Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Dear Jbthree: Yes, is a tremendous performer, beyond any one could expect: was a very nice surprise to me.

This is what I posted in the Agon Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood:

+++++ " This is the very first time that talk about " rhythm ": the cartridge has a natural ability to transmit rhythm in what you heard/hear, a cartridge self rhythm that makes you " dance " even with classical Lps. This kind of rhythm ( I can't find other word. ) makes too that the reproduced music came with a heavy weight of emotion/real soul that always " touch " your senses. Good, very good!. " +++++

well, the MF-200 shares this unique CA characteristic that makes the MF200 nothing less than: formidable!!! and is better tracker than the CA, so any one could imagine what this means.

Of course, I like this Astatic MF-200 a lot.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Stltrains: From " stock " the P100LE comes adjusted with 23° on VTA. In reality I did not use that cartridge adjustement other than by curiosity.

On the Agon review you can find information on what worked for me with this AKG cartridge, I'm still love its performance. Here you have a very good and different " voice " than your Technics 100MK4: both with almost no peer.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Raul, So, as I was guessing, with the MG10 you just got the overhang as close as possible to perfect without worrying about actual "perfect" based on a protractor. I am sure it works fine to do that. The UNIprotractor tends to make one very anal about exact correct alignment, and it's easy to see if you are off even by a tiny distance. Nevertheless, the design of the AT headshells is surprisingly limiting. Not only is freedom to set overhang limited, but also one must have screws of the exact correct length so as to tighten the cartridge in place before they bottom out in the threaded hole in the headshell.

Based on my early impressions of the Grace Ruby, I am tending to think that the Belldream HS52 (I think that's the model name) is a superb headshell, probably a "Best Buy" among new ones. I am thinking that I need to re-mount the Acutex 320 in a Belldream as well.
To All,

Heads Up!
Brand new ClearAudio Virtuoso Wood. $500 on "Canuck Audio Mart". Look under "analog" for listing.

Regards,
Don
Dear Lew, The elephant is considered to have a good memory.
This may be called 'the elephant story'. Some time ago I suggested that Tri should make, say,3 differnt anti-skate weights for the Triplanar. I unfortunately called the thing
'bias weight' and coused confusion. My idea was that two
smaller weights will adapt the arm to different carts as
well to the,say, minimalist conception of the anti-skate.
You was against this thought but give me advice to find a
machinist who will make whatever anti-skate weight I like
for me. Now I know that you have such an machinist in your
neighbourhood. I am sure that he can 'drill' those 'grooves' in your AT headshell such that you can optimize the 'tiny distance' for any cart you own.

Regards,
Dear Nandric, Excellent idea. What he does for me or with me is out of friendship and when it is fun or interesting for him. No money changes hands. So I will have to turn the idea into some sort of adventure. I have another, bigger project to talk him into, before I think about headshells.
Hello nandric i know you must have seen doug deacons triplaner thread where he uses small rubber donuts for AS. In the end back then as i found out using AS takes from the music i removed my AS device from my TP all together. Along with the damping trough. I now have the striped down version. Its going to be without the cueing device for a while one time to many senior moments of lifting the cue when locked in the arm has blown out the oil. Tri is one of the best guys in all of audio and this repair is easy for him.

Lew i looked into those Belldream HS52s, appears heavy and the horizontal movement seems like one more part in the chain with a connection how do you like its operation.
Mike
Dear Mike, I actually can't compete with the elephants qua
memory. I only preteded so to get even with Lew. But I still remember to have got for free those 'O rings' from someone in our forum. I assume that you was the person in casu but , I must confess, I forget the name. Anyway I use 4 of them instead of the original anti-skate weight. I also remember Dougs 'theory' about the anti-skate but my
approch of this, uh, very sensitive person was not very
succesful so I got a reprimand from him like the one by
Dertonarm when I stated not to be able to see fractions of an 'mm' (1mm ). The distance involved at the stylus scale was like : you think that your stylus is in New York while
your stylus is actually in Washington. I also got the advice to buy a CD player...

Regards,
Man theres some cold blooded people here at the gon and you have to take the good with the bad at times.

I seem to remember if theres such a thing i used no4 brass washers for AS and could remove them when playing an lp for that adjust as you hear the music deal.

