Developing A List Of Tonearm Candidates For A SOTA Turntable

@neonknight I am also curious to see what you have thought about the Agile against your previous arms because I have one.  Perhaps you have just been too busy listening, I hope so! 

I am fortunate (though it has meant I have 'jumped up' the range!) to live within 3 miles of where Origin Live are based and having initially bought a traded resolution Mk IV from Mark Baker and an Encounter arm from ebay. I was delighted with the combo and initially a Cadenza Black and then had an opportunity for a S/Hand MC Anna Diamond from a trusted source. I then lucked into a SH Mk3 Sovereign with an enterprise arm which significantly improved performance again. So I was intrigued to try higher and went back to Mark to hear an Agile on an upgraded Sovereign-S, had my platter upgraded and decided on buying the Agile after half a track of something I knew well.   I have subsequently had some further Origin Live mods and upgrades for my main room and the Sovereign / Agile MC Anna is now the living room system.  Reviews such as the one in HiFi+ yesterday Sept 15th and previous reviews of earlier versions by Alan Sircom and Michael Fremer are accurate this is a fantastic combo.  What I can say is having heard a Voyager/Voyager-S deck and and Renown tone arm. Origin Live can do even better than the Sovereign-S/Agile combo and some upgrades from those are available as trickle down upgrades.  I will also note, put either of the last two through a Whest Triton Pro Mk2 or a MC Ref V and together they make a Taiko Streamer and a dCS Vivaldi become "unused".  

@neonknight re your VTA question.  In summary if you / anyone doesn't want to read the 'process' below. My MC Diamond is not set at what would be above the specified 23 deg to achieve a 90 deg diamond angle, but at nearer 25 to achieve closer to the 92 deg angle that Ortofon state is likely to be optimal this is relative for the 'typical' 180g vinyl it is fed.  It is for the reasons below presently not adjusted from that.   

I am not at all surprised you are very happy with the Agile and feel there is no need to pursue anything else.  Are there things I could suggest to get the best from it, possibly, will music sound wonderful without them? absolutely.

Based on looking at this with Mark Baker and also noting the words of Michael Fremer (who was shall we say somewhat blunt in his description of those who adjust for every record) I did the following test and adjustment in late 2022 after I got my 45rpm UHQR of Kind of Blue (KOB) and noted how relatively 'thick' it was. Noting my RD is because I work in R&D for both audio and some other industries and why I have 'measurement equipment'.

I took several of the thinnest records I have (generally 80's pressings) and the thickest, which is KOB and measured the thickness of the lead in edge with a micrometer and also measured the distance in height of that edge in the turntable itself using a fixed position dial gauge and manoeuvring the record into place without moving the dial.

I did this initially on an OL Sovereign which helped because I attached the magnetic gauge base to the left one of its large mass feet (with a cloth between). I also measured what I would say is its "main feed" of 180gram vinyl. Between each VTA I did check tracking force and had I gone from thinnest to thickest I would to keep to the exact force have had to make a small adjustment to the balance. As force had been set previously at the setting for 180g's there was less than a 0.1g variation but approx only 0.03 to 0.04 deviation from 180 setting to bottom or top. 
First I set VTA (spec says 23 but actually it should be 24.75 to 25 on mine) so that the stylus rake angle was 'optimal' (92 deg) for the thinnest and played them and I admit I didn't try the UHQR at that setting, but did try some 180g which was then at a more acute stylus angle than optimum.
I then set VTA for the stylus angle for the mean height for the 180g and tried the thinner records with the thus 'too large' angle and 180g's at correct. I found that the 180's sounded better than they had with the too acute angle and whilst there was a minor relative quietening of some hi-hat relative to snare / bass on the thinner records it was very minor and only on records I had specifically chosen to test that. I have a 'thin' 33 and a 33rpm and 45rpm 180g version of Time Out and there was less differential between the 'thin' record played at is optimum to it played at the 180 optimum than there was difference between the 33 and 45 version.  Same with my Dusty S, Look of love 33/45 test record.  Playing the 'thick' UHQR and a 180g borrowed kind of blue at the '180 setting' the UHQR was significantly superior and I then took the setting to the UHQR and tested these two again. The UHQR improved a little,(and sorry I didn't record the 'turns' on the VTA partly because when I got my Agile about Oct 2021 they hadn't put the lines on it. I do have them on the update arm ) but it hadn't moved that far, it was certainly less than the movement from 'thin' to 180. 

