Using Wally Tools

[Zeotrope]

Now as far as a remedy, there are a number of potential solutions.
1) Ignore the issue and accept that your optimization my not be ideal for every LP you play. Unfortunately, this head in the sand approach does not work well for me.
2) I generally "standardize" my playback for 180gm LPs. For 140 gm LPs, I use a 500uM Herbie's ring which is not an ideal solution but its not bad at all and better than nothing. (Its a lot easier to raise the LP height this way than to adjust it by lowering the arm. As an aside, adjusting the arm height was easy to do on the Reed 3P with its calibrated arm height dial, but the Reed 5T does not have such a handy dial so I must use an external micrometer following any arm height adjustment. As I said, the Herbie's ring is the easiest solution and works fairly well and can be rapidly employed or removed
3) For 200gm LP. I suck it up and make no arm height adjustments although I know I can improve the sonics a tiny bit if I raised the arm accordingly (20-50uM). What works best, is trying not to play 200gm LPs at all! But that is hardly a great solution!
4) The best solution. That's easy. Will someone please make a tonearm that is user adjustable remotely for VTA, and tracking force? (I don't care about anti-skate since I think pivoted tonearms should be outlawed due to their inherent tracking errors hence induced distortion,. But if you wanted to make a tonearm that also had remote adjustability for azimuth, I wouldn't complain!)

I have found the same - that even very small changes in tonearm height (~20-50uM) have a noticeable audible difference! Whoever said that you cannot hear a <1 degree change in SRA was wrong (certainly with an FGS stylus profile the difference is not small!).

I don’t know of any arms that have remote VTA adjustment, but a number of arms make it easy to adjust VTA, some on the fly. Nagra, Schroeder, and Andre Theriault are three that come to mind.

My own POV on using tools to make these adjustments is that the Tools can add more error and do more harm that good. I am not trying to start a back and forth - if you’re happy with the sound then that’s all that matters.
Listening to various test tracks (not noise, but actual music!) and making small changes in each setting WILL get you the best results. Setting the SRA to 92 won’t do much if the tool is off by a fraction of a degree (easier than you might think) and/of if the album was not cut at 92 degrees. There is no substitute for your own ears and during actual playback.
It’s not that difficult to set everything by ear.

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

I have found the same - that even very small changes in tonearm height (~20-50uM) have a noticeable audible difference! Whoever said that you cannot hear a <1 degree change in SRA was wrong (certainly with an FGS stylus profile the difference is not small!).

I don’t know of any arms that have remote VTA adjustment, but a number of arms make it easy to adjust VTA, some on the fly. Nagra, Schroeder, and Andre Theriault are three that come to mind.

My own POV on using tools to make these adjustments is that the Tools can add more error and do more harm that good. I am not trying to start a back and forth - if you’re happy with the sound then that’s all that matters.
Listening to various test tracks (not noise, but actual music!) and making small changes in each setting WILL get you the best results. Setting the SRA to 92 won’t do much if the tool is off by a fraction of a degree (easier than you might think) and/of if the album was not cut at 92 degrees. There is no substitute for your own ears and during actual playback.
It’s not that difficult to set everything by ear.

The Kuzma 4Point 11" and 14" you can adjust the arm height and hence VTA on the fly i.e. when playing a record.

And if you have the Kuzma XL4, XL2, XL DC or XL Air TT with a digital height / VTA gauge fitted to the adjustable tonearm tower you can adjust very finely (to 0.01mm accuracy) the tonearm height remotely (i.e. not having to touch the tonearm itself) whilst playing a record.

When I finely achieved a SRA of 92.09 degrees (VTA of 24.28 degrees with my 4Point 11" and MSL Eminent Ex cartridge at a VTF of 2.0 grams) with my Wally Scope which gave a tonearm height of 7.27mm, I played a few records and finely adjusted the tonearm height. Even with critical listening with my EF1000 Amp and Susvara headphones, I couldn't hear any difference to the music with tweaking the tonearm height down to 6mm and up to 7.5mm, finely re-setting it back to 7.27mm (just because I have a SRA of 92 degrees at this tonearm height). Haven't adjusted it since.

I am to do another experiment of adjusting the VTF (along with the anti-skate) in step changes down and back up with not changing the tonearm height at the different VTFs and see what difference this makes to the sound. Haven't got round to doing this yet (had planned to do it a few week ends back) as I have been too engrossed in listening to my LPs (old and new) with the current VTA and VTF settings I have as detailed above and in past postings on this thread.

