Analog Magik

[mountainjoe]

From my personal experience, whenever readings were fluctuating too much (with the condition that the cartridge was perfectly aligned), this always was an indication of other turntable/Tonearm problems.

I think also that most of the adjustments are iterative - you have to cycle through them a couple of times to converge to the ideal settings.

That said, some settings like anti-skate seem to inherently have a lot of variability - at least on my setup.

 

[rDin]

It is a great macro reference tool.

That's my conclusion. Great for taking macro readings but not so great for dialling in.

From my personal experience, whenever readings were fluctuating too much (with the condition that the cartridge was perfectly aligned), this always was an indication of other turntable/Tonearm problems.

So, you are able to get stable readings through the duration of the test tracks?

I'm using a Rega RP10/Apheta 3, so not too shabby, but also not fully adjustable: what I see, after the needle drops, is that the initial reading appears and then the numbers will drift during reading, eg 2.345, 2.445, 2.245, 2.446, 2.555, 2.665, 2.775, 2.455. The trouble here, even if I infer an average reading, is that any fine adjustments I make are "lost" in the fluctuations. I can make big changes and note trend directions, eg "better"/"worse" but cannot dial in fine changes. IF the software were to display an average of readings and perhaps a standard deviation as well it would be more useful.

 

[tima]

From my personal experience, whenever readings were fluctuating too much (with the condition that the cartridge was perfectly aligned), this always was an indication of other turntable/Tonearm problems.

Savvas - could you please expand on your experience with stabilizing fluctuating readings through TT/arm adjustments.

And congrats on the Grand Cur !

 

[tima]

IF the software were to display an average of readings and perhaps a standard deviation as well it would be more useful.

Yes. The computer has the data for each read. It could determine a range, then discard the outliers based on frequency of occurence. N% of reads with this deviation, Y% with that deviation. If the cartridge and the software can't come to stability, then refining the cartridge setup might narrow the range, repeat, asymptotically approaching stability. Maybe not perfect, but closer and closer. Spewing out gobs of raw data is of limited value. The analogy to the Fozgometer - the needle might be in very slight flux, but you can see how far it moves and gauge a mid-point. Much easier than to grasp quickly than reading through hundreds of fractions.

 

[Vienna]

Savvas - could you please expand on your experience with stabilizing fluctuating readings through TT/arm adjustments.

And congrats on the Grand Cur !

Dear Tim,

in the past such random fluctuating readings were proved to be due to poor inconsistent belts, poor bearing assembly design, poor engineered tonearms, noisy motor, poor motor controller, and dynamically unbalanced platter.

all of the above were introducing vibrations and noise thus distortions, which were affecting AM measurements ( AM is measuring distortions ).

I received a Brinkmann Balance last Monday and the AM measurements are unprecedentedly good and stable.

 

[rDin]

in the past such random fluctuating readings were proved to be due to poor inconsistent belts, poor bearing assembly design, poor engineered tonearms, noisy motor, poor motor controller, and dynamically unbalanced platter.

all of the above were introducing vibrations and noise thus distortions, which were affecting AM measurements ( AM is measuring distortions ).

I received a Brinkmann Balance last Monday and the AM measurements are unprecedentedly good and stable.

Thanks for the input. I guess I'll have to be sufficiently happy that all my readings are at least within AM's quality benchmarks.

But I am now wondering (assuming it's not the TT) whether my support table (Ginko Cloud) might be implicated in the wandering readings - perhaps the spinning of the platter is inducing some sympathetic movement in the table which is being picked up by AM. The Ginko was the only table through which I could not measure any vibrations when playing loud music and so became my support of choice, but perhaps AM is telling me otherwise...

 

[tima]

I received a Brinkmann Balance last Monday and the AM measurements are unprecedentedly good and stable.

How cool is that. it's a really fine 'table. Hopefully, when you're ready, you'll start a thread to tell us about it.

 

[Vienna]

How cool is that. it's a really fine 'table. Hopefully, when you're ready, you'll start a thread to tell us about it.