What I then did, without the now 'lines' was I went back to the 180 setting and 'tweaked' it up towards 'high' until I heard what I thought was a 'slight' reduction in the hi-hat on the 45rpm of time-out.  Then went back one 'tweak' which probably was about a 'division'. I then replayed the UHQR from that point and replayed it at its optimum and it was extremely difficult to tell the difference with less than a minute between playing. I did this again for one 'tweak' lower to 180 setting and it was the same.  So after the testing some 'thinner', that are probably 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 of what is played and I decided to leave it at that point. I concluded that whilst some decks may be more or less susceptible and some ears may be better than mine, Michael Fremer's comment whilst 'harsh' in its description. Was for my system in late 2022 applicable.

When I got my upgrades in Sept 2023 because I fortunately live 3 miles from Origin Live they came up for a trial of the deck on my system, so Mark's son Luke Baker originally set my VTA.  I repeated the above and mine is set 1/4 turn above what is supposed to be the ideal angle for my stylus but on a blown up microscope picture this is less than 1/4 of a degree high and TBH I haven't actually repeated that measurement when KOB is on it.  But it sounds better than it did before and better than the 180g version does on this set-up.  I haven't repeated the above test even though I have improved transparency in other parts of the system simply because when I go in there now I just want to listen. 

My conclusion is, if adjustment each time works for you, doesn't 'annoy you' and you hear a difference, then have a L,M,H setting you can easily move to* then why not, but see if you do also have to adjust tracking mass because you are effectively altering the horizontal (and thus the gravity acting) distance from the pivot to the tip of the diamond, so would you want to be altering that as well? And is that also what some are hearing as part of the difference? I note on that I have the Ortofon DS-3 gauge because when trying those with the design of the Project Measure-it I found that the magnetic properties of my quite heavy Ortofon MC Diamond cartridge where pre-altering the gauge reading before the stylus touched and other (far more expensive) borrowed scales showed they were consequently less accurate for my cartridge and the DS-3 were "within an acceptable margin" that was far less than the prescribed range, whilst the variation on the others was taking a good percentage of the range and a gauge's capability should be minimum 10x more accurate than the process which you are measuring.  So I doubt I would want to be measuring / adjusting both and if it was that much better,  I think I would 'schedule' thick and thin sessions. 

But for now both on the Sovereign-Agile and the other OL combinations I have been very happy with a stylus set at approx '180g' setting plus just under 1/4 turn which I suspect (noting it takes significant time to set the macro and microscope up to view this) is probably a stylus angle between 91.8 and 92.1 The latter of which seems to be what Ortofon thinks is the theoretical (and probably empirically tested) ideal.  So on UHQR I am probably at 91.3-91.5 which is going to be closer than most will be to Ortofon's 'optimum', because they quite likely set to 23 deg as that is what it says in the Specs.

*Your question has prompted me to re-do the test in the next month or two with a view to seeing if there is now enough difference given the improved transparency of my system. 

@neonknight  P.S. I note you had used a Verismo before you got the Agile and this has the same Multi Wall Carbon Nanotube technology (MWCNT), developed on the Verismo. They now use this on the MC Diamond which I have on my latest OL Deck with the older MC Anna Diamond being the one I originally tested above and having the less sophisticated suspension material. That being based on the fact that all else being equal the Diamond was significantly better than the Anna Diamond.  On a quick look I cannot see Ortofon noting on either the Verismo or the Diamond the "23 degrees = 90" though "92.1 being the potential optimal" thus requiring nearer 25 degree VTA.

