Natural Sound

[microstrip]

You obviously missed out on decades of turntables and setup before Fremer was even born. You talk about reproducing results but not quantify what the results are Francisco. What does 92 degree give anyone and the process itself has so many flaws and physical impediments?

david

Perhaps you have missed it, not me and many others. The debate on SRA and the 92 degree angle comes from very long before M. Fremer article. The contribution of Fremer was mainly showing people that it could be carried by anyone using a cheap USB microscope.

Anyway this is not the proper space to debate SRA and USB cameras - probably you missed the debates we had about it in WBF along the years.

 

[ddk]

Perhaps you have missed it, not me and many others. The debate on SRA and the 92 degree angle comes from very long before M. Fremer article. The contribution of Fremer was mainly showing people that it could be carried by anyone using a cheap USB microscope.

Anyway this is not the proper space to debate SRA and USB cameras - probably you missed the debates we had about it in WBF along the years.

I didn’t miss them I just find it irrelevant to tonearm setup! As you said there are other threads dedicated to the subject so there’s no point arguing it here.
david

 

[PeterA]

Perhaps you have missed it, not me and many others. The debate on SRA and the 92 degree angle comes from very long before M. Fremer article. The contribution of Fremer was mainly showing people that it could be carried by anyone using a cheap USB microscope.

Anyway this is not the proper space to debate SRA and USB cameras - probably you missed the debates we had about it in WBF along the years.

We are discussing David‘s visit to fine-tune my system and particularly his emphasis on using one’s own ears to make the assessment about progress. I wrote that I find that approach quite refreshing and extremely effective. No cameras computers or famous test discs necessary.

You seem to be an advocate for standards and measurements where few really exist and frankly can not be correlated to quality or performance regarding VTA.

What is one to think or do if he can in fact achieve the perfect 92° but actually prefers the sound of a slightly different angle because it sounds more realistic and natural?

If you are saying the 92° is a starting point only and nothing more, there might be some validity to it. That can be checked by eye with a loupe just passed vertical for a ballpark in the beginning of the adjustment process. Quick and easy.

 

[microstrip]

We are discussing David‘s visit to fine-tune my system and particularly his emphasis on using one’s own ears to make the assessment about progress. I wrote that I find that approach quite refreshing and extremely effective. No cameras computers or famous test discs necessary.

Nice. I am not discussing your very interesting comments on it, just what has been said in the thread about alternative methods. BTW, how do you set the azimuth?

You seem to be an advocate for standards and measurements where few really exist and frankly can not be correlated to quality or performance.

Your opinion, not of the many who developed the techniques and find they correlate with sound quality. I am not endorsing any of them - just telling you they exist. We had many excellent threads on them - I think the last one was on AnalogMagik. My main point was that the absence of any method that does not rely exclusively on listening is not benefic for the vinyl cause.

what is one to think or do if he can in fact achieve the mythical 92° but actually prefers the sound of a slightly different angle because it sounds more realistic and natural?

How do you deal with LPs of different thickness that will surely sound better with different card settings?

If you are saying the 92° is a starting point only and nothing more, there might be some validity to it. That can be checked by eye with a loupe just passed vertical for a ballpark in the beginning of the adjustment process. Quick and easy.

Adjusting precise 92º with a loupe by eye? This only shows you have not read about the method or are blessed with better eyes than me, not just betters ears than 99.99% of the audiophiles! But surely we should check by listening after getting a technically preferred position - I did it many times. It is why I praise the precise and immediate VTA adjustment capability of the Graham Phantom Supreme. However most people will not do it, let us be realistic.

 

[tima]

It took you decades to reach such level, depending on help of a single person that we both respect. Michael Fremer technique has a good theoretical and statistical foundation, it is widely documented, reproducible and is openly debated in many forums.

He who must not be named wrote about it and advocated for it, but it is not 'his technique'. It was invented and taught by Wally Malewicz.

 

[PeterA]

Nice. I am not discussing your very interesting comments on it, just what has been said in the thread about alternative methods. BTW, how do you set the azimuth?