Tim, indeed Brinkmann Balance is a fine turntable with full sound and superb engineering that lefts nothing to be desired. Kuzma 4P is a very good match with Balance.
Ked’s, Denis’ and Fremer’s reviews proved to be very accurate.
of course I will revert on my personal experience with this elegant tt.

 

[bazelio]

Analogmagik has been a great tool for dialing in cartridge alignment on my Stabi M. Regarding anti-skate, it is expected to climb over the duration of the test track and I record the start and end IMD % values at the beginning and end of the track. Both will decrease as I dial it in.

For other parameters, I believe the software is providing a running average because the instructions for most tracks indicate "play at least 30s to get an accurate average". Some instruct 60s, minimum.

The software is due for an update and I've heard from multiple sources that the update is coming soon. The update will be free to licensed owners, but will require new test records which will need to be purchased.

 

[edwyun]

Most of my AM readings are fairly steady and repeatable within a few decimal points. For the A/S test, I read at 1, 15, and 30 frames to see how low the distortion is and how close the readings are between the channels. Only issue I have with AM is the azimuth test and fluctuating readings. While high/low numbers are generally repeatable, to me, the Feickert Adjust+ algorithm for azimuth seems better.

 

[silviajulieta]

Null location is derived from arm’s geometry

Dear friend: not true, you have a misunderstood in the whole subject.

Null points in a pivoted tonearm are determined by the alignment calculations and according/depending of the most inner and most outer groove distances not the tonearm geometry.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.

 

[ddk]

Dear friend: not true, you have a misunderstood in the whole subject.

Null points in a pivoted tonearm are determined by the alignment calculations and according/depending of the most inner and most outer groove distances not the tonearm geometry.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.

Raul,

In that case the null points for all tonearms should be the same, are they?
Yes the parameters are measuring the inner and outer grooves but the location of null points change depending on the arms geometry.
david

 

[silviajulieta]

In that case the null points for all tonearms should be the same, are they?

Dear friend: The null points has no relationship with the tonearm geometry. Let me explain a little about, thank's:

Null points are one of the output parameters in the alignment calculations. Löfgren research/studies let him to developed the Löfgren A and Löfgren B equaTIONS TO ALIGN ANY CARTRIDGE WITH ANY PIVOTED TONEARM it does not matters the arm geometry/shape.

In those original Löfgren alignment equations and calculation exist 3 input parameters ( it needs nothing else. ):

- tonearm effective length
-most inner groove distance
-most outer groove distance

the equations/calculations gives us:

-overhang, offset angle, linear offset, both null points and tracking error / tracking distortions.

The P2S distance is not an output of the calculations but is just the difference between the input effective length with the output overhang parameter.

Both most inner/outer groove distances comes from 3 standards: IEC, DIN or JIS. All 3 has different numbers. So depending of which standard we choose and which alignment was choosed: Löfgren A or Löfgren B the null points will be different but inside each kind of alignment it does not matters the tonearm effective length because always been constant the value on both null points.

Obviously that we can have Customed most inner/outer groove distances and then the null points will be according the customed values. This is what the SAT designer did it, a manipulation to the Löfgren input parameters. SAT had a hard time when I started in Agon a SAT thread and after that he must had to disclose his " marketing ", no secret about.

Been those Löfgren equations mathematics we can manipulate the " numbers " as we need or want it.

What do you think that made the person behind uni-din ( that's not a standard in anyway. Only marketing. ) aligment? yes a manipulation of those inner/outer groove distances but in the same way as SAT they want that we customers think they did it something very special and propietary and they have that as a " mystery " where there is no mystery. Same with VPI and Graham about.

But you know what: in any pivoted ( non LT. ) tonearm Löfgren alignments works really fine and better than those alignments with manipulations. They try to dicover the " black thread " where in reality that was already invented in 1938 .