Im trying to learn with this group of fine gentleman being a newbe to know when its real or poking.
You guys have taught me a ton and i thank you all.
Mike
I just set the stock Triplanar AS weight to minimum and forget about it. Doug's obsession with "resonating" parts does not hold water for me. If the AS device and the trough are tightly bolted to the main structure, they cannot add "resonance"; they can only alter the resonant frequency of the entire tonearm, probably in a downward direction wrt frequency. Who is to say that this is a bad thing? Plus I really hear distortions in my system with no AS applied. I guess Doug hears something that I don't hear with regard to a negative effect of the AS and damping trough.

Mike, the stated weight of the Belldream is 12gm, I believe. Compared to other headshells, I would say this is "medium" weight. But I did not weigh mine, and to tell the truth, it felt pretty hefty in my hand and was obviously heavier than the Denon headshell into which the Acutex 320 is mounted. If the Grace Ruby continues to sound as good as it did for 30 minutes last night, I will leave the Ruby in the Belldream for a spell. As to the possible disadvantage of the azimuth adjustment feature, I would just tighten down that screw that clamps the headshell in one position and then listen to music. Fugeddaboudit.
Hello lew im with you if you are enjoying the music with your triplaner thats all that matters.

For me it is the other way around and i came to that conclusion after a lot of listening both ways. It seems that AS squashed dynamics to my ears. The only thing that lightens the arm is removing the set screw for damping.

Now that ive added a micro sheiki ma 505 i have a good partner for my tp and i have to add the micro aint no slouch.
And where my new learning curve lies headshells.
Mike
Mike, You wrote, "The only thing that lightens the arm is removing the set screw for damping." Can you elaborate? What set screw? And why did you want to lighten the arm? What really puzzles me is that some perfectly reasonable people, such as yourself and Doug, claim that they can live totally without any AS and have no issues with groove distortions. I hear it immediately if I totally remove AS, both on my Dynavector and on my Triplanar. So, I start from the position that some (a very tiny amount, actually) AS is necessary. Sorry, this is not about MM and MI cartridges per se.
Hello Lew what can i say other than again im on the other side of the coin. I havent used AS in years without any intergroove distortion in any shape or form. I listen as mentioned to a whole lot of music and have friends over never any mention of anything except toe tapping enjoyable music.

The screw a 8 32 i think goes from the arm to the trough. Dont know if nandric was referring to this but i am tempted to experiment with the tp weights to see if a lighter arm does make a difference with these high compliance cartridges.

Dont know if its my former job before retirement as a repair and maintenance tech with elevators that gives me the confidence to tackle items like a triplaner. I have the drive to try things within my system that sometime is very positive and sometime not.
Mike
I've been following this thread for a while and recently decided to take the plunge and try out mm's , having used mc's exclusively for tha last 30 or so years.
First tried an Acutex 420 which was ok but didn't blow my mind. I recently picked up a NOS square body 320iii str and it is showing some promise but still needs to be dialled in fully. Can anyone make recommendations re: capacitance and loadining for this cartridge? I guess it will take some trial & error as I don't know the input capacitance of my preamp(it has standard 47k loading with parallel RCA's for loading but to get 100k I would have to go in and change the loading resitor) or the cable capacitance.
I also picked up a Piezo YM 308 II Z which from what I can see is identical to the 320 str ... same body, black stylus holder and the cantilever and armature look identical. The only difference I can see is that the cantilever is not as steeply raked as the 320 but I guess this could be due to the suspension having settled (collapsed???). Any body know anything about this model?? It is different to the YM308 pictured on the lencoheaven thread which was beige .... this one is all black like the 320.
Dear Lewm: Could you explain why to be: +++++ " anal about exact correct alignment " ++++, when at the same firts moment that the stylus tip touch the LP that exact alignment goes out due to all imperfections in the LP?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Mike, "The screw a 8 32 i think goes from the arm to the trough." So you would remove that screw entirely if you are going to remove the damping trough. But that would not lighten the arm wand, i.e., it would not reduce tonearm effective mass. (I should run downstairs to check out my own TP to be sure of this, but I am about to hit the sack. I think the trough is attached to the vertical column that supports the bearing assembly. You can say that the trough adds some sort of unpleasant resonance, if you want, but I don't think it adds mass.) Also, as regards effective mass vis the counter-wts, you want the counter-wt as close as possible to the pivot to minimize effective mass. The effective mass will be directly proportional to the SQUARE of the distance between the pivot and the center of mass of the rear counter-wt. So make that distance as small as possible, even if the required mass to counter-balance the tonearm goes up. See here:

http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=3549.0

I remember Herb Papier talking to me about this, too. That's why he supplied that heavy conical shaped CW, conical so it can go right up against the pivot.

Now for something relevant: Tonight I listened to my newly acquired Grace Ruby for two solid hours (that's about all I can manage on a week night). My initial impressions were more than confirmed that this is a stellar cartridge. Depth, "air", vocals, resolution, huge soundstage, etc, etc. It's all there. If the AKG P100LE and the Technics are dramatically superior, I will have to hear them to believe it. In the Belldream headshell, I think I prefer Ruby to the Acutex 320 in a very lightweight Denon headshell, all other elements being identical. (So I need to try the Acutex in a Belldream and/or in a Saturn V Acutex headshell.) The Stanton 980LZS has been out of service; I need to get it back up and running to compare it to the Grace in the same rig. (The Stanton was running on the Kenwood L07D, with its ancient internal wiring and probably suboptimal stock interconnect.) Then too, there is the question of capacitance and load resistance that might cause one MM/MI cartridge to outperform another.
Dear Lespier: Acutex 420?,wrong cartridge choose. 320 flat nose?, very good choice and if the cartridge is in good shape then you have one of the top MM/MI vintage performers.
I dialed at 100kohms along 350pf added capacitance with a positive VTA/SRA, there are no secrects here the cartridge performs good after 20 hours of playback and improve a little over time but IMHO never performs " bad ".

From my experiences the 320 flat nose is the best Acutex quality performer.

I know that Stltrains likes this Acutex too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Not using the anti-skate is against Newton and removing anything from the Triplanar is against the art. I don't believe Lew will ever do such things.
Thanks Raul
Will try some extra capacitance on the phono input.
Do you know anything about the Piezo YM 308-II Z? On visual inspection I can't see any difference between this and the 320 flat nose.
when at the same first moment that the stylus tip touch the LP that exact alignment goes out due to all imperfections in the LP?
Vinyl is full of imperfections but this is also why it interests me – I can’t believe the sound I am getting out of it. It intriques me especially through our winters.
An interesting read.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1229601376&openflup&68&4#68
The need for Anti skate is real – it is a cancer in vinyl. You can ignore it or you can try to deal with it.
Even VPI who claim no antiskate is required incorporate it by the forces generated in the wires of my JMW.
As long as you are having fun who cares. But for those that have a harder time dealing with this and other aspects of tonearm alignment I have a really simple solution for you.
Sell one of your high end tonearms and buy a Pro R2R tape deck with the money. Pick up one or two master dubs of lps you own at 15 IPS. Listen to both tape and lp in your room, your gear, your tuning. It will reveal the truth to you about your TT (tone/speed/stability), your tonearm (alignment/tracking)and your cartridge(bright,natural,bloated).
Based on what the tape shows you – you will be able to make a quick call on if you want to deal more with your antiskate or tonearm alignment or other vinyl imperfections.
Or just enjoy the music / hobby.
Cheers
Lespier, 'look like' or 'resebmle' imply diffrent objects.
There is however something strange with this 'look like'.
I would like to look like Sean Conerry (the old one) but not like (French) Fernandel for example.Now the seller of the Piezo YM 308 want this cart to look like M320 of course. But I am familiar with the 'looks' of this cart and
know that YM 308 also looks like M315, M312 ,etc.
While there is even the so called 'picture theory of truth'
(Wittgenstein) there is no way you can 'nail the truth' regarding the YM 308 with the help of those (3) pictures on ebay.
So I understand your appeal to Raul in this regard but am
puzzled with some other. If Raul confirms your hope you may be
not able to pay for this 'look like'.

Regards,
Dear Ct0517, Perhaps your advice would hold true if said R2R recorder had a well massaged and upgraded output circuit, but I think the stock circuits of yore add enough new distortions so as to mitigate if not abrogate any other advantages of R2R vs modern bigh end phono, and I admit there are some. A fully tweaked top end R2R must indeed be wonderful, but after one has purchased those "one or two master dubs", one has spent about as much as the cost of a good vintage tonearm. And where do you go for variety in your music? That's the problem, lack of the software and/or very high cost of the software. I have about 2000 records. What would be the cost of 2000 "master dubs"? They don't even exist anyway. Skating force is not THAT bad of a problem. I find that a small touch of AS takes care of all issues there. And if one cannot bear dealing with skating force, then one can use a linear tracking tonearm.

