Have used the v1 for a while, but I am still waiting on my v2 copy to see the differences. I only use it for Zenith and speed control though and rely on other tools for anti skate, vta, and azimuth
Analog Magik
- Thread starter Tirebiter
- Start date
I thought the zenith function was only available on V2?
Out of curiosity, what do you use to set anti-skate and azimuth?
Thanks.
I missed adding "plan to" for using the new V2 for Zenith and speed control. I use a few different sets of tools (acoustical systems, wally tools, etc) depending on the table/arm. I dont always use the same sets of tools as some work better than others depending on the installation
I received my AM Version 2 test records and finally I tried the new program with zenith.
First of all 33.3rpm disc is so warped that when I put side B it looks like a bowl. 45rpm disc's spindle hole is too tight I couldn't use it. You may be thinking I should return them or ask for an exchange but for 250USD I shouldn't have to. You receive 2 records for that money. Anyway I flattened the 33.3rpm disc and continued with tests.
I played speed and wow&flutter track with V2 disc. The result was disaster %0.145 w&f. I repeated same measurement but this time I used V1 disc. The result is %0.043 which is what I'm more familiar. There is no need for a software or a phono pre to certify there is something wrong with V2 disc. I can hear it from stylus, 3150Hz frequency is shifting, it's clearly audible but with V1 disc it's rock solid, no shifting. I visually checked V2 disc. It's ever so slightly off-center but it's almost the same with V1 disc and almost like all good pressings. Clearly there is something wrong with V2 disc pressing or cutting, probably with lathe that it is cut. I used only V2 software for this tests. I will report other tests later.
IMHO test records should be perfect if you're charging over 1000USD for a software.
First of all 33.3rpm disc is so warped that when I put side B it looks like a bowl. 45rpm disc's spindle hole is too tight I couldn't use it. You may be thinking I should return them or ask for an exchange but for 250USD I shouldn't have to. You receive 2 records for that money. Anyway I flattened the 33.3rpm disc and continued with tests.
I played speed and wow&flutter track with V2 disc. The result was disaster %0.145 w&f. I repeated same measurement but this time I used V1 disc. The result is %0.043 which is what I'm more familiar. There is no need for a software or a phono pre to certify there is something wrong with V2 disc. I can hear it from stylus, 3150Hz frequency is shifting, it's clearly audible but with V1 disc it's rock solid, no shifting. I visually checked V2 disc. It's ever so slightly off-center but it's almost the same with V1 disc and almost like all good pressings. Clearly there is something wrong with V2 disc pressing or cutting, probably with lathe that it is cut. I used only V2 software for this tests. I will report other tests later.
IMHO test records should be perfect if you're charging over 1000USD for a software.
100% 'mtemur'.
One of the major flaws with so called 'test records' to set up a TT system.
I am still waiting for AnalogMagik to send V2 upgrade for my V1 to the UK AnalogMagik Distributor. It's been 5+ months now...crazy !
I only need V2 for the Zenith.
Hopefully though may not need V2, if Wally Tools bring out their Wally Zenith Tool hopefully by end of this year !
Differences between V1 and V2:
In terms of Anti-skating, VTA/SRA, Resonance, Vibration and Loading alignments there is no difference between two versions. Almost identical results but V2 seem to show more steady numbers compared to V1. Maybe it's because of V2 having a longer integration time. I'm not sure. I'm just talking about software here.
Zenith alignment uses V2 disc's VTA track just like V1. So there is no difference in zenith too. Against all the hype zenith alignment offered by V2 is exactly the same with V1. It is just not mentioned in the V1 instructions, that's all. Both versions rely on VTA track on their respective test discs for zenith alignment. Results are also identical. At least for me. The additional zenith tracks are not used for zenith alignment. They're for checking. To be sure overhang is not messed up and cartridge tilted to the correct side. Long story short they are pretty useless as long as you don't mess up with initial setup which is a remote possibility.
I'll come to the azimuth part later.
