Fozgometer V2

j-wall, Adjusting for azimuth has very little effect on "channel balance" per se. It only affects crosstalk and the fact that it affects crosstalk is the only reason to obsess over it. So, don’t conflate "channel balance" with setting azimuth so that crosstalk is equal on both sides. I say this with conviction, because not only have I read it but also I have personally confirmed the minimal effect of azimuth on channel balance, using my Signet Cartridge Analyzer and an appropriate Shure test LP. Very extremes of azimuth angle in either direction had at most a 1-2db effect on channel balance, as defined by the signal voltage in channel R as compared to the signal voltage in channel L (not crosstalk). Furthermore, you would never want to play records at any of those extreme settings, because doing so would damage the cartridge and the LPs.

I can see why you might have been confused by what I wrote earlier, but I tried to be clear I was talking about crosstalk; some like to set crosstalk equal, so that leakage of R channel signal into the L channel is equal to the leakage of L channel signal into the R channel, in db. In my experience, when you set that goal, you have to sacrifice to some degree the level of channel separation you potentially could otherwise achieve, which is to say that the absolute value of crosstalk you can get to is greatest if you just shoot for minimum crosstalk, regardless of whether the numbers are equal. To illustrate, maybe you can achieve 25db of separation on both sides (the signal voltage applied to the R channel that leaks into the L channel is down by 25db vs what appears in the R channel and vice-versa) , but if you just adjust for best values in each direction separately, you might achieve -30db on one side and -27db on the other. I’ve read arguments for either end point, but I think the Foz is designed to achieve equal crosstalk. So also, all of this is about setting azimuth electrically. Korf and others have made a good case for setting azimuth so the stylus sits squarely in the groove, without regard for the numbers game. You could call that the mechanical method. It requires some degree of faith in cartridge manufacturers, but at least you know you are not wearing out your stylus aberrantly (by having it at an angle to the groove walls) and that you are not damaging LPs. I have moved over to that side of the argument; I no longer use electronics to set azimuth. See also what Larry wrote above.

Teo, by your method you’re adjusting for cartridge plus phono plus linestage, not for the cartridge alone. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that. I had a real Uncle Bob, so Bob was always my uncle.

We have two separate questions, the value of setting azimuth accurately, and the value of a Foz  to attain that goal. I don’t think anyone would argue it is not a good idea to set azimuth as close as possible to correct, wherever that is. And by whatever method.

j-wall, No, I have never used a Fozgometer.  But I have formed some impressions by reading the several discussions of it here.  For one thing, it seems odd to me that many report it does not work correctly unless you have "fresh" batteries.  The typical 9V battery is fairly robust and maintains a minimum of 9V for a long time, given a reasonable current draw.  Fresh ones right out of the container typically measure 9.2V to 9.4V in fact. So, why does the Foz go off with even slightly used batteries?  Maybe it draws too much current.  Second, based on the instructions for its use, I gather it works to equalize crosstalk, so that L leakage into R and R leakage into L values are equal, in other words.  There is nothing per se wrong with that, but in my direct experience adjusting azimuth by electrical methods (using a Signet Cartridge Analyzer and Shure test LP), you get better crosstalk numbers by seeking a setting that minimizes crosstalk on each side, without regard for whether the crosstalk db are equal to each other in both directions.  Moreover, sometimes when I have sought to equalize crosstalk, the cartridge has ended up so obviously askew with respect to the 90 degree azimuth setting that I feared damage to the suspension, cantilever, and stylus, not to mention to LPs.  Then more recently I read the articles by Korf on azimuth setting, and those convinced me that the best compromise is to set the stylus tip so it sits squarely in the groove, by visual inspection, and accept that the electronic result may or may not be perfect.  I no longer attempt to set azimuth electronically (although I own all the test gear imaginable, save for a Foz, to do it).

Do a search on these threads, on the subject of "Fozgometer" or "Azimuth".  You will find out about the good and the bad.  It's a controversial tool, to say the least.  I don't know whether version 2 is any different from or better than version 1. And then also seek out the paper by Korf on azimuth adjustment, on line.