Sorry, Raul. I did not see your rhetorical question before I posted last night. However, it seems to me that you are the one who has often taken the position that all measurable distortions should be minimized, regardless of what other factors are beyond our control. For example, you espouse solid state components vs tubes, because of their lower measured distortion; you maintain that RIAA equalization must be as precise as possible, regardless of the possible equalization errors introduced in the recording process, not to mention the fact that early LPs often were subjected to now extinct standards of equalization that most of our phono stages cannot introduce. Etc. So, to take the position that alignment should be precise as possible from the get-to is equally supportable using your own logic. Having said all that, I admit I have a long history of not caring much about that last mm of accuracy. The UNIprotractor does make it easy to get down to less than one mm, so why not?

Dear Nandric, You over-estimate me. The major reason I would not remove parts from the Triplanar is that I fear I would lose them. Also, as noted, I DO perceive a need for a small amount of AS force, and I DON'T hear any problem with the TP that could possibly be related to a resonating damping trough. To Doug and others in his camp, this makes me a Philistine. I can take it.
Nandric, I did buy that Piezo. And sitting it here on my table next to my 320 they look the same. Same cantilever, same shank, same cartridge body. As I said the only difference I can see is that the Piezo cantilever is not as steeply raked as the NOS 320 I bought. I asked Raul in order to ascertain whether the piezo has an issue ( eg tired suspension requiring a refresh so to speak) or is it the way they came. I read somewhere that the Acutex cartridges were made in Japan by the Piezo company and that the normal 308 was the same as the 310e. Elsewhere I can see in the 'long nose' variants that there are visible differences in cantilever between models (312,315&320). I guess I need to look at them both under a microscope to see if the styli look the same.
A little indulgence please?

Fig. 1: /) start of play. (Platter rotation top to bottom.)

Fig. 2: \) end of play.

Fig. 3: -) equilibrium in vectors, ^/v.

Fig. 4: *- ) *= effective position of pivot due to overhang/offset.

Fig. 5: ( + ) magnet in ideal relation to poles.

It takes me (sometimes) two weeks of fiddling before I'm happy with setup. Go ahead, laugh. Regarding AS, visualize fig. 1 to represent the starting position of the tonearm relative to the arc it traverses as play begins. It shouldn't require an epiphany to perceive a tendency for the tonearm [ / ] to travel inwards. Fig. 2 would be the position of the tonearm at the run-out groves, but relative to AS, here there's "a hitch in it's get-along". Fig. 3, the ideal, should be self explanatory, the complication is in that where this "equilibrium" is achieved is influenced by the stylus' overhang, Fig. 4 (use your ability to visualize the relationship with this one). By fixing the tonearm "beam" at its pivot, centripetal force will tend to draw the point at which contact occurs towards the center. If there is no overhang then the stylus will traverse an arc and "equilibrium" or the position at which contributing forces cancel each other out will be achieved at the spindle. Stylus overhang throws a monkey wrench into this picture, moving this point of "equilibrium" away from the spindle. To a degree, the greater the overhang the more this is so, then with further extension of overhang back again towards the spindle. Friction (wether VTF/stylus drag/bearing friction/TA damping striction) is a key determinant of necessary AS force.

If one looks at fig. 5 and analogizes "( + )" as the correct relation of a magnet to its coil in a magnetic current generating system, here is another point at which all forces should be balanced. It's a wonderful concept but as usual with vinyl everything's a moving target. Record warp, off center pressings, bearing friction, tangental error, etc. VTA, VTF, AS, azimuth, they're all contingent and with a pivoted arm to change one is to change them all. Why bother? Because when optimized it's much more gloriouser!

