The “Korf method” for azimuth alignment

T

tony22

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2019
685
301
153
63
The thread title refers more generally to azimuth alignment that targets stylus perpendicularity to the groove as the goal for optimal azimuth, using either distortion or HF measurement as the method. I imagine most vinylistas already know about this technique, but for those who do not, here’s the link -

korfaudio.com

Azimuth Adjustment Myths and Reality, Part I

korfaudio.com korfaudio.com

The stylus perpendicularity method essentially ignores shooting for equal channel separation. I hadn’t read this in some time, and after seeing it again I wondered what parameter is being used by the old Adjust Plus+ or AnalogMagik v1 or v2 - or even the Fozgometer - for setting azimuth? Generator alignment I guess? I’ve spoken with Peter Lederman a few times about azimuth, and he points out that at least his own carts when properly aligned, given their very high channel separation to begin with, can have different numbers from L>R and R>L. That would suggest (what I’ll keep calling) the Korf method is a more useful technique, keeping the stylus from excessive vertical skew because of maybe shooting for the wrong goal. Wondering what other folks think.
 
tony22 said:
I wondered what parameter is being used by the old Adjust Plus+ or AnalogMagik v1 or v2 - or even the Fozgometer - for setting azimuth?
Click to expand...
They all use the correct method, maximum channel separation and minimum phase error.

tony22 said:
The thread title refers more generally to azimuth alignment that targets stylus perpendicularity to the groove as the goal for optimal azimuth, using either distortion or HF measurement as the method. I imagine most vinylistas already know about this technique, but for those who do not, here’s the link -
Click to expand...
Korf blog contains some useful insights for vinyl playback but their azimuth method is not one of them. When you read the blog you get a feeling like every manufacturer before Korf is stupid and cheated us with poor products. I don’t know maybe it’s just me or their writing technique. Of course there is some reality in their assumptions but not as dramatic as they portrayed. IMHO take everything in Korf blog with a grain of salt. I still believe that their tonearm can be incredibly good though.

I used to think like them about Azimuth in the past but soon I realized perpendicular stylus is not the correct way. Scanning sides (edges) of stylus in contact with groove walls are not straight lines. They’re rather like an arc or hyperbolic.
IMG_0029.jpeg
What is the benefit of arc shaped edges on a stylus? Well, when the stylus is tilted to one side 1-2 degrees it will still be in perfect contact with groove walls. Modern profiles are cut like an arc on the edges and tip for this purpose rather than straight lines. Don’t let illustrations on the Korf blog fool you. They’re drawn as a triangle.
I don’t want to use their illustration without permission. It’s similar to the one below
IMG_0032.png
It is illustrated as if stylus shape is a triangle with straight lines on the edges and whole triangle fits inside the groove. But in reality stylus is not triangle and only a small part of the curvature area fits inside the groove as you can see below. And that area is close to the tip which has a curved shape. So, modern profiles are not exactly circular shaped like a spherical but still keeps contact with groove walls up to a couple of degrees tilting.
IMG_0030.jpeg

As a result it’s better and correct way to adjust azimuth according to maximum channel separation and minimum phase error up to 1-2 degrees. If You need to tilt more than that than change the cartridge or use it as it is. Reducing phase error is more important cause human ear is very sensitive to phase error. IMHO using AP test disc is very good for setting azimuth.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Calle_jr, marty, Catcher10 and 1 other person
mtemur said:
Korf blog contains some useful insights for vinyl playback but their azimuth method is not one of them. When you read the blog you get a feeling like every manufacturer before Korf is stupid and cheated us with poor products.
Click to expand...
Right! :rolleyes: I'd been using the accepted methods for years and I go back again to this blog and see this again.

mtemur said:
As a result it’s better and correct way to adjust azimuth according to maximum channel separation and minimum phase error up to 1-2 degrees. If You need to tilt more than that than change the cartridge or use it as it is. Reducing phase error is more important cause human ear is very sensitive to phase error. IMHO using AP test disc is very good for this purpose.
Click to expand...
If the goal is to get maximum channel separation and minimum phase difference, it seems a tradeoff will have to be made if phase difference is the priority. That would suggest Adjust Plus+ as being perhaps a slightly easier tool to use for this purpose (at least IMO). AM does provide phase numbers but I think the graphing technique used by AP makes it easier to "see" where things are going as the cart is rotated. Having said all that, we've all had the discussion in another thread about the numbers between AM and AP not being the same for azimuth. Beyond that I've had numbers be virtually dead identical from L>R and R>L with AM and be unequal in AP, and vice versa, ignoring the values not being close.
 