Whether that is because they do not think the 92.1 deg is applicable to the MWCNT I do not as yet know, perhaps there is a reference elsewhere.   I just wanted to note this because when I changed to the MC Diamond from the Anna Diamond, I just checked the quoted spec was the same swapped, tested force and played with an immediate improvement.

I will see if I can find anymore references on this 23/90 deg vs 25/92.1 deg in case this has altered with the change in suspension material.

But if it is up to 2 deg range 90-92.1 for finding the 'optimal'  also that approx 1mm of height adjustment at the pivot is 0.25 degree at the stylus then my adjustments above for 180g to UHQR were no more than 0.5 degree within the MC Anna Diamonds quoted at 2 deg range.       

@dover 

"Please note that you are not "adjusting VTA" for the thickness of records, you are trying to correct the VTA for the variation in thickness of each record."

There is enough question of the need for adjustment / correction or at least the amount of adjustment / correction, lets not split hairs over two statements which amount to the same thing. You are adjusting the VTA from what it was because of  change in the thickness of the record you want to play.  But you are only correcting it if you are without doubt that the angle you are setting it too is exactly the correct one. 

@wrm57  Actually no I was responding to @neonknight question of what I did on VTA.  Which I was giving a why rather than just an answer.  With regard to your point on horizontal and noting the caveat yes if the angle of the arm is set to the same each time then the horizontal distance would not vary.  But, with a two or three L,M,H as I described it then there will still be variation to the horizontal from LL to LH, LM to HM and LH to HH. So my point was only there is still going to be a range of tracking forces if using a 2/3 point setting without adjustment to the counter balance. Is it a variation that is enough to make a difference. It sounds as if if it would for some be far too much as they can hear an angle difference of 0.004 degrees.  Which when I have not seen a spec that reads below 0.1 of a degree is impressive to hear significant differences.

@wrm57 I apologise I hadn't answered your question regarding 12" OL Arms.  Yes I have and in fact I do have a 12" Enterprise arm, as when I bought the Sovereign it had that and the 12" Arm board, which fortunately for me is one you can swap over between a Resolution and Sovereign.   When I got the Sovereign and was already ordering the Agile from OL and had specified 9.5", Mark was at the time working on upgrades to Voyager, the Renown arm and he platter modifications and was at that point leaning himself towards 12" being preferable. So  I did contemplate going for the Agile in 12".  The reason I didn't was that when I tried the Enterprise it was clearly several steps above the Encounter arm I'd originally got when I bought the resolution. It was great with ballads, but if anything it felt/sounded like the result was 'dampening' perhaps 'too smooth' on fast percussive tracks. Further discussion with Mark at the point when he was developing the Voyager-S platter from which some of the Strata mat technology trickled down he was by this time last year considering that the upgrades to the turntable were leaning towards a 9.5" having the best balance overall.  That is what I have gone with on my upgrades and been very happy.  You can see what is my turntable on the videos (and actually also my Whest phonostage) on the  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O9i5t0aGvg video of UK HiFi show 2023 at 9 min 37 Sec (sorry couldn't find an engl.   I do note that though the TT  sounded very good, that OL's 2023 exhibition rig of the speakers shown and sub can truly do even a Calypso and Silver / Onyx arm combo justice. Let alone a Sovereign / Agile, or Voyager/Renown.  I will find out tomorrow Fri 20th Sept whether they have upgraded that for 2024.  I will report back. 

@mulveling and ​​​​@neonknight I agree on VTA. As above I am in the ’club of’ find an optimal for what (thickness) you play most, set L/R balance for that VTA (I ultimately use a l/r balance record for that to also take into account anti-skate influence) and then enjoy.  After 42 years working in R&D I only pursue and fix real problems.