If there is a discernible difference heard when correct VTF positions the magnet in it's most effective relation to poles for intended output, the same, unless I'm mistaken, holds true for AS and channel balance. Shouldn't it? Problem is, it's a moving target due to the necessary evil of overhang/nom. 22* offset required to minimize tracing error (ref. Fig. 4), this has the effect of reversing friction derived skating forces at some point before the stylus reaches the end of the record, one can indulge in some simple drafting to illustrate the point to ones' own satisfaction. In very general terms, accompanying instruments are blended L & R, this gives the impression of placement. Fiddling with phasing, soundstage. Solo instruments, vocalists, percussion or whatever are usually mixed with equal levels from both channels and when AS is correct there is a believable representation of a strong center image, consequently soundstage & layering are also improved. Physically, this also represents equal involvement of the stylus to both L & R groove walls, stylus and vinyl wear are also minimized. Obviously I'm a believer in the importance of AS. Correct AS. Determined by ear AS.

Be it opinion or fact, if you can bring yourself to believe that most of the above is true then twisted wires would seem to be the least satisfactory solution, having the weakest influence where the skating force is greatest and increasing torsion when it needs to be relaxing. Weights on a string? Would seem to be better as their effect does diminish as the tonearm nears the end of its arc but somehow, I keep thinking about vibrating guitar strings. Coil springs, these make sense. Frictionless and provide diminishing influence as they loose tension towards the end of travel. Do they resonate? And what about that reverse torque near the end of play? Two springs tensioned in opposition? One perfectly tensioned spring? Levered weights?

BTW: Those who question "reverse" skating, protect or remove your stylus and lower the arm on a bare rotating mat. You may be surprised where, with the AS at zero, it stops traveling. A tri-magnet graduated attraction/repulsion system with stasis at the center of travel would be an elegant solution to this worrisome phenomena, does anyone make such a tonearm?

Peace,
Dear Professor, 'A tri-magnet graduated attraction/repulsion with stasis at the center of travel would be an elegant solution...' At the moment I have the
Reed Magnetic prototype in use. According to Vidmantas his
magnetic anti-skate construction has variable force depending on the record radius. BTW the magnet above the counterweight is meant to supress or dampen record warps.
Your 'tri-magnet', etc idea is to complex for me but if you are intererested you can discuss this idea with Vidmantas (www.reed.lt). I would be glad to introduce
you of course.

Regards,
Dear lespier: I read the same but I can't be sure about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Think on this: when yo have a " perfect " cartridge/tonearm alignment the only alternative when in playback is that that algnment almost always will be out/off??, where maybe a non " perfect " alignment could be ( at random ) with a lower distortions due to that LP imperfections that time to time could put the stylus tip ( at random, I repeat ) in the precise position during playback.

It is clear that waves/wraps in the LP take out that " perfect alignment " as did it different LP weights ( 140grs, 180 or 200 grs. ) but a non-perfect alignment could at random be converted in a " perfect " alignment due that those imperfections could " acommodate " the stylus tip in the right position: I say maybe.

Anyway, the perfect cartridge/tonearm alignment due that was made in static position/motion can asure me nothing about distortions on motion/dynamic position during playback. What can guarantee me is that has different kind of distortions that a non prefect static alignments.

In the other side I'm assuming that during the recording process the RIAA eq was applied with accuracy and I don't have any way to confirm it an that's why I assume was accurate. With an LP I have on hand what proves all its imperfect characteristics where I have to deal with. I can't deceit my self thinking that " an anal perfect alignment in the cartridge/tonearm " could help to lower distortions because in playback that is not true or at least we can't say for sure-
I'm not saying that alignment is not important or that we have to make it with out care.

Lewm, in at least two times in other threads I askb to any one that he try to test with the same track recording three different cartridge alignments: one a " perfect " one, second moving the cartridge position one to two milimeters forefront and third position moving the cartridge one or two milimeters rearward and then listen and compare what you heard on those threee different alignments and wich one likes you more and why. Till today no one posted any answer about other that they have no time to do it. My question was not a question at random but I made it for good reasons. I know the answers but this is not important but that you or any one else be aware of what you get about.

For the third time I ask the same in this post, it is a learning excersice.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Ct0517: IMHO a R2R is a totally and not related source if for no other characteristic because there is no RIAA eq. double process like in the LP source.

Only for your records: IMHO ( for very good reasons. ) the best up dated R2R ( analog ) today is outperformed by the best digital source, no contest here. As the LP the analog R2R has many imperfections too, different ones but imperfections at last that in the digital source/medium has not to deal with. I can think you already know this and this: digital has lower distortions than analog R2R. I'm not talking what you like or not I'm talking of high or lower distortions.

