May be I am mistaken, but isn't your advice that in order to have optimal performance of most cartridges we had to use corrective shims?
Linear Tracking versus Pivoted Tonearms: A discussion
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
May be I am mistaken, but isn't your advice that in order to have optimal performance of most cartridges we had to use corrective shims?
In most cases, yes. There has never been a torque tube designed with a vertical modulation angle above 23 degrees after lacquer spring back. Most are at 18 and below. The average VTA is 27 degrees. I've analyzed over 700 by now
Because when people hear sibilance and mistracking they overwhelmingly and unfairly blame the cartridge (it is actually almost always the fault of poorly managed tonearm horizontal torque forces or high static friction). The manufacturers can avoid being blamed by raising the cantilever angle which increases the downward vector forces which help assist the stylus to retain constant contact with the groove wall but this is a cheat that goes in the opposite direction from optimal fidelity and it is quite audible when you hear it corrected. Even Leif Johanssen of Ortofon has publicly agreed with this claim - twice. You can see one of those occasions on the video on my website made by the HiFi Munich show.
The other (bad) reason for it is the manufacturer can get more magnetic material under the cantilever in order to increase output.
See my video on VTA so you can SEE the mechanical error of being high VTA
J. R., When you analyze a cartridge and then create correction shims for the client, what target angle do you aim for with regard to the stylus facet making contact with the vinyl? If not a specific angle, what are you achieving with the shims? I assume you are addressing SRA and azimuth for a specific cartridge, but what are the targets and how do you verify this optimizes the presentation of the information on the grooves when the client listens to the result?
Are you addressing variation between samples of the same model or just cartridge brand and model?
Which facet are you talking about?
The corrective shim works for three of the four angles I measure: SRA/VTA/Azimuth. I measure azimuth and weigh heavily on phase over dB unless dB isn't high enough then it is a balance. I aim for 18 degrees VTA and almost never get it before the cartridge body interferes with the record surface. I keep SRA above 89 degrees UNTIL FURTHER EVIDENCE SUGGESTS I SHOULD DO OTHERWISE.
The fourth angle is zenith error correction which is properly called stylus yaw.
1 of 9 cartridges do not meet their own specs or specs of their vendor (Ogura, Orbray or Gyger). Most common failures are poor xtalk and zenith error. Though tolerance is 5 degrees I encourage my clients to AVOID making a claim until it is over 7.5 degrees. I have failed a cartridge only once due to VTA, but that one was 43 degrees. Unreal.
OK, thank you. The facet I am talking about is actually the contact line or surface between the stylist and vinyl groove wall. I think the SRA you are measuring is through the shank or central line of the stylus. I think that is sometimes different from the angle of the contact line or patch.
If you then visit your client with these shims and set up his cartridge and tone arm, do you then make fine-tuning adjustments by ear or do you simply rely on a measurement target?
Geez! Was hoping I’d have more credit than that! No, I do not do that. I find the contact edge directly, of course.
I encourage my clients to experiment with going very low with VTF and assess by ear. I did a video on this too.
Do you mean VTF or VTA when you encourage your clients to “go very low”? What do you mean here? I was asking you if you fine tune each of the final set up parameters by ear or by measurements when visiting clients and wondering what they do if on their own after you send them your shims. Do they simply level the arm tube and consider the work complete?
How do you measure phase and channel separation? Using a test record? Or do you measure phase (or coil alignment) optically?
I know you prefer not to mention which test record you use, and I know there can be variations even between pressings of the same disc. But in my experience, the Analogue Productions test record works quite well for channel separation measurements. I don't solely rely on that either and I don't aim for equal channel seperation values in dB.
And thank you for taking the time to post and share your knowledge. It has been very informative.
As do I, as I think we’ve discussed in another thread. I have three copies of the AP record among the close to two dozen test records I have. These three produce “close-ish” results, but still too far apart for my tastes. IMO no record can be relied on to be “right”. This whole thing (if relied on using test records) is more or less (with apologies to Shakespeare) “measurements made by (us) idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying (next to) nothing”.
Does this frustrate the bejeesus out of me? No, not one bit!
I have two of those as well. Not only is the variance across the two no smaller than any others I have, when I plot the results of all of my test records, the spread of the Hungaraton records across the results suggests they are no more reliable than any of the others.
I mean vertical tracking force. Once we optimize the transcription angles, we (and my clients from their follow up reports to me) don’t find any benefit from further tweaking unless such benefits are specific to a single record, which isn’t worth the effort, IMO.
We’re not interested in distributions about the mean with respect to cutting errors. We aim for the mean. We know what those are because we know how cutterheads and cutting styli are designed.
Can’t do it optically. We use CLIO X and a distribution analysis from the raw data output.
You are welcome. I make the effort not because I want to be king of the shit hill but because I know there is more to this format than we have yet experienced and unless we can get a ground swell of voices behind our efforts to get tighter industry tolerances, an abandonment of outdated assumptions and principles and a commitment to the science and not to claims of the false “art” of vinyl setup and playback then vinyl will eventually see its end days.
We cut our own test record using an analyzed cutting stylus, monitoring the entire cutting and plating process and had it pressed and injection molded at two different plants.
We cut our own test record using an analyzed cutting stylus, monitoring the entire cutting and plating process and has it pressed and injection molded at two different plants.
There’s more to it than that but I’ll keep it to myself for now.
Um, you don’t think we’re going to sit hear after this sort of statement without asking “what about the rest of us”, do you?
Please be patient. We have been analyzing side A since June and haven’t even started with Side B. There are only two tests on the entire record. Any claims to making a “reference” record must stand up to measurement scrutiny. Better if we find the flaws than have someone else do so.Um, you don’t think we’re going to sit hear after this sort of statement without asking “what about the rest of us”, do you?
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |