sbank, Thanks. I was too lazy to Google it. Raul, sorry. |
Raul, Before now, I thought your favored alignment geometry is Baerwald. And isn't Baerwald equivalent to Lofgren B, not A? Surprised to read here that you strive for A.
I think one reason this topic is controversial relates to a point that Raul made earlier: the tracking angle error and therefore any audio signal distortion created by TAE, is changing every second, as the stylus traverses the playing surface, while we listen to music. It may be very difficult for the brain to detect the audio distortions, because at any one moment in time, the distortion being generated by an erroneous alignment may be no worse than the distortion momentarily created by any one of the standard alignments, at a different distance from the spindle on the same LP. This could pertain even if, on average, we are best off with one of the standard alignments (assuming here Lofgren or Baerwald, since Raul hates Stevenson as much as he hates tubes). This business is not as simple as detecting and eliminating a distortion that is a constant. |
But you certainly don’t have to buy the analog magic hoo-hah or a smartractor, in order to have good tools for the job.
|
In my opinion, you need to set up the cartridge properly with very good tools, and then find out for yourself if you think it makes a difference. This thread is a collection of anecdotal subjective impressions. |
So, has anyone ever owned, seen, or heard of a test LP that encodes a single frequency test tone from outermost to innermost grooves, on at least one of its two sides? |
fsonic et al, What is measured is the tracking angle error, the degree to which the cantilever deviates from tangency. All the plots I have ever seen plot distance from outer groove to inner groove as a function of the angle by which the cantilever is not tangent. Thus you see a horizontal line representing the x-axis, labeled "0", to indicate zero tracking angle error. Then you have on the y-axis positive numbers above the x-axis and negative numbers below the x-axis, to indicate that the tracking angle error can go either positive or negative with respect to its vector direction. Then we audiophiles conflate these data with audio signal distortion. But I have never seen any experimental proof that the two are linearly correlated. In the modern era, there is no one who would bother to do that, because we live in the era of BS rules. In the era from the 50s through most of the 70s, there were reputable audio companies and publications that might have conducted such work. Shure, for example, published beautiful treatises on cartridge design and performance, in those days. Early Stereophile did some nice stuff, and so did Audio Magazine. Then there is/was the Audio Engineering Society.
Certainly, it makes sense to maintain tangency as much as possible. I don't dispute that that is an attractive idea. |
The odd thing is that Raul's native language is Spanish, or I assume it to be. In Spanish and other Romance languages, the verb usually does not come last in a sentence. Truth be told, I usually understand Raul, but I did not understand all the nuances of his latest diatribe against me, as noted above. I just tried to get the gist of it.
What Raul was saying is:
I (LewM) cannot hear the differences afforded by exact proper alignment, because:
(1) I use "tubes". (Note that he is essentially incorrect regarding my Beveridge system.)
(2) Raul once owned an underhung tonearm (the RS Labs RS-A1). He didn't like it.
(2) I am not a trained listener, as he is. None of us is trained, but Raul is trained. He trained himself.
(3) We should enjoy the "music", even though we are not worthy.
So, I ask Raul or anyone else to produce data to support his underlying assumption that proper alignment according to one of the three standard algorithms (Lofgren, Baerwald, Stevenson) produces less or lower audio signal distortion over the course of playing a typical LP than would be the case if the alignment did not conform to any of those standards. Here we have to be careful, because, as I noted, it is fairly easy to misalign the cartridge to such a degree that there are no/zero null points achieved across the entire surface of an LP. Whereas, there are probably un-documented alignments that do result in 2 null points. So, we have to decide on what alignments to compare. I have done an internet search to find out whether there is a published paper on this subject, from the AES, for example, and I don't find any. Baerwald's alignment was published in 1941!!! What one would do is to measure THD at the output of a phono stage vs time (t) from the start of play to the run-out grooves, using a test LP that encodes a single pure tone. Then plot THD vs t for two or more alignments. If alignment is critical, then THD should be minimal at the exact moment when the cantilever is tangent to the groove, etc. The time-based data could be converted to THD vs distance from outermost groove to innermost groove.
The funny thing is, I had the serendipitous experience that leads me to question the need for precise alignment using Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson, only about 2 weeks ago. And it was unexpected. But I'd like to know "the truth", or a better approximation of it. |
Further, you, Raul, used to claim that exact alignment was over-rated. I know you've changed your tune, just as you changed your tune on MM vs MC cartridges. All of that is OK, but don't pretend to be perfectly consistent in your views.
For my part, I was asking for trouble with my post, because of the un-scientific nature of my report, NOT because I do or don't use tubes, and I hope not because I am not worthy, as you infer. This subject is not really a matter of opinion. The hypothesis that accurate alignment according to one of the popular algorithms is or is not vital to purest reproduction of music from vinyl can be tested. All we need is a test LP with a single pure test tone encoded over the entirety of one side, lets say 1000 Hz, a very high quality protractor, and a distortion analyzer. Maybe the test LP would have a mono signal on one side and a stereo signal on the other. I would be very interested to conduct this experiment. In fact, I would be willing to buy a distortion analyzer in order to do it (they are readily available on eBay and cost is nominal), but I don't know whether the required test LP exists. If anyone has info on that subject, please let us know. |
Raul, my Beveridge system is mostly solid state. The Manley Steelhead is a hybrid. The Beveridge amplifiers contain active solid state crossovers and the amplification is entirely solid state. Only the output stage uses tubes, a necessity for direct drive of the panels which requires high rail voltages.All the observations I reported regarding cartridge alignment were made using this system.
|
My disenchantment with the religion of very precise alignment took place quite by accident. I had my Ortofon MC2000 in a headshell that had been aligned for the tonearm on my Kenwood L07D turntable. The MC2000 did not work well in that system due to inadequate phono gain. (If you don't know already, the MC2000 is infamous for its tiny voltage output, 0.05mV at the standard velocity.) I had reluctantly decided to sell it, but I thought I ought to give it a try in my other system, just to prove to myself that the MC2000 was not in fact defective in any way, and out of curiosity as well. So I popped the headshell/cartridge onto a Dynavector DV505 tonearm in my other system, without any effort to re-align, and to my surprise, the MC2000 sounds stellar in that context. I subsequently did do an alignment on the Dynavector (using a Feickert protractor), and I heard zero major difference, let alone any improvement, as a result of my effort. And so on, to an FR64S tonearm without further re-alignment, in this same system. This is a scientifically worthless anecdote, in a sense, but there it is. I probably deserve criticism for even putting this story on line, but I cannot ignore what my ears tell me. |
Surprisingly, perhaps to you, I will be the 3rd person to find some truth in what you say. But keep in mind also that as little as 2mm of error off perfect alignment (conforming to one of the standard algorithms) can result in NO null points on the playing surface of the LP, which is to say no points where the cantilever is tangent to the groove walls. The question in my mind is whether that matters. It is possible that tracking angle error, and the "distortion" it produces, are over-rated as causes of truly audible distortion in playback. Keep in mind that the algorithms for cartridge alignment by Lofgren and Baerwald were published originally in 1941. In 1941, we did not have stereo, we did not have LPs, we had 78 rpm lacquers played back on hand cranked phonographs using steel styli of indeterminant shape.
What started me thinking so heretically is my finding that UNDER-hung tonearms, like the Viv Float and the RS Labs RS-A1 sound so good. If the stylus underhangs the spindle (and with ZERO headshell offset angle), then you are certain to get one and only one null point on the surface of an LP, and you can line up your tonearm so as to place that null point at the mid-point of the playing surface. But you will ALWAYS achieve tangency at one point; there's no danger of no null points. The "negative" consequence of this is that the max tracking angle error of an underhung tonearm at the extremes (e.g., at the innermost and outermost grooves, if you align for a null point at the mid-point) is much greater than the worst case predicted scenario for PERFECT alignment with an overhung tonearm and an offset headshell. Yet, like I said, the few underhung tonearms sound excellent and I perceive no change in the SQ across the surface of an LP, something one can sometimes perceive with a conventional overhung tonearm. (In fact, my RS Labs tonearm can sound like a master tape.) This is despite the max tracking angle error of such tonearms. Another way in which underhung tonearms are interesting is that the direction of the skating force changes as the stylus crosses over the single null point. For that reason, there is no sense in using anti-skate devices. Further, there is no added skating force due to headshell offset angle, because the headshell is not offset.
Please don't jump on me; these are just thoughts I've had. Lately, I've done what some of you mention, just listen to cartridges in overhung tonearms without even bothering to do an "alignment". They typically sound shockingly excellent. |