Some other time we can go on on this R2R ( analog ) against digital.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, you bring a good point. The differance you describe moving the cart fore and aft is the differance between the manufactures allignment, stevenson, baerwald and loefgren.

I have a protractor from accutrak that has all of the above on one protractor where this can easily be seen when alligning to one then comparing it to the others. If have not tried comparing the differances yet and am not in a hurry too after noticing the small differance in the above.

On vinyl engine it is easy to graph the differance which I am sure you are aware of.
Raul, All I wrote was that striving for perfect alignment or as near as possible to that goal is similar in nature to your own goals for perfect RIAA equalization and lowest possible measurable THD and IMD, indeed, your whole crusade against "distortions" of any kind. Now, with respect to your post above, it's an interesting proposition. I doubt any one of us could hear the difference. Moreover, as long as the alignment chosen, whatever it is, accurate to some standard or random, results in two null points somewhere on the arc traversed by the stylus across the playable LP surface, I doubt it makes any difference on average to the listening experience. So we probably are in agreement on that. However, nor do I think that perfect RIAA makes much difference as long as RIAA is in the right ballpark, because the reverse equalization imposed during creation of an LP is/was also probably never perfect. After all, they used those dreaded vacuum tubes in those days.

I will say this: cartridges carefully aligned according to some standard that is compatible with the tonearm design are consistently sounding very good to me these days, e.g., anything I install in the DV505 tonearm using Stevenson or Dertonearm's recommended near-Stevenson template. Whereas previously, for example when I tried to impose Baerwald alignment on my DV505 tonearm, all cartridges sounded lousy.

Ecir, I think the different standard geometries (Stevenson, Baerwald, etc) would not only move the cartridge fore and aft in the headshell but also require twisting the cartridge at progressive angles toward or away from the spindle. it's this change of cartridge angle that can really affect the sound, I think.
There are no perfect 'anything' except me ,according to my
mom. However my mom was not aware of the difference between
the scale magnitudes and ,uh, ordinal ordering. We want to
know which cart is 'the best' and this means NR.1. I was always NR.1 for my mom. This is to say in comparison with all my friends and comrads whom she regarded to be scum.
As clear as the ordinal numbers are as unclear are the scales: everyone has his own. Even Raul and Lew disagree about the 'measure' of perfection or, to put it otherwise, the imperfection of everything connected with our beloved TT's + the rest.
Technicaly speaking both should agree about at least two small parts on the record (depending on the geometry +warps) were we must have those two 'Ó' points. The problem however is that we all have those but never get what the German call
'Aha Erlebnis' ('my gosh this is something'). We all know
that those 'o' points must be there but alas: we are not able to hear them, so to speak. Except perheps those with 'perfect hearing'. Otherwise this 'qualification' would be
senseless.
Now Popper invented this as the aim of science: 'geting nearer to the truth'. Why should we 'go' for less regarding our perfection? Those among us who are optimistic will get nearer and those which are sceptic will get nowhere.

Regards,
Three cheers for the optimistic perfectionist....

And as for AS.... my Revox Linatrack does not appear to require any! ;-)

Apparently some listeners still use those archaic beam on a pivot systems....
Dear Dlaloum, there are rich -and poor people , the modest
and immodest kinds. Assuming that your Revox is linear kind
we , the modest kind, already have those two places on each and every LP with zero 'deviation'. This way we also get nearer to perfection. In Holland btw we have this proverb: ''those who don't value small improvements do not deserve the big one''.

Regards,
Dear Lewm: I know you can hear the differences moving rearward/foreward the cartridge.

Ecir38, you can make the tests out of that " margin " with different geometry alignments, in the other side as Lewm pointed out I'm not talking to " touch " the ofsset angle but only moving in the same plane the cartridge.

As I said that could be an interesting learning's excersice.