Your opinion, not of the many who developed the techniques and find they correlate with sound quality. I am not endorsing any of them - just telling you they exist. We had many excellent threads on them - I think the last one was on AnalogMagik. My main point was that the absence of any method that does not rely exclusively on listening is not benefic for the vinyl cause.



How do you deal with LPs of different thickness that will surely sound better with different card settings?



Adjusting precise 92º with a loupe by eye? This only shows you have not read about the method or are blessed with better eyes than me, not just betters ears than 99.99% of the audiophiles! But surely we should check by listening after getting a technically preferred position - I did it many times. It is why I praise the precise and immediate VTA adjustment capability of the Graham Phantom Supreme. However most people will not do it, let us be realistic.

Fransisco, I did not write precise 92° but the ballpark which is just past vertical. Yes you can see this easily with the naked eye and a 10 X loupe. Different cartridge types anyway so we’re only talking rough starting points to begin the process. Or you could also start with what generally looks vertical and start from there.

Not adjusting for different record thicknesses is not optimal but there are variables independent of the record thickness anyway like the depth of the groove and the angle of the cutting head. There is a lack of a standard so we are talking about best compromises.

It might be worth setting up another arm for 180 to 200 g records but that would be a luxury and there’s also mono versus stereo and different cartridges of different flavors for different genres.

How far can one realistically take it? I decided to take the advice I trust confirmed by my own listening and what is most practical for me. I am certainly not saying it is the best way or the only way.

 

[tima]

If you are saying the 92° is a starting point only and nothing more, there might be some validity to it.

That's the original idea, rather than start from anywhere.

 

[Lagonda]

He who must not be named wrote about it and advocated for it, but it is not 'his technique'. It was invented and taught by Wally Malewicz.

Beetlejuice ! Beetlejuice ! Beetlejuice !

 

[tima]

That's right - pleeease do not conjure him.

 

[morricab]

It also requires good hearing, something that is not always a given, maybe one of the reasons so many want to measure, set and forget ! Another reason to just go digital !

Have you heard how different DACs can sound...not to mention streamers, clockers etc. can sound...notconvinced digital is easier...

 

[microstrip]

He who must not be named wrote about it and advocated for it, but it is not 'his technique'. It was invented and taught by Wally Malewicz.

M. Fremer acknowledged it many times. I should have written the technique presented by Fremer, apologies for writing too fast. Happily you noticed the obvious!

Please see my post https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.32867/post-732901

 

[rando]

I did not write precise 92° but the ballpark which is just past vertical. Yes you can see this easily with the naked eye and a 10 X loupe.

Of all the fine assessments we as humans are capable of optically. A correct perception of angles is among the lowest and least reliable.

Do you consider your abilities in this vein ample, can you look at a horizontal building element and determine it is past that plane at around 92°?

That would be a rare skill indeed. Little knowledge about eyesight is required to understand why.

 

[ddk]

Of all the fine assessments we as humans are capable of optically. A correct perception of angles is among the lowest and least reliable.

Do you consider your abilities in this vein ample, can you look at a horizontal building element and determine it is past that plane at around 92°?

That would be a rare skill indeed. Little knowledge about eyesight is required to understand why.

No one was looking for angles and degrees what Peter meant was that we don’t need a microscope to have a starting point a general visual guide is enough.

david

 

[Lagonda]

Have you heard how different DACs can sound...not to mention streamers, clockers etc. can sound...notconvinced digital is easier...

Are you telling me good hearing is a advantage for all audiophiles ?

 

[rando]

No one was looking for angles and degrees what Peter meant was that we don’t need a microscope to have a starting point a general visual guide is enough.

david

I will pursue the element failing to take hold in my mind next time I see this come up outside his system thread. If I'm incapable of satisfying it in my own research.

 

[PeterA]

Of all the fine assessments we as humans are capable of optically. A correct perception of angles is among the lowest and least reliable.

Do you consider your abilities in this vein ample, can you look at a horizontal building element and determine it is past that plane at around 92°?

That would be a rare skill indeed. Little knowledge about eyesight is required to understand why.

