Andre Jennings and the Latest Edition of TAS

rockitman said:

I agree on older records. I play a ton of classic records and analogue productions, quality records. I think it is pretty safe to assume they were using the same cutting angle for the most part.

Click to expand...

I would imagine so and it makes sense unless there was evidence to the contrary. The exception might be if say Chad has different mastering engineers on opposite coasts like Smith and Gray doing his cutting.

mep said:

After reading the posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that how you setup your cartridge is unimportant. Adhering to some type of standard geometry with any type of precision is totally unnecessary and a waste of time when you could spend that time changing SRA for every different record you play. That makes perfect sense to me.

Click to expand...

Is a bit more nuanced conclusion possible? For example, I do not question that getting the geometry right is critical, but the key issue I see with the TAS article is whether there is really any evidence that "theoretical correctness" requires setting the SRA between 91 and 92 degrees, as claimed in the article. Most people who use a USB microscope to do this also do not adjust the VTA/SRA on a record-by-record basis, which means that the claimed "theoretical correctness" is achieved at most for the specific record thickness used during setup.

dmnc02 said:

Is a bit more nuanced conclusion possible? For example, I do not question that getting the geometry right is critical, but the key issue I see with the TAS article is whether there is really any evidence that "theoretical correctness" requires setting the SRA between 91 and 92 degrees, as claimed in the article. Most people who use a USB microscope to do this also do not adjust the VTA/SRA on a record-by-record basis, which means that the claimed "theoretical correctness" is achieved at most for the specific record thickness used during setup.

Click to expand...

I'm with you 100%. Mep has some sort of agenda here. Not sure what it is though.

PeterA said:

I no longer use a digital microscope to set SRA. I tried that, and it is pretty precise for getting in the ballpark. For that it is an excellent tool and worth the effort, IMO. From there, listening will tell you how far you need to deviate from the 92, or whatever angle you use, for the best sound. Knowing the exact angle is not what I think is important. The reason is that it can vary between different LPs, regardless of thickness, or record weight.

So Christian, if I understand you, you have found an SRA angle that you think sounds best on a variety of LPs. You then make note of that angle by looking at the Graham bubble. In this way, you assure yourself of repeating the same SRA angle for different LPs, regardless of thickness, by always returning your arm to that same bubble level mark for each LP. Does this describe your methodology correctly?

That makes a lot of sense but only up to a point. If this indeed describes your method, my question for you is this: How does this method account for different cutting head angles? You can always return to the same angle for your arm (VTA) which assures your SRA is always the same when it hits the groove. The problem is that the ideal angle in the groove varies and it is not dependent upon record thickness. Ideally, what you are trying to do is match the original cutting angle.

I have a friend who had a very precise set of calipers and he measured the thickness of each LP before he played it. He had a chart which showed which setting to use on his Graham arm (if I remember correctly) for each LP thickness. You are right that not all 180g LPs are the same thickness. He adjusted for that. What he failed to realize is that his method was very good at assuring that his arm was always at the same angle and that his SRA was always the same for each LP he played. What he did not understand was why some LPs sounded right and others did not. He did not account for different cutting head angles. This means that the ideal SRA angle truly varies from LP to LP. To my knowledge, there is no cutting head angle standard, or if there is, it is not always adhered to. Perhaps Andre would know more about this.

I fully realize that many people don't want to go through the hassle of figuring this all out, especially considering that cartridge suspensions sag over time and people change cartridges, so SRA angles are in flux. And I also fully understand that an arm with on the fly VTA adjustment like the Graham is a lot more convenient that one like my SME is without it. But once you realize that SRA is a bit more complicated, and you decide to adjust for it for each LP, you will be rewarded with better sound.

Click to expand...

you're chasing your tail measuring pressing thickness unless you sacrifice one to cut a section out, even then you'll find most have a bead on the outer edge thicker than the rest of the record. cant use a depth gauge at the spindle hole b/c its almost always thicker at the center as you move out to the edge. The UHQR was invented in part to solve this problem, and are hand stamped to get them uniform. I bugged Chad at the show about his long over due UHQRs, the hurdles he discovered, are considerable. looks like summer of '15 for his first release.

or this...

That's quite a video Peter. Thanks. His approach seems to be similar to what Christian is doing in that he has particular settings for different weight LPs and Christian is essentially doing the same thing by just putting the needle down and adjusting his arm for the differing thicknesses by using the bubble level as a reference. Both methods are excellent for maintaining a consistent and identical SRA. However, IMO, neither method accounts for slightly different original cutting angles. LPs of the same thickness or weight may have different ideal SRAs.

I have not read the current article in TAS but there was a previous blog or shorter article written by JV about how Andre goes about setting up JV's cartridges before each cartridge review. I think it appeared about 6-9 months ago or so on the TAS website or blog. Perhaps that was a precursor to the current article. It was a very informative piece which discussed Andre's use of a few of the currently available tools and the extreme accuracy which he achieves.

It seems to me that there are at least four ways to approach the whole VTA/SRA settings issue. Below is my list from most convenient but most compromised sound to least convenient but best overall sound:

1. The dealer or customer sets the VTA on the arm based on it being parallel to the LP surface or slightly down in the back. This setting is then fixed and does not change. This approach is the most convenient and least hassle, but it results in the most compromised sound.

