Just to note that Tom uses the term zenith and the term headshell offset angle as if they were synonymous. For me, and in all my comments above, the term Zenith is used to refer only to the angle of the mounting of the stylus tip in the cantilever in the horizontal plane and has nothing to do with headshell offset. Certainly head shell offset angle and zenith, as I use the term, are interrelated, but the difference in the definition is also important if you want to understand some of the points that I and dave slagle were trying to make. You can optimize the headshell offset angle for a particular geometry, but all is for naught, if the zenith angle of the stylus tip is not 90°, or such that the two contact patches of the stylus tip are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cantilever.
- ...
- 595 posts total
The accuracy of Zenith is a difficult subject as numerous Cartridge users have Cantilever / Styli's in used that are a Pre-Assembled Part, provided as a Part from a supply chain to Cartridge producers. The supply chain seeming conform to a particular level of QA, where a tolerance is allowed for in relation to the perpendicular setting of the Styli in the Cantilever. It is only Threads such as this that informs Cart' owners, that there is the very strong possibility the Styli on a owned Cart' is from the offset off being put into service, one that has been compromised, or alternatively one that is not optimised for the Geometric alignment. How many are willing to go to the additional measures to attempt to improve on this alignment, when known about ? How many are convinced the time needed to be spent to improve on the alignment, will produce an end sound that audibly shows a discernable difference of betterment to the end sound. What level of tolerances need to be in place between mechanical interfaces for the TT > Tonearm > Tonearm Headshell Connections, to exploit the condition of a correct / near correct Zenith Alignment being achieved. I personally, I know the value of having Critical Mechanical Interfaces addressed to the tightest of tolerances between above three items, where two of the Tools in use, also have critical interfaces that are the lowest coefficients of friction. It is these interfaces being optimised, in conjunction with Critical Geometry Alignment for a Cartridge, that really enables a Cart' to pop and express the Sweet Spot is met. It is these interfaces being optimised, in conjunction with Critical Geometry Alignment for a Cartridge, that really enables a Cart' to reveal a change has occurred and the pop / expression of the Sweet-Spot being met, has changed to the point the real attraction once experienced has diminished. I would be willing to take the 'Punt' on the notion, many many TT's in use, are used with Cart's that have a design intent to perform at a extremely high level. Where these Cart's are used on supporting ancillaries that are not mechanically optimised and are set up as a Geometrical Alignment that has not been given the attention to create a condition that is accurate as can be achieved. In all cases, a TT>TA>Cart' are more than capable of producing an end sound that the end listener really enjoys. Begging the question exactly what is to be attained as a result of all the extra learning, disciplines put into practice and time spent. Referencing an experience encountered yesterday, where I was a member of a Group familiar with a particular TT>TA >Cart' that has been set up using AnalogMagik Software. I made the comment that I had detected a slight change to the impression the end sound was making, where it had lost a little of its pop/sweet spot, it was the first time ever, I felt CD had got close to Parity as the impression being made. Certain Group members including the TT owner felt my comment was with merit. The TT owner has already arranged for the AnalogMagik Software to be used on the TT once more, to learn more about the suspected loss of optimisation. My own take on it, is that the loss of pop/sweet spot, has been no different a impact on the end sound, to the impression made during a before / after degauss comparison, or the impression certain Interconnect Cables can create as a result of comparing them, some sound they are less impressive, whilst another is the one selected as the go to, or withheld for a longer period of assessment. If the AnalogMagik does show a Geometric Alignment is called for and the pop / sweet-spot is reinvigorated returning to a previously achieved condition. Even though this condition will be attractive to have, some might say very attractive to have. The real value is that to have such a condition being in place, is a great method to be used as a indicator for when the set up has crept from being optimised. Personally I don't feel that the suggestion there was a creep away from the pop / sweet-spot having impeded the end sound in a way it was unattractive, the presentation of Tracks played was immensely enjoyed. In context the day was solely about meeting / enjoying friends company with a wonderful lunch served alfresco. The entertainment was available through Banter and the experiencing of New Design Prototypes of Equipment used with both Digital and Analogue Sources, New Speakers available in the UK, some familiar Tracks and a Selection of New Tracks Certain individuals would be struggling with the idea, I was to make such a comment about enjoying a Vinyl replay that showed the tools used, had seemingly crept from a previous optimised set up. For some it would quite likely be interpreted as I am not an Audiophile for accepting anything but perfection when listening to a replay of recorded music. HOW MISERABLE IS THAT. life is way too short for such a pattern of thought to manifest. |
lewm12,693 posts No RIAA correction?
Yes, though probably best left out of this thread judging by some of the comments made by others over simply removing offset.. :) Rgds, Paul |
- 595 posts total