I am describing something very small seen through a 10X loupe and using the horizontal record surface as a reference. In my opinion it’s pretty easy to see if the stylus is fairly close to vertical or just less than or more than vertical. Of course I can’t tell if it’s precisely 92° If you’re going to adjust anyway why go through the effort of getting a USB microscope setting up a computer and doing all of that when about 30 seconds of simply looking and adjusting gets you in the ballpark to begin the process. You are going to make further adjustments anyway.

Same thing with checking for azimuth with the mirror on the surface of the platter. It is not very difficult to see if the cantilever matches its reflection.

do this and then listen making small adjustments always asking yourself if it sounds more or less Natural with each adjustment. This is one of the things I learned from DDK it seems to be a very effective method.

What is more natural in a thread about natural sound then using one’s ears as the final judge? I am listening to the results now on a recording of Vivaldi‘s mandolin concerto. It is never sounded more realistic from one of my systems.

The imaging/scale of the mandolins, how balanced the sound is, the relationship between the transients and harmonics all make this a very good recording for assessments. Erato STU 70545.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Same thing with checking for azimuth with the mirror on the surface of the platter. It is not very difficult to see if the cantilever matches its reflection.

do this and then listen making small adjustments always asking yourself if it sounds more or less (...)

Thanks for addressing my question at last. I have tried adjusting azimuth with a mirror and with instruments for equal crosstalk - mirror will give you a wrong indication, stylus is not perfectly normal to cartridge plate. And sorry it is not clear from your sentence - do you also adjust azimuth by ear?

 

[rando]

Thank you Peter.

Analog is not my main focus and I have no wish to interfere with the flow of this thread disputing menial sighted observations 'roughing in' a starting point.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks for addressing my question at last. I have tried adjusting azimuth with a mirror and with instruments for equal crosstalk - mirror will give you a wrong indication, stylus is not perfectly normal to cartridge plate. And sorry it is not clear from your sentence - do you also adjust azimuth by ear?

At last? I’m not one of your students in the classroom perched at attention to respond immediately to all questions asked. I was out on the water in a fog bank with my daughter doing something more important and more enjoyable.

The mirror gets you close the same way checking by eye for 92° gets you close. Then I adjust by ear as I wrote. Making small adjustments and asking myself if it sounds more or less natural with the adjustment. “Sounds” implies listening by ear. this is not as easy because it doesn’t have the card trick.

I use the mirror and listen. Of course not every stylus is perfect in the cantilever. You can even see this through a 10 X loupe. No need for a USB microscope. Are use the very convenient tiny bubble level supplied with the Colibri. I place it on the head shell as a reference. It is not perfect and precise but it gets you very close if alignment using the mirror is not quite right.

In the end all these tools just save you time and get you close and then tiny adjustments are made by ear. Others use different methods with which they are comfortable.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I use the mirror and listen. Of course not every stylus is perfect in the cantilever. You can even see this through a 10 X loupe. No need for a USB microscope. Are use the very convenient tiny bubble level supplied with the Colibri. I place it on the head shell as a reference. It is not perfect and precise but it gets you very close if alignment using the mirror is not quite right.

In the end all these tools just save you time and get you close and then tiny adjustments are made by ear. Others use different methods with which they are comfortable.

Ok. I see you adjust azimuth with the help of a tiny bubble level on the shell and by ear. Not good enough for me, there are different views on it. Alastair Robertson-Aikman, the SME man, considered it a secondary adjustment and designed the SMEV with a fixed headshell. For fun I have used professional Bosch laser tools for set up and alignment of cartridges - I project the superimposed laser lines on the wall and measure the angle with an angle meter having a .05 degree accuracy. Audiophile crazyness can go up to that ... BTW the small bubble level supplied with my VdH Stradivarius was wrong by .9º.

Surely people can object that the test LP can be wrongly cut and inaccurate - I have read objections in this sense, but I own three independently issued test LPs that agree perfectly.

Most times I do not use measurements or objective data as an aim, but as a tool for guidance and confirmation - I find the pure subjective tools time consuming and sometimes unreliable.