Does removing anti-skating really improve sound?


I know this topic has been discussed here before, but wanted to see if others have the same experience as me. After removing the fishing line dangling weight from my tonearm I’m convinced my bass and soundstage has opened up. I doing very careful listening with headphones and don’t hear any distortion or treble harshness. So why use anti-skating at all? Even during deep bass/ loud passages no skipping of tracks. Any thoughts from all the analog gurus out there?
tubelvr1

Showing 2 responses by pegasus

I had the job to adjust a Benz LP S (or was it a Gullwing?) on a SME 345 arm in a high class system. I fine-tuned and two colleagues (and me) were listening carefully while optimizing VTF (& VTA) and anti-skating. - I was open to the idea, that no offset might sound better, but we agreed that setting antiskating to a considerable non-zero position sounded best, with fine adjustments being audible in center focus, but also natural timbre. The sound was somewhat more coherent, nuanced and stable with AS. This was a small surprise as I am skeptical to the mechanical compromises of AS devices. But the SME 345 seems to have "a good one".
- amazing was also how minimal changes in *VTF* of 0.05 gram were audible, with a clear optimum. (at that temperature.. :-) this had more sonic effect BTW.
- the weight / string somehow "does the job" too, but there is a certain non-zero friction that hampers (more) on stable centeredness of the cantilever.
- AS tries to center the cantilever, balancing left/right forces on the suspension. This results, as said above, in an optimal position of coils/magnets vs. the magnetic circuit.

- the principal problem with arms with offset angle/overhang is that the friction on the stylus (and the  cantilever that holds the stylus) works in a considerable angle relative to the tonearm center. This friction changes dynamically, with every scratch, every variation of modulation, every difference in vinyl properties or surface debris, even within one rotation.
- longer arms have less offset angle and improve this geometrical aspect.
- AS can’t neutralize the dynamic variations, only the static ones.Strong horizontal damping would optimize that aspect together with AS, but has it’s own set of compromises.
- the Thales arms have much less overhang, though they still have a (lesser) varying absolute offset of the cantilever vs. the stylus/tonearm center line.

- You’d have to go a long way in dis-adjustment on a linear tracking arm to create the normal geometrically generated problems of one of the normal arms. (Even if they can work very, very well :-).
- I’d say from my experience that it is no problem to adjust a linear tracking arm within 0.5mm error in overhang. The offset pull on the cantilever will be very small under these circumstances.

Thinking about the varying levels, ie. average and peak levels being quite different, the best *sounding* antiskating will rather compensate levels with average modulation.
This will need less compensation than trying to minimize and center distortion artefacts on high level modulations, like eg. 70u.
This latter method is what I used in earlier times, but my feeling was that I usually ended with too high antiskating settings.
I tend to agree, that (one of the better methods of) "traditional" adjustment results in too high antiskating for optimal music replay (with musics low to moderate average levels - and relative friction).