2. You get a USB microscope and follow Fremer's advice to set SRA at 92 for the best compromise setting on an average thickness LP. You leave this setting alone and enjoy the music. This is also fairly easy, convenient, requires no hassle when finished and the sound is a good overall setting for most LPs. However, this method does not account for varying LP thickness and therefore, the sound is somewhat compromised.

3. You use a USB microscope or other method to get the SRA close to around 92. You then fine tune by ear (listening) to a variety of your reference LPs and choose the single best setting that works for those LPs. You then adjust VTA for each LP thickness to maintain the same SRA. This is fairly convenient with the Graham bubble level and not much hassle with certain arms. Other arms may be much less convenient. This seems to be Christian's (Rockitman's) method. The result is better overall sonics than just sticking with a given SRA of say 92 or 91.5 or whatever because it accounts for LP thickness and you maintain the same SRA for different LPs. With an arm like the Christian's Graham, this is an excellent approach in my opinion.

4. You use a USB microscope or other method to get SRA close to around 92. Then you fine tune by ear (listening) to each LP in your collection. You record what the best setting is for that LP and find a method to repeat this setting for future listening. This approach involves the most hassle, is the most time consuming, but results in the best overall sound.

I started out with method #1 and was quite happy with the sound of my LPs until I met a gentleman who owned the super adjustable TriPlanar arm. He demonstrated for me how much the sound can change with different SRA settings. He had VTA on the fly and recorded each setting for each of his LPs. Then I read Fremer's article about the 92 degree SRA compromise and bought myself a USB microscope. It was fun to fiddle with it and I did get some great close up shots of my stylus and SRA etc. Then someone pointed out the whole argument about trying to match the original cutting angle, so I started learning how to easily adjust VTA on my arm which is not designed for frequent changes and what to listen for. As the sound improved, I decided that the extra effort was worth it to get the best sound.

I now subscribe to method #4. The resulting improvement from LP specific SRA settings is worth the increased hassle and time for me. I enjoy the whole analog thing, and this, for me, has just become part of the routine. To be clear, I don't adjust VTA each time I listen to an LP. I do it once when I hear the LP, and I make a note of the setting. I then reset my arm the next time I listen to that LP based on my previous note. I have five different VTA settings for my LP collection. Some evenings when I'm lazy, I pull out LPs that have the same setting and play a batch of those. Otherwise it takes me about 30 seconds to adjust the height of my arm. I may adjust the VTA 2-3 times per evening. I do not recommend this approach for everyone, but in my opinion, #4 results in the best overall sound.

Peter Breuninger said:

or this...

Click to expand...

Love it. I'm not that sure actual individual record weight translates to a chosen VTA consistently though. I mentioned Graham as the only arm with repeatable VTA...I forgot to mention the Reed 3Q with laser VTA setting on the fly. The Centroid (I think that is what it's called) with a circular spirit level is problematic imo.

mep said:

My 'agenda' is quite simple. I was very happy for Andre that he was getting the recognition he deserves for his setup work and I was happy for him that the table review he wrote for TAS was featured on the cover. Andre is somebody that many of us know and apparently I was wrong for thinking that other people on this forum would be happy for Andre as well.

Click to expand...

I'm happy for him too. His methods are not the end all however for cart setup. There are too many variables spanning too many arms (some with more convenient adjustment than others) and carts (hidden back set cantilevers riding low like Koetsu for example). In the end, his article is very worthwhile for what is possible, imo. It comes down how fine the user wants/needs to drill down and their desire for repeatability which for his method I think is a stretch depending on one's equipment mix in question.

mep said:

Christian-I hate to say this, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Andre's method gives you the ability for repeatability. Please explain why you think it doesn't.

Click to expand...

simple... as the record thickness changes..you need to adapt VTA on the fly with a reliable reference point.(VTA affects SRA). How does that work for your arm ?

I have still not got my copy yet, but can't help but comment. Are you guys saying that Andre is setting SRA with a microscope for every record? If so, that seems extreme. That is dedication for sure.

One thing I would like to buy is the Adjust+ software. Not just for the azimuth alignment but also being able to measure total distortion. This would help fine tuning setup a great deal I imagine.

I've been thinking about azimuth lately, and unfortunately like alignment, it will vary across the record on a pivoted arm. Why you might ask? Because skating forces vary across the record. Azimuth will vary depending on skating force. Even with antiskate compensation, azimuth will still vary across the record because most antiskate adjusters are linear, and skating forces are not. I have yet to see a pivoted arm that applies perfect antiskate all the way across a record. I'm sure it is possible, but very difficult. This does not mean that I think it is pointless to adjust azimuth. Like all tonearm adjustments it is important to minimize error as much as possible. How fanatical you want to get is up to the individual.

Yes the Adjust+ software is great--but not the enclosed disc--you need the Analogue Productions Test one I'm told

Pity though the A+ Software is PC only not for us Mac dudes

BruceD

BruceD said:

Yes the Adjust+ software is great--but not the enclosed disc--you need the Analogue Productions Test one I'm told

Pity though the A+ Software is PC only not for us Mac dudes

BruceD

Click to expand...

I imagine it depends on how well the spindle hole is centered on the test records in question. Wish someone would put in the effort to eliminate that defect on the manufacturing side. With the technology we have today it should not be that difficult.