American Sound AS-2000 Installations- Far East (Tango)
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
From what you are writing I would think that Al seeks primarily Objective 2 (master tape), while you are focused on Objective 4 (sounds live). This makes sense because you are the author of Objective 4.
Ron,
Well, I can not see how someone using a tube power amplifier and a DAC with significant distortion compared to top measuring DACs can seek primarily Objective 2! Although Peter is using vinyl - that per se does not apply to master tape, IMHO his approach (SS, Magico , SME 30 /V12 seems a lot closer to master tape than Al options.
It's a simple easy to read tool to use in place of an actual cartridge for alignment setting, still in production for another few weeks.
david
I don't know who started the 92 degree criteria or what's it based on but as far as I know there's no realistic way to measure the rake angle of an imperfectly shaped stylus. The only way I know to set up VTA/SRA is by ear.
Edit- Just noticed the picture of the Century, I guess if you bought one theoretically you could arrive at your magical 92 degree angle using a very accurate level measuring it on a flat surface, but not sure even that would work inside with stylus inside a groove.
david
Last edited:
You need a microscope... special one. I think the ear is better once you figure out what albums to use.
Michael Fremer describes the 92 degrees as a good compromise angle. It is a compromise because the angle changes with different LP thicknesses and original lathe cutting head angles, for which there was no one standard. I just set the arm level and then adjust by ear. The result will be somewhere near 92, give or take a fraction of a degree or three.
That alignment is starting point for the Gieger Styli shown--but needs different setting on other Cartridge Profiles to achieve the "mythical" 92° angle
I've used the Fremer /Jennings method with a Dinolite USB scope and achieved an OK sound with the resulting number
But the ear can also correct and do the core work-- so dubious benefit with the "Digital Align trick" bit fiddly but may work for you.
My biggest improvement was with Azimuth /Crosstalk correction using the Adjust+ Program.
BruceD
You can't get a tiny, floppy diamond on a flexible, itty bitty shaft that you can wobble by breathing on it at a perfect angle? What's wrong with you?
And the SRA angle changes as soon as the record starts to rotate, some say by as much as 2 degrees. Trying to get the 92 degrees, if even possible, on a non moving record is fruitless, IMO. This is because the friction of a moving records pulls the stylus/cantilever and the cartridge lowers by a tiny bit, decreasing the SRA angle. There is a thread about this subject on Audionirvana.org. The only way to do it is by ear listening to a playing record. Start by getting it close by leveling the arm and go from there by listening for lowest distortion, most natural, resolving sound.
The SRA in the above picture measured the angel between the edge the cartridge stylus and the surface of the vinyl.
It was different from the Michael Fremer 's picture which measures the angel between the center of the cartridge stylus and the surface of the vinyl.
I adopted MF's approach.
It all depends on the shape of the stylus and where it makes contact with the record groove. The Ortofon replicant stylus makes contact at the back edge of the cartridge. Freaked showed a photograph of a stylus that makes contact along the centerline that is why the diagrams look different.
I don't know if I understand your notion of 'small scale volume tracking', particularly in terms of pre or amp topology. I would think success is incumbent on the source, the record and cartridge capabilities, the ability of the stylus/cantilever to register the change in amplitude as transcribed in the groove and the motor's reflection of that change in electrical output.
I suppose if a small change, which that might be, gets blurred through less than apt amplification, then okay. I don't know enough about how certain circuits are better or worse - more likely to blur a smale difference in amplitude - in such a scenario. Though I might be tempted to say (what a fudgey locution - might be tempted) to say that output transformers could be a culprit in such loss.
Is what you're talking about like reproducing the shift from pianissimo (pp) to pianissississimo (ppp) in, say, a solo or quartet? If not, can you offer an example?
Off the top of my head, addressing such doesn't really help us with the notion of 'resolution.' It seems it can almost mean whatever we need it to mean in the moment - at least given the length of our discussion here. What I'm looking for: is there a stable consistent meaning, sufficient in itself that it does not require more words or examples to express it. Perhaps my purpose with writing (exposition) is narrower or more analytic than needed by many.
I find many sources are capable (cheap and expensive). There have been a few that are not that I've come across (at all prices). Amps on the other hand seem to vary wildly. Amplifiers are a problem because they can bottle neck, and you'll never know it's missing. If the amp is good at it, you can hear the deficiency in something up the line as it only partially comes through.
Output transformers are more likely to stretch volume changes than make them disappear.
The difference between pp and ppp may be an ok example, but the best most clear one I know is in vocals. I actually like to use this song (vinyl or CD). Even on a computer it might be fairly clear to hear their voice fluctuating in vibrato, resonating, but on a good stereo it really is a lot more readable. And believe it or not, a lot of expensive stereos will blur it all together.
People will continue to loosely use nomenclature without definitive definitions.... It is to be expected for awhile. But I understand wanting an easy way to explain it. If I come up with one I'll try to recall to let you know. I think it is somewhat clear already, but it is hard to explain to people who haven't heard the differences much.
What would be useful is a picture of a stylus with the rake angle depicted after the cartridge had been dialed in for optimum sound. After playing and listening, not the static pre-tuning angle. Does not need to claim to be definitive. State the record 'type' - thin, thick, 180g, 120g, etc. It can be an example. Or show a before and after picture. Stylus w/ headshell level with record, stylus after 'arm adjustement for optimal sound. Cartridge manufacturers could do this.
I don’t have a pic. But different carts seem so different. With the GFS, you lift the rear and it becomes more open and sharper transient, while with AtlasSL you have to lower the rear to get the same effect. I don’t know if the good sound I am hearing now is 92degree or not. Probably more not than likely.
Kind regards,
Tang
Raising or dropping the arm depends on your starting point cartridges all behave the same and like a lens that you bring into focus you’ll have to move one way or the other.
david
I have never once measured SRA with a digital microscope. I try to get it level as best as I can using a tiny bullseye spirit bubble level to get me in the ball park. It also helps with azimuth. Then I fine tune by ear.
Exactly. It is the best way. With my arm I can use the printed lines on the arm tube to visually adjust for level. Then I listen and adjust further.
Similar threads
