I don't think it follows from "there is no right setting" that you may as well not use AS at all. And I apologize for coming on perhaps too strongly. I use AS on my overhung tonearms, of course, and I try for a minimum amount that eliminates distortion in the R channel that I can hear with zero AS. So maybe by shooting for that entirely subjective endpoint I end up using a tiny bit more AS with those exotic stylus shapes you mention. I would need the Wallyskater to determine that.
Feel Silly Asking This Question Alignment Parameters
I feel silly asking this question, but here it goes. Most of the arms I have owned over the years have came with proprietary protractors, and certain ones like the SME are really just overhang gauges. For other ones I have bought custom generated arc protractors for the specific arm. I will probably do so again with this Origin Live arm. However in the mean time i decided to set up using their provided protractor.
When I went to install a cartridge on the table, I found I was not wild about using their protractor, so I decided to generate a Conrad H arc protractor till I made an order for an Accutrak one. What I found odd is that Lofgren A had the longest overhang at 16.8 mm and Lofgren B at 16.3mm. The Origin Live shows 17.5 mm. Is the Rega type alignment that much different than Lofgren or Stevenson? I also noticed with the OL alignment that cartridge offset in the headshell was noticeably greater.
What is also noticeable is the sonics of each alignment is different. To be honest, I like the overall sound of the OL alignment, but I also have this nagging feeling that it does not track as well.
I always felt at this stage of my audio journey I knew how to align a cartridge. I have been doing it since I was in my 20's! Now I have a large degree of uncertainty of which alignment to choose, and what the implications are if i choose wrong. This arm is a long term keeper for me, so its a matter of wanting to get this set up optimized.
Any insights you might pass along is greatly appreciated. Do have a good chuckle at my expense as it seems that I get into these moments of self doubt, and trying to find the way out of the forest of audio can be quite comical.
- ...
- 81 posts total
There are those that make that argument @lewm. You are either leaning on one wall or the other. My goal is to minimize that as much as is feasible, even it out. An arm that is not offset is ideal as long as it stays right on the tangent. |
When I recommend a procedure or tool to a customer, I try to get a read on their aptitude and willingness to learn. Needless to say, mechanical and cognitive skills span quite a broad range and with them, so do my recommendations. If someone is willing to recognize how alignments are established (and the reason I published that blog post linked to, above), then we have vanquished yet another demon. I look at that as a good thing. As far as anti-skate is concerned, it is "accidentally correct" at a few points along the stylus’ path, and of course, if you’ve set any anti-skating force at all, it’s wrong at the null points ;-) I endorse the method espoused by both Frank Schröder and Peter Lederman of Soundsmith (click here for Peter's comments). Don’t get too cute with anti-skate. AJ van Den Hul once told me that the vast majority of cartridges he receives for inspection show signs of vastly too much anti skate (wear on the outer / lead-in groove side of the stylus). When you understand that anti-skate is is the vector sum of the forces which in turn vary with groove friction, you’ll realize why any attempt at anything more than a minimal setting is asking for trouble. Groove friction in turn varies. It is a function of the cleanliness and condition of both the stylus and record, the shape and polish of the diamond, and the signal level encoded in the grooves. In other words, what works for one record at 87mm from the record spindle may be too little or too much force for another record. Wally M was a charming, quirky fellow and he has done some amazing work for the vinyl community, but his one product which I strongly disagree with is his Wally-Skater. I did a favor for him at one show, and he offered me any Wally-tool as an expression of gratitude. Thinking that I was missing something, I chose a Wally-Skater. Read Peter Lederman’s comments on the topic and focus on getting your zenith correct. You may well have been misdiagnosing poor zenith as incorrect anti-skate. ... Thom |
@lewm - With all due respect you stated that "AS is constant in magnitude" which is not true. As Peter Ledermann confirms: "A properly designed anti-skating is non-linear, as it should of course increase A-S automatically as the cartridge approaches the inner grooves." |
+100 re:WAM Engineering ("Wallytools"). J. R. Boisclair is one of the most knowledgable engineers in the country, maybe in the world, when it comes to optimizing the performance of cartridges and tonearms. His site & online channels are packed with tutorials, reference information, research results, etc. Buying a full set of Wallytools isn't cheap, but it's a one-time investment and in my own first-hand experience, JR's microscopic analysis service & toolset made a more dramatic improvement in my vinyl reproduction than did upgrading to cables that cost far more -- and I experienced consistent results with MM & MC cartridges ranging from $700 to $2800. Before making a decision based on well-intentioned, often well-informed, but outsider-looking-in advice from fellow members, you owe it to yourself to at least browse through WAM's online resources (and Michael Fremer's excellent WAM overviews in Stereophile). In my opinion, NO ONE who is serious about vinyl reproduction should try to fool themselves into thinking that they can accurately and precisely align a commercially manufactured cartridge without WAM on their side. Even the best "standard" protractors only get you partway there. |
- 81 posts total