 

[Zeotrope]

I have a few albums where a small change (~ 0.1mm) makes an audible difference - between a trumpet sounding shrill and almost distorted to perfect. It's shocking how big the difference is. Soundstage width is also affected. I think the stylus profile makes a big difference - some profiles are not as sensitive to height.

How can you be sure SRA is accurate to a hundredth of a degree with the Wally Scope? Not a knock on the product - I always wondered this because aren't you drawing lines on the image 'by hand'? Doesn't the position of the line make a big difference to the imputed angle?

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

I have a few albums where a small change (~ 0.1mm) makes an audible difference - between a trumpet sounding shrill and almost distorted to perfect. It's shocking how big the difference is. Soundstage width is also affected. I think the stylus profile makes a big difference - some profiles are not as sensitive to height.

How can you be sure SRA is accurate to a hundredth of a degree with the Wally Scope? Not a knock on the product - I always wondered this because aren't you drawing lines on the image 'by hand'? Doesn't the position of the line make a big difference to the imputed angle?

To my ears, the SRA doesn't have to be as accurate to a hundredth of a degree ! (see my posts a few months back when I was adjusting the tonearm heights multiple times up and down showing the variance of SRA and how (to my ears) the music / sound was changing with critical headphone listening.

The accuracy of finding the angles on the Wally Scope software and the slight variances that can be made to the hand drawn lines on the images taken and hence the angles, especially with multiple measurements to obtain average dynamic (when the platter is moving) SRAs and VTAs makes a very small difference to the overall average SRA and VTA angles.
I know this well, because I undertook a lot of such multiple measurements and checked the variances to the SRAs and VTAs for each line plotting's for the multiple images I undertook for determining the dynamic SRAs and VTAs.
Note it is the dynamic SRAs and VTAs I was determining and not the static SRAs and VTAs which are not reality when playing a record !

 

[Croc999]

JR explains this exact thing here:

Listen from ~30:00 time stamp.

 

[DetroitVinylRob]

To my ears, the SRA doesn't have to be as accurate to a hundredth of a degree ! (see my posts a few months back when I was adjusting the tonearm heights multiple times up and down showing the variance of SRA and how (to my ears) the music / sound was changing with critical headphone listening.

The accuracy of finding the angles on the Wally Scope software and the slight variances that can be made to the hand drawn lines on the images taken and hence the angles, especially with multiple measurements to obtain average dynamic (when the platter is moving) SRAs and VTAs makes a very small difference to the overall average SRA and VTA angles.
I know this well, because I undertook a lot of such multiple measurements and checked the variances to the SRAs and VTAs for each line plotting's for the multiple images I undertook for determining the dynamic SRAs and VTAs.
Note it is the dynamic SRAs and VTAs I was determining and not the static SRAs and VTAs which are not reality when playing a record !

imho different stylus cuts and other axis precision (like zenith) have a distinct effect on the “tolerance window” for SRA.

I agree with your observations.

Let’s see what J.R. thinks…

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

imho different stylus cuts and other axis precision (like zenith) have a distinct effect on the “tolerance window” for SRA.

I agree with your observations.

Let’s see what J.R. thinks…

I am eagerly awaiting for the release from Wally Tools of their Azimuth and Zenith measurement tools (hopefully not too long to wait now).

 

[tima]

The accuracy of finding the angles on the Wally Scope software and the slight variances that can be made to the hand drawn lines on the images taken and hence the angles, especially with multiple measurements to obtain average dynamic (when the platter is moving) SRAs and VTAs makes a very small difference to the overall average SRA and VTA angles.
I know this well, because I undertook a lot of such multiple measurements and checked the variances to the SRAs and VTAs for each line plotting's for the multiple images I undertook for determining the dynamic SRAs and VTAs.

Your findings are interesting. A few years back I entertained the whole digital microscope SRA effort, well before the revival of Wally Tools. Drawing the angles, even with software help was difficult. Maybe I was inartfull but I got too many variations and thus too many different angles. That was one reason I gave up using the USB microscope.

I'm guessing one of the biggest problems solved by the Wally Scope is getting its lens parallel to the stylus/cartridge. I never had confidence doing that with the microscope alone.