tony22 said:
If the goal is to get maximum channel separation and minimum phase difference, it seems a tradeoff will have to be made if phase difference is the priority. That would suggest Adjust Plus+ as being perhaps a slightly easier tool to use for this purpose (at least IMO).
Click to expand...
It looks like Adjust+ is easier to use but I’m not sure if it’s better than AM. Normally -but not always- phase and best channel separation coincide.

tony22 said:
Beyond that I've had numbers be virtually dead identical from L>R and R>L with AM and be unequal in AP, and vice versa, ignoring the values not being close.
Click to expand...
I get equal numbers for L>R and R>L on both AM and AP discs only on vacuum hold down platters. Numbers are not the same but equal on both channels, something like 28dB for AM and 35dB for AP. Other than vacuum hold down platters I still reach to the same adjustment using either test disc but presented numbers are only equal with AP disc. What I’m trying to say is both test discs lead you to the same correct adjustment when you try to achieve highest possible numbers for both channels. If they’re also equal it’s even better.
 
mtemur said:
but presented numbers are only equal with AP disc
Click to expand...
I do get the best coincidence of results with the Analog Productions Ultimate Analog (I’m hoping that’s the one you’re referring to) test record. The AM and the Adjust Plus records when used with their respective programs yield the differing results I see. Makes sense I guess. Nobody really knows how well all these test records are cut and pressed. And for some reason Mikey doesn’t seem to like the Adjust Plus disc for azimuth.
 
You're right of course, @mtemur. I got out the Ultimate Analog test record, and after a tiny (and I mean tiny) bit of tweaking I got Adjust Plus+ and AMv1 to show almost identical (off by a couple of tenths of a dB) azimuth readings, on both programs L>R and R>L off being identical by .4 dB. Good enough for me. APlus shows the phase delta to be 4 degrees. Hoping that's low enough. Trying to get that any smaller was an exercise in frustration. And as others have noted, when all that was done I looked at azimuth on AMv2, with the v2 test record (since on v2 azimuth can't be done with separate L and R tracks) and the difference was on the order of 12dB. Really not sure what to think about that, as two other programs (oh, and the Visual Analyzer SW oscilloscope) all show very close results to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtemur
tony22 said:
You're right of course, @mtemur. I got out the Ultimate Analog test record, and after a tiny (and I mean tiny) bit of tweaking I got Adjust Plus+ and AMv1 to show almost identical (off by a couple of tenths of a dB) azimuth readings, on both programs L>R and R>L off being identical by .4 dB. Good enough for me. APlus shows the phase delta to be 4 degrees. Hoping that's low enough. Trying to get that any smaller was an exercise in frustration. And as others have noted, when all that was done I looked at azimuth on AMv2, with the v2 test record (since on v2 azimuth can't be done with separate L and R tracks) and the difference was on the order of 12dB. Really not sure what to think about that, as two other programs (oh, and the Visual Analyzer SW oscilloscope) all show very close results to each other.
Click to expand...
I believe 0.4dB channel separation and 4 degrees phase differences are extremely good. I have similar experience with AM test record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tony22
I know (think) we kind of settled on agreement with this, but I still scratch my head about Korf’s method. My thinking is along these lines - let’s say one uses his 50KHz swept tone method. Of course we have to assume the tracks are cut identically for Left and Right - let’s assume they are. If this is true, then wouldn’t lining up the swept curves as best as possible be “as good as you can get” in aligning the azimuth? Or is this method primarily really getting us a theoretically optimized channel balance, and is really missing the point of cross talk cancellation?
 
Last edited:
@tony22
Two different systems MM and MC both Microline and Boron cantilever , used Ortofon test record to adjust azimuth for best crosstalk gives this on 50kz track. I think using Ortofon record for best crosstalk is good enough. Sweep here is Denon Xg-7002 test record.
I use 400hz high pass filter when setting azimuth, that removed low frequency rubbish from the crosstalk level
IMG_3822.jpeg
IMG_3823.jpeg
 
Last edited:
@Balle Clorin, this is rather interesting. I have both the Ortofon and the Denon records, and in both cases I get traces with amplitude descending as the frequency increases, much like that shown on Korf’s web page. How are you getting a (relatively) flat amplitude? I’m running the signal through my phono pre before sending it to my A/D USB converter.

Also, have you compared this method to standard crosstalk techniques (using either AM or A+, or even a Foz)?
 