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

 

[ddk]

Dear friend: The null points has no relationship with the tonearm geometry. Let me explain a little about, thank's:

Null points are one of the output parameters in the alignment calculations. Löfgren research/studies let him to developed the Löfgren A and Löfgren B equaTIONS TO ALIGN ANY CARTRIDGE WITH ANY PIVOTED TONEARM it does not matters the arm geometry/shape.

In those original Löfgren alignment equations and calculation exist 3 input parameters ( it needs nothing else. ):

- tonearm effective length
-most inner groove distance
-most outer groove distance

the equations/calculations gives us:

-overhang, offset angle, linear offset, both null points and tracking error / tracking distortions.

The P2S distance is not an output of the calculations but is just the difference between the input effective length with the output overhang parameter.

Both most inner/outer groove distances comes from 3 standards: IEC, DIN or JIS. All 3 has different numbers. So depending of which standard we choose and which alignment was choosed: Löfgren A or Löfgren B the null points will be different but inside each kind of alignment it does not matters the tonearm effective length because always been constant the value on both null points.

Obviously that we can have Customed most inner/outer groove distances and then the null points will be according the customed values. This is what the SAT designer did it, a manipulation to the Löfgren input parameters. SAT had a hard time when I started in Agon a SAT thread and after that he must had to disclose his " marketing ", no secret about.

Been those Löfgren equations mathematics we can manipulate the " numbers " as we need or want it.

What do you think that made the person behind uni-din ( that's not a standard in anyway. Only marketing. ) aligment? yes a manipulation of those inner/outer groove distances but in the same way as SAT they want that we customers think they did it something very special and propietary and they have that as a " mystery " where there is no mystery. Same with VPI and Graham about.

But you know what: in any pivoted ( non LT. ) tonearm Löfgren alignments works really fine and better than those alignments with manipulations. They try to dicover the " black thread " where in reality that was already invented in 1938 .

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Raul,

I really have no interest in this topic, please have this argument with tonearm makers. Convince them that it's all marketing hype and they're wrong for providing custom jigs and protractors matching their tonearms and Löfgren alignment is the right way to go.

david

 

[silviajulieta]

I really have no interest in this topic

Dear friend: You was who asked about and I only gave you the answer on that critical subject. I have no interest either because I think I know in deep everything we need to know in the cartridge/tonearm alignment. I don't care about tonearm manufacturers, they can do what ever they want it and it's just fine with me. Perhaps I'm wrong but was not you who posted:

In that case the null points for all tonearms should be the same, are they?

Btw, years ago M.Fremer in his Analog Planet site had a misunderstood similar to you and I gave my explanation down there too:

https://www.analogplanet.com/comment/545315#comment-545315

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.

and they're wrong for providing custom jigs and protractors matching their tonearms

I never posted that. Even, any kind of alignment is not for match the manufacturer tonearm. Alignments always are of universal use, with any pivoted tonearm with out limitations.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear friends: I readed this thread and others talking about tonearm alignments and many years ago I learned that exist no such " propietary " manufacturer kind of alignment but only manipulation of Löfgren solution.

In WBF some one said Graham and after talked with Bob the gentleman found out that the Graham tonearm alignment is " propietary ", today the Phantom ( all the line ) uses Löfgren A.

VPI is a little weird because HW took the Cotter kind of alignment but at the end the calculations goes through Löfgren equations. Here something about VPI:

"" Harry Weisfeld once said: "I use a Mitch Cotter system described by Peter Axcel in The Audio Critic. I find it to be the best sounding of the bunch. On the JMW-9 the jig we supply will give you lower distortion in the final third of the record. Just a point of view difference but they sound a bit different. Listen to both and you decide in your system with your cartridge which matches better. Both work, but they are different. We don't publish the specs because we want you to use our jig! No matter what anyone says cartridge alignment is a matter of taste."

SAT uses Löfgren too with customed most inner/outer groove distances. SAT choosed 75 mm. for the most inner groove distance that's is not really universal in the LPs and all of you can measure that distance choosing at random say 20 ( different LP recorded years. ) of your LPs and measure the distance from the spindle center of your TT to the last inner groove on each of those 20 LPs and look how many of them are inside those 75 mm. SAT choosed.