Lewm, problem with the RIAA eq is that we can't know for sure the accuracy on that factor during the recording process so I assume was accurate. With the LP on hand and hearing and looking for those differences in a " perfect " alignment against non-perfect one things change because I'm aware of those impferfections that preclude that the overall advantages in the " perfect " alignment theory could be achieved on playback: just disappear/can't be accomplished.
Lewm, before you go on please try it and then come back and share with us your experiences about. If you can do it in other tonearm than the 505.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Maybe because this forum is in English, my expectations for an understandable post on alignment and AS, are unreasonable? It seems to me that Lew and the Prof have the right idea. For the rest of you heathens, non-believers and sinners, it's like this:

Skating force on a pivoting arm is real and measurable. It is caused by the offset angle of the cartridge. That is the angle of the cantilever line, to the line of tip to pivot. The amount of skating force varies depending on position on record (offset angle changes) and stylus velocity. The imbalance caused by skating can be readily seen on VU meters or any output measurement. If you don't believe this is real, view your cartridge from the front, while tracking. Make sure you're directly in front and the lighting is even. Look at the cart body in relation to the stylus/cantilever. If the body is closer to the spindle, not enough AS. Conversely.... AS is applied to the arm, not the stylus. Because the amount of skating varies, an AS setting slightly low is usually recommended.

Next installment - Alignment
Regards,
Dear Fleib, to my knowledge all of those 'non-believers and
sinners' are native English speakers. Ie no need to grieve
some people from the Balkans and/or Mexico.

Regards,
Ecir38, "only +- a mm or two"?!?

Consider that distance compared to the cross section of any modern stylus tip. I would not call it small or insignificant. Accurate overhang/offset is more like one of those dancing angels on the head of a pin. ;-)
Pryso, not saying that my cart isn't alligned just saying the difference between the standard allignments is minimal. This is easy to see when you have the allignments I mentioned above all on one protractor for a specific tonearm.
Dear Nandric, No specific language complaint here, it's just that I have enough trouble with English and my tongue gets caught in cheek. My mission is evangelical, i.e. to save souls from the damnation of the affects of unperceived distortions and unbalanced stage. One might wonder what these affects are if unperceived? They are like the plague of mediocrity that pervades our existence, the processed food of malnourished fat people, and the notion that if you don't hear it, it doesn't matter. Why would it matter one might ask? How could someone train themselves to hear distortion like Raul, unless they minimize distortion? Alignments are audibly different, long term. People can train themselves to hear, just like a musician trains to hear intervals, cords, modes etc. Changing alignments can be educational. Going from no alignment to a "good" alignment can be revelatory.
Regards,

Dear Raul, I assumed that your point in asking me and others to move the cartridge fore or aft in the headshell was to demonstrate to me/us that "perfect alignment", as opposed to "approximate alignment" (which is where you end up if you move the cartridge a mm or two in the headshell) makes no difference. However, your last post makes me wonder whether my assumption is not correct. If you care to share your reasoning, that would be fun and informative.

Dear Flieb, I, of course, agree with you. But there definitely are a large number of vinylphiles who have simply done away with application of AS. I often wonder whether they share the same rationale or different ones. ("I can't hear it" vs "I can hear it, but the negative effects of the anti-skate mechanism are worse.") For me, I virtually have no choice; the results of disconnecting the AS mechanism from my TP were unpleasant (distortion in the R channel, as I recall). With the Dynavector DV505 it may be that hear fewer issues, but still I prefer to have a small amount of AS on board. By the way, I have done some internet reading on the cause of the skating force. As I understand it now, it is primarily due to friction between the stylus and grooves (which is proportional to stylus velocity as well as to the tortuosity of the groove); that force of friction develops a centripetal vector (= skating) force due to the offset angle of the headshell or anything else in the geometry that deviates from tangency of the stylus to the groove. This is really only a different way of saying what you said, I think.
Regards, Nandric: "all of those 'non-believers and
sinners' are native English speakers". If A = B + C, then B + C = A. Are then you saying all who speak english as their native language are "non-believers and sinners"?

Perhaps there are one or two (those other guys) who avoided becoming reprobates?. ;-)

Peace,
Hi Lew, Yes, pretty much the same. I left out the part about stylus drag. Skating force is entirely due to offset, not tangency. Even if the cantilever is perfectly tangent to the groove (at a null), the back of it is not pointing at the pivot. It's that difference between the swing of the arm (pivot) and the angle of the cart, that causes skating.
Regards,
Dear Professor, The qualification 'non-believers and sinners' was used by Fleib and somehow connected with the foreigners among us (aka 'not native English speakers') My answer was based on my memory. Ie those who abandoned
AS were all , according to my memory, native English speakers. They abandoned AS probable because they don't believe that anti-skate is of any help. As such they may be called in this contex (sic) 'non -believers'.Now there are no limitations for sets qua number of members . Except that thy should not include everything (Russel's paradox?). This means that 4 members make a legitimate set for which I can use the quantifier 'all' (4).
Ie A= B+C (B=2;C=2)so C+B=4 and A=4.