In terms of Anti-skating, VTA/SRA, Resonance, Vibration and Loading alignments there is no difference between two versions. Almost identical results but V2 seem to show more steady numbers compared to V1. Maybe it's because of V2 having a longer integration time. I'm not sure. I'm just talking about software here.
Zenith alignment uses V2 disc's VTA track just like V1. So there is no difference in zenith too. Against all the hype zenith alignment offered by V2 is exactly the same with V1. It is just not mentioned in the V1 instructions, that's all. Both versions rely on VTA track on their respective test discs for zenith alignment. Results are also identical. At least for me. The additional zenith tracks are not used for zenith alignment. They're for checking. To be sure overhang is not messed up and cartridge tilted to the correct side. Long story short they are pretty useless as long as you don't mess up with initial setup which is a remote possibility.
I'll come to the azimuth part later.
Last edited:
That's very interesting 'mtemur' regarding Zenith for the V2. Looks like I don't need V2 then for the Zenith function after all and just use V1 !
On the other hand Azimuth results are different between V1 and V2. V2 showed worse results which is absurd. But that is not important because even with V1 I was using Analogue Productions test record for azimuth which is more reliable IMHO. So there is nothing new offered with azimuth either.
Gain test is pretty straight forward again nothing new. I didn’t check VTF tracks.
My verdict about AM V2 software is neutral. It’s alright but offers nothing new that you can’t do with V1. My experience with V2 test discs are pretty negative. Their quality is worse than V1.
I recommend sticking to V1.
Gain test is pretty straight forward again nothing new. I didn’t check VTF tracks.
My verdict about AM V2 software is neutral. It’s alright but offers nothing new that you can’t do with V1. My experience with V2 test discs are pretty negative. Their quality is worse than V1.
I recommend sticking to V1.
Even though there may be problems like test record quality, interface etc, I still believe that AM software is best for cartridge setup process. I consider visual methods like using a zenith protractor/tool, eyeballing are far more primitive compared to AM. There are too many variables, more precisely too many assumptions.
For example when you align zenith using a zenith tool you think that you’re all set as long as you’ve sent your cartridge before to Wally and you know it’s zenith error. But there are multi assumptions in this solution. Lets say your cartridge has 2.2 degrees zenith error reported by Wally.
- First assumption is trusting that it’s measured precisely. Considering difficulties of measurements with microscope I wouldn't take it granted.
- When you try to correct it using zenith tool you need to align cantilever to 2 degree line which is very hard to do visually. No matter what people say it’s incredibly hard to align cantilever parallel to a line on a mirror surface. Thinking that you aligned cantilever exactly parallel to respective line is second assumption. Additionally you can not align 2.2 degrees as far as I know. Not a great deal but you have to choose 2 or 2.5 lines.
- Cantilever angle (zenith) changes according to anti-skating. If you use Wally skater you set anti-skating according to VTF. When you play a record depending on the stiffness of suspension (soft or hard) the cantilever may skew more or less so cantilever may not be parallel to the lines you set before. Expecting cantilever's skew to match anti-skating you set earlier is another assumption.
- One side of suspension can be softer which is very common even if suspension is in great condition. In that case cantilever's skew angle will be effected by soft side when playing a record. Again zenith will be different than visually set. More assumptions.
If everything is perfect those assumptions are ok but nothing is perfect. That's why arc protractors are great cause it gets rid of assumptions by showing the actual arc that should be drawn by stylus. It is simple, no assumptions. Other protractors like smartractor or Feickert rely on assumptions such as; you can perfectly land one end of protractor over the pivot point and perfect overhang will be set when you align stylus to land over the dot.
When you rely on static alignment procedures for a dynamic system based on pre conceptions like Wally solutions (except arc protractor), multi assumptions are inevitable. In this zenith example; when you accept overhang, VTA/SRA and azimuth are set perfectly in advance there are still problems with zenith which will arise when the record is played. On the other hand when you use AM with a test record you align it dynamically and all factors (VTA, azimuth, ati skating etc) are at play. You only need to know where to look and to learn what the numbers are telling. I set zenith using AM V1 test record and check with AP test record. Track locations are different and cut at different places but both lead you to same zenith alignment. Even with AM V2 test record at hand being low in quality, it still gives same zenith results with V1. That’s why I said “far fetched“ in another thread for Wally’s multi assumption zenith solution. Those are my humble opinions.