I did it and found out only one in 20 at random LPs. So, even that SAT choosed Löfgre alignment that custom input parameter is unreal.

Almost all tonearm manufacturers but the ones in Asia/Japan know exactly what alignment must be their choice and always is Löfgren no matter what.

Japan is way different because for unknow reasons ( at least for me because their choice has no sense. ) they ( almost all. ) choosed Stevenson A instead that Stevenson B ( that's exactly same as Löfgren A. They did it especially in those great vintage designs they manufactured. ) that has no single advantage for what we listen in our room/systems.

Stevenson A has the worst and way higher tracking distortion levl over all the LP recorded surface but the last 3 mm. ! ! of the recorded LP surface. That's why I said has no sense to use Stevenson A or similar kind of alingment.

Convince them that it's all marketing hype and they're wrong for providing custom jigs and protractors

all use Löfgren because they know is the way to go in benefit of we customers because at the end this is the more important issue: that we customers achieve the best for any pivoted tonearm, is the only way to really enhance our each one system listening sessions.

Unfortunatelly does not exist the " perfect " alignment, in audio always exist trade-offs.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.

 

[bazelio]

measure that distance choosing at random say 20 ( different LP recorded years. ) of your LPs and measure the distance from the spindle center of your TT to the last inner groove on each of those 20 LPs and look how many of them are inside those 75 mm. SAT choosed.

I did it and found out only one in 20 at random LPs.

This is why I've favored Lofgren B over Lofgren A. It looks to me as though average distortion is lower for Lofgren B for all records except those with many grooves inside of 67mm. Most of mine don't seem to have much content that far in.

 

[silviajulieta]

This is why I've favored Lofgren B over Lofgren A.

Dear friend: From many years I was using, like you, Löfgren B but things are that at 72mm when Löfgren A goes down Löfgren B goes up: higher tracking distortions starting at 72mm. that is a place where all cartridges has more hard task. So, now I use Löfgren A that has other kind of trade offs but in a distance where is less important.

The SAT owners has a higher trouble if they are making the tonearm set up according the manufacturer because starts to goes higher and higher at around 78mm.

Through the years I learned BY MY SELF THROUGH FIRST HAND EXPERIENCES not to take in count what reviewers, manufacturers and audio distributors say about the tonearm/cartridge alignment.

Normally we think all they are experts that know a lot more of any one of us customer/audiophiles and it's not way many of them has really lower knowledge levels that many of us simple " mortals ".

So I don't care of them any more in this specific issue, what I care about is to know the manufacturer effective length spec and that's all we need to make the alingment.
Btw, even any one of us can modified the manufacturer EL spec adding 2-3mm and normally can be better but not really necessary to do it.

If I was a SAT owner I will go for Löfgren A ( as SAT manufacturer says. ) with any of the well know standards: IEC, DIN or JIS for the most inner/outer groove distances. All 3 standards have different values, so we will achieve different set up parameters.
I use IEC but that's me.

IEC is the International Electrotechnical Comission, DIN is the Deutsches Institut für Normung and JIS means Japanese Industrial Standards.

So that's why are the only true standards about.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.

 

[bazelio]

Dear friend: From many years I was using, like you, Löfgren B but things are that at 72mm when Löfgren A goes down Löfgren B goes up: higher tracking distortions starting at 72mm. that is a place where all cartridges has more hard task. So, now I use Löfgren A that has other kind of trade offs but in a distance where is less important.

But the idea is to optimize for the 19 in 20 records that don't have content in that ~70mm distance rather than optimizing for the 1 in 20 that does.

 

[silviajulieta]

But the idea is to optimize for the 19 in 20 records that don't have content in that ~70mm distance rather than optimizing for the 1 in 20 that does.

Dear friend: Rigth you are and I'm in total agreement with your take.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.