The XG-7002 sweep record is without RIAA, I record without. If you use RIAA the level will drop as frequency increases.
I use the standard crosstalk method with the Ortofon L/R 1khz record as described in post above.
When I optimize Azimuth on the headshell on Ortofon record, I get this crosstalk on a Hungarotone record recorded with varying azimuth, Good match there also, this is for another cartridge. So setting Azimuth optimal on Ortofon also gives very good performance on both XG-7002 and Merolemez/Hungaroton . I do not have Analog Magic, Alalog Productions Ultimate Analog test record is quite poor and do not agree with many of my other 25 test records.EDIT but the crosstalk track is not too bad..
IMG_2371.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Balle Clorin said:
I use the standard crosstalk method with the Ortofon L/R 1khz record as described in post above.
When I optimize Azimuth on the headshell on Ortofon record
Click to expand...
So you’re first using the Ortofon 1 KHz tone to set crosstalk, and only after that you’re using the 50KHz sweep simply as an azimuth check? What software are you using for these two traces shown here?
 
Yes.
For plots I use the script at ASR
www.audiosciencereview.com

Phono Cartridge Response Measurement Script

I thought neodymium had been in use for MM magnets for ages? I think it is specifically the “55” version which is the extra strong neodymium.
www.audiosciencereview.com www.audiosciencereview.com

I record using Soundforge/CooleditPro via Parks Audio Puffin. But any method can be used. Puffin gives the option to record without RIAA, Test frequency sweeps rarely are RIAA, often only RIAA below 1000hz. The script can fix this
 
Thank you Balle. I often use an oscilloscope or spectrum alalyzer (depending on what I’m looking at) and just do the math myself. The ASR scripts look interesting, though, so maybe I’ll give them a try.

so you like the Ortofon tracks the best for crosstalk? What do you like about the Hungaraton disk?
 
See the plot it gives . It is recorded with 40-50 degree groove emulating 85 to 95 Azimuth. But more complex( analysis of digital recorded file) than using the Ortofon which is only recording L an R signal level while adjusting cart. My Puffin RIAA gives the crosstalk directly on the display…
 
Balle, do you have more than one copy of any given test record? In a different thread I was remarking that I’ve discovered among the test records I have where I do have multiple copies, that the crosstalk results from one copy to the next show more than a minor difference. It was suggested that this is because of imperfect record flatness from one to another. I use a record clamp and periphery ring, but this may still be true. But I wonder how anyone can ever know, then, that an ideal crosstalk alignment has been achieved?
 
index.php
Yes one I have 3 of, two others I have 2 of andthen 25 single ones.
The pressings and results are similar for the same record name, what different is the flatness, which has a effect in on WF.. Different records ( not copies) show very variable crosstalk.See table above. Azimuth test should be done with high pass filter, and is best don’t when recording flat without RIAA, if not low frequency grunge may obscure the actual crosstalk level

You may find som interesting stuff here
www.audiosciencereview.com

Fun with vinyl measurements

I think Vinyl people in other forums do not want to know about turntable and cartridge measurements as they may get disappointed. I like accuracy and good design but that does not prevent me from listening to vinyl or measuring it. Measuring is a way to learn,understand and improve. Let us...
www.audiosciencereview.com www.audiosciencereview.com
 
Last edited:
@Balle Clorin, I still feel that we’re essentially “chasing our tails”, with regard to crosstalk as there is too much variation between test records - and even between multiple tracks on the same test record. I give you the following example. The first two samples are the first pair of L,R tracks on the Ortofon test record, followed by the second pair on the very same record! :eek: The third sample is one of my Analog Productions records, the last sample is from another copy of the same AP record.

I am definitely coming to the opinion that this is all just a game meaning next to nothing. If copies of the same tracks in the same side of the same record can’t yield similar results, the the whole thing is a joke.

IMG_4064.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Question on using a digital oscilloscope for cartridge alignment
Replies
21
Views
4K
Vinyl Forum
Bonesy Jonesy
Bonesy Jonesy
Puma Cat
Using Design of Experiments for Subwoofer Set-up and integration
Replies
3
Views
937
Audio Tweaks Forum
Puma Cat
Puma Cat
D
Must have adjustments for an arm to be SOTA
Replies
51
Views
23K
Tonearms
Don C
D
Grooves
Fozgometer: 3 Test LP's and 3 Different Results....Now What?
Replies
27
Views
21K
Calibration Devices
gwernaffield
G
tmallin
If It's Spring, It Must Be Time for New Speakers (and More): Janszen Valentina Active
Replies
22
Views
16K
Tom's Corner Forum
Addicted to hifi
Addicted to hifi

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

Home Forums

User Menu

Login
Top Bottom