For example when you align zenith using a zenith tool you think that you’re all set as long as you’ve sent your cartridge before to Wally and you know it’s zenith error. But there are multi assumptions in this solution. Lets say your cartridge has 2.2 degrees zenith error reported by Wally.
- First assumption is trusting that it’s measured precisely. Considering difficulties of measurements with microscope I wouldn't take it granted.
- When you try to correct it using zenith tool you need to align cantilever to 2 degree line which is very hard to do visually. No matter what people say it’s incredibly hard to align cantilever parallel to a line on a mirror surface. Thinking that you aligned cantilever exactly parallel to respective line is second assumption. Additionally you can not align 2.2 degrees as far as I know. Not a great deal but you have to choose 2 or 2.5 lines.
- Cantilever angle (zenith) changes according to anti-skating. If you use Wally skater you set anti-skating according to VTF. When you play a record depending on the stiffness of suspension (soft or hard) the cantilever may skew more or less so cantilever may not be parallel to the lines you set before. Expecting cantilever's skew to match anti-skating you set earlier is another assumption.
- One side of suspension can be softer which is very common even if suspension is in great condition. In that case cantilever's skew angle will be effected by soft side when playing a record. Again zenith will be different than visually set. More assumptions.
If everything is perfect those assumptions are ok but nothing is perfect. That's why arc protractors are great cause it gets rid of assumptions by showing the actual arc that should be drawn by stylus. It is simple, no assumptions. Other protractors like smartractor or Feickert rely on assumptions such as; you can perfectly land one end of protractor over the pivot point and perfect overhang will be set when you align stylus to land over the dot.
When you rely on static alignment procedures for a dynamic system based on pre conceptions like Wally solutions (except arc protractor), multi assumptions are inevitable. In this zenith example; when you accept overhang, VTA/SRA and azimuth are set perfectly in advance there are still problems with zenith which will arise when the record is played. On the other hand when you use AM with a test record you align it dynamically and all factors (VTA, azimuth, ati skating etc) are at play. You only need to know where to look and to learn what the numbers are telling. I set zenith using AM V1 test record and check with AP test record. Track locations are different and cut at different places but both lead you to same zenith alignment. Even with AM V2 test record at hand being low in quality, it still gives same zenith results with V1. That’s why I said “far fetched“ in another thread for Wally’s multi assumption zenith solution. Those are my humble opinions.
Last edited:
Have you tried contacting AnalogMagik directly? I did that and they sorted out my v2 shipped direct to me in UK. They may have been between UK dealers at that time, so might be less able to help directly now. No harm in asking...
Hi 'rDin',
Thank you for the information. Much appreciated.
As V2 doesn't appear to offer much more / very little for Zenith checking (as per 'mtemur' recent posts above), I may not consider the upgrade.
Hi @mtemur.
I would love to respond to each of your concerns above if you are interested in hearing them. If so, please copy the entirety of this post and put it in the WallyTools thread where I can respond to it. I don’t want to take up the air in this thread devoted to AnalogMagik. As I am traveling until the middle of this week I may not be able to post right away as well. Your points are many and deserve to be addressed with thoughtful responses.
AnalogMagik software. I also use software oscilloscope but it is not as meaningful as AM.
thanks for the quick reply, but I am confused. You said you use the Analogue Productions test record for azimuth... . So you use that test record with the AM software?
Exactly. I use AP test record with AM software IOT check VTA, zenith, speed, anti-skating besides azimuth.
I compared AM V1 test discs with the AP disc for azimuth and the results are very different. Spot on (< 1dB) with AP shows about 6dB difference using the AM disc. Since visually it is also spot on so I'm going with Analogue productions as being correct, but very disappointing to see such big differences.