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

Your findings are interesting. A few years back I entertained the whole digital microscope SRA effort, well before the revival of Wally Tools. Drawing the angles, even with software help was difficult. Maybe I was inartfull but I got too many variations and thus too many different angles. That was one reason I gave up using the USB microscope.

I'm guessing one of the biggest problems solved by the Wally Scope is getting its lens parallel to the stylus/cartridge. I never had confidence doing that with the microscope alone.

Hi 'tima', Happy New Year to you.

Yes, before I bought the Wally Tools and in particular the Wally Scope, I also tried in vain with a Dinolite USB Microscope and then importing the photo into standard image software to draw the lines and determine the VTA and SRA angles by hand.

However, firstly these attempts were for static VTA and SRA only (which as we all know isn't reality when an LP is playing) and secondly I now know these angles when compared to the reasonably repeatable static and dynamic angles I have obtained from the Wally Scope and Wally Scope software were not very accurate at all. This is substantiated by the difference in the sound I have now and what I had back then (i.e. before setting up my tonearm and cartridge with the Wally Tools.

Also note that also after I was using the Dinolite USB Microscope and before I purchased the Wally Tools, I bought and used the AnalogMagik V1 package (software and LP test disc) to set up my TT, tonearm and cartridge. And I now know that the dynamic VTA and SRA angles were also different to what I am now using from setting up my tonearm and cartridge with the Wally Tools.

I use a digital level gauge to make sure the Wally Scope is perfectly parallel to the stylus & cantilever.

 

[tony22]

Just a shout out to J.R. about how much I’m liking the Wally Reference, Skater, and Zenith tools I picked up from him at the Florida show. Love the way they work. I’m my own case I found that the Wally Skater result compares very nicely with AnalogMagik, so I feel for quick check and ease of use Wally Skater is a nice choice (although results will vary if you have a curved finger lift). I don’t have Wally Scope (yet ) but over the years I’ve gotten quite good at using my DinoLite and MeasureIt to measure azimuth and zenith offset angles. For the latter, now with Wally Zenith insuring proper cantilever angle offset is great! J.R., please consider my request to add UNI DIN to Wally Skater.

Nice work J.R. in pushing the Wally capabilities forward!

 

[J.R. Boisclair]

Just a shout out to J.R. about how much I’m liking the Wally Reference, Skater, and Zenith tools I picked up from him at the Florida show. Love the way they work. I’m my own case I found that the Wally Skater result compares very nicely with AnalogMagik, so I feel for quick check and ease of use Wally Skater is a nice choice (although results will vary if you have a curved finger lift). I don’t have Wally Scope (yet ) but over the years I’ve gotten quite good at using my DinoLite and MeasureIt to measure azimuth and zenith offset angles. For the latter, now with Wally Zenith insuring proper cantilever angle offset is great! J.R., please consider my request to add UNI DIN to Wally Skater.

Nice work J.R. in pushing the Wally capabilities forward!

Thank you for your thoughts! I appreciate that.

Not sure why a curved finger lift would cause a difference in the measurement of horizontal torque force. We only need some place to affix the tonearm to the string and where it does so is irrelevant as long as it is not more than about 15mm behind the stylus (heading towards the pivot)

Though you will see more videos on me regarding this, do not neglect your VTA. I think it is even more important than SRA though this is something we need to study deeply in order to prove. You need to aim for 20 degrees or less since there are NO cutterheads with effective modulation angles greater than that. Whatever your cantilever to record angle is, add another 1.7 degrees to get your true VTA. The actual adjustment figure depends upon stylus/cantilever model but it ranges from 0.5 degrees to as much as 3.7 degrees.

Of course, if you are going more than about 1 degree off level for the tonearm, you should be using a shim at the cartridge/headshell union. You introduce many new vector forces into play with the arm out of level.

 

[tony22]

J.R., when I was using Wally Skater I found that the loop at the end of the thread would not remain in one spot on a curved finger lift. It would “slip along the curve” depending on which direction the tonearm was moved, causing the thread to not always align repeatedly at the same increment position on the lower measuring rod. I actually wound up using the very fine wire to create a more secure and stable hooking point for the thread.

 

[J.R. Boisclair]

J.R., when I was using Wally Skater I found that the loop at the end of the thread would not remain in one spot on a curved finger lift. It would “slip along the curve” depending on which direction the tonearm was moved, causing the thread to not always align repeatedly at the same increment position on the lower measuring rod. I actually wound up using the very fine wire to create a more secure and stable hooking point for the thread.

