Setting anti-skate

I have the HiFi News record. With minimum anti-skate, the cartridge, Helikon, goes through the frst 3 tracks with no buzzing. It does buzz in the right channel slightly during the last track with the highest modulation.

Tracks 6-9 on side one of the HFN record are virtually useless for setting antiskate, unless of course you're going to play alot of test records with unrealistic amplitudes on inner grooves. The best use for those tracks is to ignore them.

If you want to use the HFN record to rough in your AS setting, try the three widely spaced "tracking test" bands on side two. If your cartridge buzzes on them (the Helikon may not) get the buzzing roughly equal on all three bands. (You may get opposite channel buzzing on the inner and outer tracks, just equalize that). Fine tune by ear with music from there.

On some old records, I do hear some breakup in the left channel. This is an old Riverside with sax. As the sound swells, you can hear the distortion. I increased anti-skate, and the distortion in the left channel seemed to stay the same, but the center image became a little cloudy. Setting anti-skate back to minimum restored the focus. I think the distortion is due to the the record being damaged or still dirty after cleaning. I bought the record used.

If that L channel breakup were caused by an incorrect antiskate setting, the remedy would be to decrease AS, not increase it. Try reducing AS and/or increasing VTF slightly. If that doesn't eliminate the distortion it's either dirt, damage or an amplitude and frequency that exceed the tracking limits of the cartridge.

Other then a distinct distortion in just one channel, is there anything else to listen for?

Excess AS has exactly the effect you heard, clouded imaging. On a fine cartridge like the Helikon you'll also hear muffled HF's and/or reduced microdynamics. The fact that you heard these things indicates that your original AS setting was closer to being correct.

This is the "fine tuning by ear with music" method. Use only enough AS to prevent R (not L) channel distortion on tough passages. If imaging goes cloudy or highs get muffled, back it off a bit.

Eldartford and SirSpeedy,

My TriPlanar sounds alot better than my linear tracking HK/Rabco arms. Does that vote count? ;-)

I'm with Mark on the scale. I will defend my .01g VTF adjustments to the death! :-)

Rmaurin wrote:

Why are the widely spaced tracks better?

Because skating forces vary across the record. Measuring at just one place cannot account for this. Measuring on outer, middle and inner grooves lets you identify an AS setting that balances this variable.

Eldartford wrote:

Setting antiskating using a highly modulated groove does make sense. Such a groove is when mistracking will occur.

Skating forces vary with groove modulations. Adjusting AS for unrealistically modulated grooves will result in excess AS for real grooves.

... and:

Less modulated grooves will be OK with antiskating a bit high.

I'm sorry, but this is misguided. If AS is set too high then you're intentionally causing uneven groovewall pressures. This will result in premature wear of both your vinyl and stylus, on the R channel side of each.

Further, if your rig and system are sufficiently resolving it's easy to hear the effects of excessive AS. Warjarret has already done so. If your rig or system cannot resolve those sonic effects it doesn't mean they aren't occuring at the stylus/groove interface. It just means your rig or system can't reproduce them.

Warjarret,
By "widely spaced" I was not referring to individual grooves and the spacing between them. I was referring to tracks 1, 4 and 8(?) being spaced on outer, central and inner grooves. For why this is significant, read my response to Rmaurin above.

BTW, no one questions that skating forces occur on blank surfaces. It's just that, as you said, they are a poor approximation of the skating forces created by a stylus riding inside a modulated groove. Yes, AS is always a compromise. I've said that a million times. But what's the point of choosing a compromise based on a totally unrelated operating environment?

Undertow,
Please do what Nsgarch said, immediately. The cure for slippery cueing is learning to cue more carefully. Whether you cue by hand or with a cueing lever, the tonearm should not be released until the stylus has found a groove.

Adjusting VTF and/or antiskating to prevent this problem makes them grossly too high for normal playing conditions. Vinyl and/or cartridge damage are very likely.

...we need to figure out a final step which ACCURATLY provides the real adjustment.

Warjarret,
I think you're engaging in antiskate overkill. As I said above, there is no such thing as a perfect antiskate setting. The very notion is impossible and you've described the reasons why yourself. This search for ultimate "accuracy" is more hopeless than the search for the Holy Grail. It simply doesn't exist. It can't exist.

I think the only way to do this right, is by playing various test tones, and comparing right and left channel distortion on a distortion analyzer.

No test tones can accurately emulate the variable vinyl formulations, variable groove modulations and variable arm positions we encounter on real records. Why measure some theoretical value that bears only an accidental and occasional relationship to constantly changing real world conditions? What's the point?

Without this equipment, I agree that listening is the next best way.

No, it is a better way. The subtlest effects of excess antiskate would not even be detected by a distortion analyzer, since they have nothing to do with distortion or mistracking.

The physical effect of excess antiskate is a constraining lateral pressure on the cantilever/suspension interface. This dampens HF response and muffles microdynamics. Nothing to do with distortion. You'd have to set antiskate far WORSE before distortion began to occur.

Your ears and brain are capable of very subtle "measurements" if you trust them and train them. You may not be able to quantify the results, which I sense might bother you, but with practice you will hear the results and you will be able to repeat them. All the "roughing in" methods we've discussed tend to set antiskate too high. From there, reduce it until you get full HF extension and maximum microdynamics.

Then relax and enjoy the music. :-)
Doug

Old Dual gimbal arms? Hey, I had a 1218 and a 1229 also. We must be long lost brothers!

Warjarret,
Most of us do adjust azimuth (I hope). As SirSpeedy said, since there's only one ideal setting for any given cartridge it's pretty much set and forget.

Test tones and measuring equipment are effective for azimuth and I'm part owner of one such device. The better my system gets, however, the less I need it. I can adjust azimuth by ear just as accurately - and alot quicker.

I haven't bothered with our Wally Analog Shop (or even Dan_Ed's lamps and magnifiers) in over a year. When our system was less resolving the Wally did the job best, but since we couldn't hear much difference it barely mattered! The money it cost me would have been better spent on system improvements, or more LP's. Wanna buy my share? :-)