Agreed. Even with V1, I used Adjust+ for setting Azimuth. V2 seems better now, but the proof will be in the testing.
Analog Magik
- Thread starter Tirebiter
- Start date
Agreed. Even with V1, I used Adjust+ for setting Azimuth. V2 seems better now, but the proof will be in the testing.
I do like the new zenith and combined azimuth/VTA tests. Will see how they work together with more testing.
Hey edwyun,
Any updates on V2? I just received my new V2 version and wanted to get some feedback and tips from existing V2 users on their experiences; particularly comparisons to V1. Also, how does the new Zenith Angle work and at what "stage" did you dial-in this feature? Was it before the Azimuth/VTA tests or after?
Thanks much!
Kyle
I like it more than v1, it is not a very big change for users. Zenith is a good addition, we were doing it before without its own, easier tab and imd during the azimuth is also welcome.
I do speed first, then zenith then the others. Channel balance also is good to show potential. So, you can follow the order on the screen but there is some back and forth too, although less as the azimuth and vta are together now.
Here is an alignment I did yesterday with a fuuga on a 4 point. I am getting a very flat response with good separation and low imd. I don't know why left imd seems to be high though.
I do speed first, then zenith then the others. Channel balance also is good to show potential. So, you can follow the order on the screen but there is some back and forth too, although less as the azimuth and vta are together now.
Here is an alignment I did yesterday with a fuuga on a 4 point. I am getting a very flat response with good separation and low imd. I don't know why left imd seems to be high though.
Attachments
I agree with kodomo's assessment. I also go back and forth among the tests. But sometimes, a worse reading in one test will result in a better reading on another test. So need to find the optimum balance overall. Then confirm, or adjust a little bit if needed, by ear.
I am new to this forum, but I have been using the AnalogMagik V1 software extensively since it came out about four years ago. I have adjusted a large number of setups, at all price levels, for a lot of people. And from the feedback from the users, it has been very successful. I have had a lot of conversations with Richard Mak, who has been very responsive. I have also been using Adjust+ and an oscilloscope, particularly if the test results from V1 was a bit "off". I got V2 a few weeks ago, and I have to say I am a bit surprised to see that the test results are pretty far off from the earlier V1 test results. Especially regarding azimuth. In all cases where I had been using V1, with V2 I had to rotate the armtube 1 whole degree or more, counter clockwise, to get the best results. I am surprised that the crosstalk numbers stay pretty stable, with V2, since all my experience with all the other test methods vary quite a bit, throughout the test tracks. It is obviously preferential to adjust azimuth at the same spot on the record, for both channels, but I would still have thought that the numbers (in both channels) would vary over the entire test track. With V1, I have been using the VTA track to adjust zenith, and the results have been very predictable. Using the SMARtractor protractor to my best ability, I would often get IMD values around 10%. After adjusting zenith with V1, I would normally get between 2% and 4% IMD, and pretty equal in both channels. With V2 it is very different. I always get very, very low IMD (well below 1%) in the right channel, but much higher (very seldom below 3%) in the left channel.
Listening to my own system, after adjusting to my best ability, using V2, the soundstage had moved to the right, was less stable, and I thought the transient precision was less accurate, than with V1. Others may have different experiences.
Test results obviously depend on the information on the test tracks. For example what frequency, or combination of frequencies, are used. I therefore like to know this, when running tests. On the back of the record box for V1, that was very easy to interpret. Unfortunately, on the back of the record box for V2, that is very difficult to understand. At least for me.
The whole concept of optimizing a turntable setup is very complex. Some aspects are still not totally understood. I have a big respect for everybody, who spend enormous amount of time (and money), trying to understand all of this, and create tools for the rest of us. V2 may, or may not, be better than V1, but it is a bold move, and my hat goes off to Richard Mak, for all his efforts.
I believe that we can all bring this technology forward, if we share our experience, using different tools.
Jan
Listening to my own system, after adjusting to my best ability, using V2, the soundstage had moved to the right, was less stable, and I thought the transient precision was less accurate, than with V1. Others may have different experiences.
Test results obviously depend on the information on the test tracks. For example what frequency, or combination of frequencies, are used. I therefore like to know this, when running tests. On the back of the record box for V1, that was very easy to interpret. Unfortunately, on the back of the record box for V2, that is very difficult to understand. At least for me.
The whole concept of optimizing a turntable setup is very complex. Some aspects are still not totally understood. I have a big respect for everybody, who spend enormous amount of time (and money), trying to understand all of this, and create tools for the rest of us. V2 may, or may not, be better than V1, but it is a bold move, and my hat goes off to Richard Mak, for all his efforts.
I believe that we can all bring this technology forward, if we share our experience, using different tools.
Jan
so only a couple of data points but they are consistent i.e.3 users are showing left channel distortion higher than the right. Janbra's report about azimuth differences is also cause for concern...
it would be nice if Mr Mak could comment.
Again, too few reports to draw definitive conclusions, but , I have been happy with V1. I don't see any reason to go to V2 at this point when we have these nagging concerns
it would be nice if Mr Mak could comment.
Again, too few reports to draw definitive conclusions, but , I have been happy with V1. I don't see any reason to go to V2 at this point when we have these nagging concerns
It's says right on the screen that it's normal for L and R IMD% to be unbalanced and the goal is not to bring them into balance but to reduce both numbers in absolute terms. Sure, it'd be enlightening to hear from Richard as to why this is, but presumably this is an artifact of how the test track is (intentionally) designed. Given that it's "normal", I guess I don't know why we need be concerned?
It makes no sense to me that it is "normal" for distortion in one channel to be 3 to 4 times higher than the other. Just because the screen says it is "normal" doesn't mean it is right. Maybe it makes sense, but in V1 I can get distortion in both channels to very low levels. Not just the right.
I don't think it is unreasonable to wait for an explanation before investing . But maybe that's just me.
Do any of you V2 users have any further information to share about the upgrade? I upgraded from V1 to V2 but have not yet attempted to use it; primarily due to some of the issues reported about the reported imbalances in the measured IMD% for azimuth. So any further updates/insights would be appreciated.
I am considering upgrade to V2 and would also like to hear some comment and additional discussion on IMD imbalance issues in v2 vs v1
curious... V2 has been out for a while and so little discussion about it... . Is there another thread? Did so few people buy it?
I've not determined what advantage V2 offers to me over V1. On the other hand, I have been able to cross-validate by other means that V1 allows me to align my cartridges very precisely, i.e. alignments that produce exceptionally low tracking distortion and subjectively sound great. So ... Yeah, maybe others are content as well.