@wrm57 OL were at Ascot on Friday and as you can see at 3:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djDomUrQkEs using the Sovereign-S (which like the Voyager effectively has a ’strata’ matt built in) and Agile arm through their Discovery stage and a sugden amp into DeVore’s this year and a multi speaker sub-they modified with hypex amps. Sugden aside I am still not sure the rest of that set up allows the full capability of the deck through. We will be comparing through my two systems in 3-4 weeks. Though setting up in demo rooms is always a bit of a trial especially when they have as much glass as in the Ascot rooms.

@dover No, as I think you know, I did not make that statement.  

I was responding to the point made by the persons I quoted (who were I think a little fatigued with the to and fro on methods) that the reason I had explained my method in detail was because I wanted to find a setting that would satisfy me as the "good enough" setting and on my system "good enough" sounds better than systems I have heard at several manufacturers R&D facilities.  But also notwithstanding the issues of show set ups.  Close to systems with the same level of source I have but that have 3-5 times more expensive speakers at the Ascot HiFi show (such as Wilson Chronos) where I am fortunate to be able to go on press / VIP day and listen in relatively quiet rooms.

But since you brought it up, what you seem to either not be appreciating, or perhaps you are just not voicing in your thoughts, because it contradicts the 'spot on VTA for each record'. The point I made regarding 'fixing' was regarding the magnitude of and the full range of factors influencing the "incorrectness"  / the proportion of this that can actually be corrected through adjustment of VTA in order to set SRA and consequently the potential for that to impact the deviance this would have from 'total' enjoyment of the individual record. 

Because you are noting VTA (fundamentally SRA) in isolation would actually need to combine this with the other factors that alter the 0.004 degree SRA accuracy requirement you noted to be significant to you. But there are other factors you typically cannot control (and certainly not through the VTA) that vary the resultant SRA you have set by orders of magnitude 10 to 20 (+/- 5 to 10) times. What is more that variation is going on throughout the record.

What I sought was to establish was whether, to my ears, the adjustment from "one position" set to work with the majority of vinyl thickness that I play to what would be the true optimal for transducing the signal as close to the input signal. Not just true to the cutting head but removing that angular variation, etc, of different production processes to achieve the "original" in every case.

I explained my process, but for your 0.004 degree accurate SRA, what I haven't heard is whether you set this for the low, middle or high of the dynamic range of the track?  Because whichever it is will make a difference (as a function combined with  tracking force and whether we are talking 33 1/3 or 45) to the variation in contact angle due to the upward force component of quiet and loud passages. I did take this into account with my "one" setting as I tried a variety of quiet ballards to dynamic rock.  But for your 1/1000" do you listen to the whole track adjusting as you go?, pick a particular passage? If so high, low or medium?   

Then we have warped records.  You may have none, but as the typically quoted standard for 'warp' is that there must be "no interruption to continuous play" and for example eccentricity tolerance is 0.2mm.  Lets take half that 0.1mm because I certainly know I have records that play with no discernable issue that have variation above that.

A 0.1mm adjustment to the 'opposite' of the triangle makes a comparative variation of 0.023 degrees for a 9.5" / 241mm arm.  That is 3.93 times the amount of SRA / VTA variation of the 1/1000" / 0.004 degrees you hear.

In fact to get to a warp variation equivalent to the 0.1 degree resolution specification that the cartridge manufacturers quote would mean just under a +/- 0.25mm variation from a nominal neutral surface. The 0.5mm range giving a angle variation of 0.11 degrees. So given I know I also have records with a 0.25mm deviation. Which means even if I set them to the exact spec angle or chose that by ear for a noticeable characteristic. Over the record that SRA , , that is almost 20 times the variation in SRA you can hear.

So even on your records with less than +/-0.05mm variation from neutral surface, you are setting by ear, so you cannot be sure to be adjusting for the nominal.  That said of course the measurement you 'desire' being the measurement you set by is you taking that 4 to 20 times the SRA variation that you stated you are setting to when you "on balance" decide that is the best setting for that record.

So are you doing that on a particular tonal or dynamic characteristic of a section of that record?  If you do, then do you set the SRA to the same the next time you put that record on?  Or do you do the adjustment again?