Interesting. Haven't seen this before. What did you measure the static friction of the arm at the inner and outer areas of platter?

 

[tony22]

Interesting. Haven't seen this before. What did you measure the static friction of the arm at the inner and outer areas of platter?

I was actually a little confused about how to do that measurement with the new 2 knob hanger for the WSkater. Unlike what I saw in the video using the old hanger, it seems you can’t start the static friction measurement using the new hanger with the two cords lined up with each other. What I can say is that when I do the push test like Wally himself did in his video, it took just about forever for the tonearm to stop.

 

[J.R. Boisclair]

I was actually a little confused about how to do that measurement with the new 2 knob hanger for the WSkater. Unlike what I saw in the video using the old hanger, it seems you can’t start the static friction measurement using the new hanger with the two cords lined up with each other. What I can say is that when I do the push test like Wally himself did in his video, it took just about forever for the tonearm to stop.

I have already filmed a new instructional video series for the WallySkater. It is in editing now. Hopefully it will clear up any confusion, but you can certainly start the static friction test no matter where the yellow and blue line are with respect to each other with the new hangar. I have even begun including a set of hashmarks on the upper beam so you can simply measure how far you have pushed the hangar before the arm responds to the horizontal force. It is much easier to read than a swinging plumb bob.

If your arm swings very freely then static friction is not an likely an issue.

 

[tony22]

Another success! This time with Wally Zenith. After using WZ to make sure I’d compensated for my zenith offset (.76 degrees CW), boom! significant improvement in groove noise*. Gotta love it.

*all other alignments were rechecked after zenith was corrected

 

[J.R. Boisclair]

Another success! This time with Wally Zenith. After using WZ to make sure I’d compensated for my zenith offset (.76 degrees CW), boom! significant improvement in groove noise*. Gotta love it.

*all other alignments were rechecked after zenith was corrected

Crazy how groove noise drops when the zenith error is corrected, eh?!

Did you notice increase in overall clarity and "focus" of the soundstage as well?

Only 12% of cartridges have 0.5 degrees or less of zenith error. Few people have heard this effect before!

 

[tony22]

Did you notice increase in overall clarity and "focus" of the soundstage as well?

A bit, yes, although it was already pretty decent to my ears.

I’d been yammering about zenith for some time even before a feature showed up in AM v2 to address it. I like the WZ method better. Assuming one has the tools and ability to measure it, you measure it and use WZ to correct it. All physical, do it and done. No tweedling back and forth trying to find the optimal distortion “sweet spot”. Too fiddly when it’s so easy to unambiguously measure.

 

[J.R. Boisclair]

A bit, yes, although it was already pretty decent to my ears.

I’d been yammering about zenith for some time even before a feature showed up in AM v2 to address it. I like the WZ method better. Assuming one has the tools and ability to measure it, you measure it and use WZ to correct it. All physical, do it and done. No tweedling back and forth trying to find the optimal distortion “sweet spot”. Too fiddly when it’s so easy to unambiguously measure.

We have analyzed many laboratory test records (NAB, DIN, CBS, etc.) and have learned the futility of using a test record as a reference for playback alignment. For example, the CBS test record with square waves had a 3.5 cutting zenith error. You can see this in my latest video posting.

Even if the cutting stylus used was perfectly symmetrical (they often aren't - you can see this in the recent video I posted on azimuth) and the alignment of the cutting face is otherwise perfect, because the test record setup method is multivariate, you can *never* know if you achieved optimization. The most you can ask for is "better". We know the mean of all four angles the cutting lathes cut at, so we aim for that mean to put us in the best statistical position to get the most out of all records.

We have also found a way to analyze the cutting zenith error on mono records. Acoustic Sounds' Masterpieces by Ellington is less than 0.5 degrees in error but the Helen Merrill record is almost 5 degrees. This does not mean it sounds "bad". It only means it is a lost opportunity to have had greater clarity, instrumental focus, depth layering and transient attack.

 

[tony22]

I have almost all the test records ever made, and yes there’s no way they’re all “the same”. I’m coming around to your (and Wally’s, RIP) way of thinking, that if it can be accurately assessed in physical terms, without a record, and it can be corrected using physical methods, do it that way first.