,99999 % of all cartridges - it will help you little to adjust azimuth. As it compares output of both channels to give identical readings.
You need to know the exact output of each coil before using this tool.
Hard to get......
Sorry folks - azimuth-adjustment in real world conditions has to be (and can only be ..) done by the one single instrument most audiophiles seems do trust the very least.
The ear........ |
If the stylus is not 100% vertical in relation to the upper plane of the mounting cartridge body, you need a headshell which can be rotated in its axis - at least to some degree. Or shim between the cartridge and headshell. I do that where azimuth adjustment is not available. A fraction of a degree can make all the difference. |
Rsrex,
Good idea. Of course the optimal SRA for one 120g record is not necessarily the same as for the next, especially if it's on a different label. Ultimately each LP must have SRA individually fine tuned by ear. Still, starting from the same baseline for a given thickness should shorten the process - and of course you knew THAT. :-)
|
Placing a shim between collar of armbase and armboard will create problems - and won't solve any. Correct azimuth is a must and is determined by the position of the stylus in the groove and towards both walls. Thus a headshell level (spirit bubble or not....) has little to no use as Dougdeacon and Essentialaudio already mentioned correctly.
The problem has to be fixed at the source - you can not "correct" a misalignment of azimuth anywhere else in the chain - only at the stylus.
If the stylus is not 100% vertical in relation to the upper plane of the mounting cartridge body, you need a headshell which can be rotated in its axis - at least to some degree.
Its an imperfect world - thus we need alignments.... |
Has anybody here tried the Feickert software for adjusting azimuth?
Jeff |
Actually the Graham "level" does have some value, but not for azymuth, which is an axial tilt function. The true value is as a reference when jumping between different thicknesses of pressings. If you set the level for a 120g pressing and then adjust SRA from there you can determine the offest from zero. Then when you shift to a 180g (or 200g) pressing you can find your reference (level) and then dial in your offset. Guaranteed to have a constant SRA, no matter what thickness pressing you are playing. But, c'mon you knew that already! |
Guess why Graham's Phantom II has now an added, permanent "spirit bubble" to his latest creation... Good question, Axel. I can't imagine anything less useful (except maybe a Wally Skater). As Essentialaudio said, getting a headshell level is no guarantee of proper azimuth. It's not even the best visual starting point. Balancing toothpicks on headshells a la VPI or futzing with a Phantom bubble is focusing on the wrong parameter. Assuming the arm isn't flawed, as Psag's appears to be, azimuth is about adjusting the stylus in the groove. That's where you should start - that's where you should finish. Nothing else matters. Given the multiple variabilities inherent in even the best cartridges, levelling a headshell is foolish. Spending money on a bubble to level a headshell is just foolishness squared. Perhaps the liquid provides some useful damping? ;-) |
|