Because not only does your record have surface variation, so does your platter. So if you have 0.1mm variation on the platter and 0.1mm variation on the record in one orientation these may cancel, in another they could double.   So my point is, when you think you are listening to a SRA/VTA that is set to your quote of your audibly discernable 0.004 degrees.  You are likely to be listening to something that is typically varying per revolution by 4 to 10 times the accuracy to which you believe you are setting it.

So when I say "I only pursue and fix real problems" first I don't want to adjust it every time to believe I am correcting an error that even if I used one increment on the VTA 'dial' which on mine is 30 degrees vs approx 10 degrees rotation for 1/1000" on a 1 mm pitch thread. Then I (or anybody else) would still be adjusting for something where there is at least 1 to 5 times that amount of variation in the warp of the record and what I know to be a 0.07mm variation (+0.4/-0.3 to the mean) in the surface of my platter.

Those amounts combined are approaching 50% of the variation due to the min to max thickness of most of what I play. So whilst of course these variations exist as an additional stacked tolerance to the variation in warp and platter etc,.  But if I set individual SRA via VTA to an aural characteristic, to be repeatable I would also have to note a reference of label orientation to a reference mark on the platter so as not to alter the relative peaks and troughs of the setting that I considered "the one". 

Even then the record and platter tolerances will not be varying by less 5 to 10 times of your quoted 1/1000th / 0.004 degree hearing capability. 

So adjusting VTA is only removing part of the 'problem' and to fix what I could I would (and have) attempting to remove / minimise the 'constant' variation in the platter which I note somebody who has undertaken around 30 years more experimentation in this area than I have and whom I trust to make £50k turntables and £35k+ arms tells me 0.25mm clocked platter makes no difference. The surface variation in the record cannot be adjusted (without a 'flatter' copy and only by referencing rotational position to the platter can it be said to be deviating but in a repeatable manner.

Consequently, both for this hypothesis and the empirical results that (once I had removed the 'extremes' of the problem through the method previously noted) I heard little improvement on adjustment for the majority of what I listen to, for the simple reason that the other factors are altering SRA to multiples of the degree that you consider to be the 1/1000th 'increment' threshold for VTA.   

Thus I have one setting and if I were to every move from that it would be to have one for 'thicker' and one for 'thinner' because for the actual system variations above I cannot constrain SRA to hold within 0.004 of a degree. 

Note that in my profession, apart from dealing with some of the best hifi source manufacturers in the world, I also deal both with systems that have up to 12 billion, billion setup permutations. But also analysis of manufacturing systems where the accuracy requirement of the manufacturing end effector must achieve a better than 4 nanometre accuracy. Which to achieve requires a manufacturing facility with foundations that for a single storey building have twice the steel reinforced concrete of the Burj Khalifa, [which I also did some analysis for]. When considering this, one has to take into account EVERY factor impacting positional and vibrational contributors to the FMEA in magnitude importance.  Just as I do in addressing the real problems in the factors impacting my hobbies.   

With regard to your last point. Thanks for your "advice" but I am extremely happy with the cartridge and I am more than capable of making my own calculations, analysis and decisions on them. When I do replace or refurb, my analysis will again take into account and prioritise scientifically all the factors that actually impact its performance. 

@rauliruegas   No 'immortals' here, simply applying engineering rigour in consideration to all the contributing factors, especially when there are those that outweigh direct VTA/SRA adjustment in their quantum.

I had just incorporated it into my consideration because when I get a turntable I have a laser test and then if required a dial test for quantum. But I am unsurprised to find that others had already considered the warp / platter peak to trough orientation and found it made, as one would expect a difference being close to / higher in quantum than the resolution of the cartridge manufacturers specification.   

My follow up question would be, given you heard differences in those you tested.  Did the quantum of the variation persuade you to expand your test set and incorporate the "record to patter warp matching" in your daily playing alongside SRA if you adjust.   Or do you have a 'compromise' optimum for your normal range as I do?