Regards,
As one whos abandoned AS a long long time ago im truly a non believer and sinner to.

My guess to many years of distortion filled music sessions has taken its toll on my ears. I do love it though so clear and clean.
Rock and Roll
mike
Hi Mike, Not using AS does not cause distortion as such. It causes channel imbalance. It also causes skewed cantilevers and uneven (premature) stylus wear. Although once the cantilever is skewed, unless you realign to the cantilever it might cause distortion due to alignment error. This isn't a given though, depending on the new alignment.
Regards,
Heh-heh. Here we go again. I heard not only channel imbalance but also gross distortion of treble frequencies. (This was with one particular cartridge on one particular LP on my Triplanar, so could be different for different styli that don't produce as much friction force and for different LPs that are more "groovy".)

To think this discussion started because I mentioned using the UNIprotractor in one of my posts about headshells. Go figure.
Regards, Lewm: I've read the same (about offset being the cause of skating) but I'm not entirely convinced.

This is why: Offset is the angle at which the long axis of the cantilever intersects that of the tonearm. In the case of a curved arm, the divergent angle at which it would intersect a straight line drawn from the stylus to the pivot. I mean, really, a tonearm could be as crooked as the twisted coat hanger wire that held the muffler up (radiator too) in my old 1960 Austin Healey 106 but offset angle is still reckoned relative to a point A to point B description.

If you stop to think about it, skating force for a given effective length and under similar conditions will be equal, or nearly so, regardless of offset angle. This angle will vary with tonearm length and is calculated so that the tensional forces presented to a cartridges' suspension are maintained in line with its axis and, more importantly, to orient the stylus at right angles to the groove. Overhang and arm pivot-to-stylus determines offset angle, a longer arm will require less offset as compared to a shorter arm if overhang is the same. In other words, on the same arm the required offset angle would be about two pin-head angels (PHAs) greater for 17mm overhang than at 15mm.

Offset then is determined by eff. length and overhang, these are alignment concerns and a matter of geometry. The extent of skating force is related to overhang and Newton's laws of motion apply. This is a situation where Archimedes meets Sir Isaac, I hope I haven't mixed the two of them up.

I never (well, hardly ever) object to being corrected so if I've got this wrong somebody say it's not so.

Peace,
Hello Dean man, A BIG thank you right back at you on the Staton 881s. Your recommendation caused me to get one with D81 stylus and I am very impressed.

Has anyone heard the non original stylus replacements like Jico, Ed Sanders, ect.?

Sorry to interrupt the alignment discussion.
Hi Nandric, I didn't mean to imply a correlation between being a heretic and speaking English as a second language. Actually, perhaps the contrary is true, at least for those in the US. When reading technical posts sometimes it's hard to figure out the meaning.

Although tracking is a 3 dimensional occurrence, alignment is 2 dimensional. What seems to be misunderstood is the relationship between alignments and the strict adherence to a particular alignment. There's nothing wrong with preferring an alignment, but sometimes it can't be achieved with certain arm/carts. For example, you might not be able to reach Loefgren B with an arm designed for Stevenson. In that case you could move the cart as far forward as possible and angle for the closest to Loefgren. That might give you Baerwald, or close. What I'm saying is that any 2 nulls between 60.3mm and 120.9mm is a "good" alignment. Look at the null points on the most popular alignments:
Baerwald - 66.0 and 120.9 mm
Loefgren - 70.3 and 116.6 mm
Stevenson - 60.325 and 117.42 mm
In reality, for most arms it takes moving the cart forward about 2 or 3mm and angling to go from Stevenson to Baerwald. It usually takes about another mm to go to Loefgren. This depends on the eff length. If you go to VE, they have a download called Chpratz protractor. This is just a straight calibrated grid. With it, you can see where exactly the nulls are. So, if your arm is designed for Stevenson, but you normally like Loefgren, you might prefer an alignment with nulls at 65 and 119? That's just a guess on how it might come out. Arc protractors are great if your arm is mounted at the exact distance. Even then it's good to use a second protractor to verify. I really like the Chpratz. It makes things easier, but I have quite a few protractors.
Regards,