Andre Jennings and the Latest Edition of TAS

[rockitman]

Says the guy who misread my comment about Bob's arms. Didn't even read the article... Are you kidding me?

There are at least 5 guys within 30 minutes of me that I've made Bob's arms sound better, to the owners, than before I visited them. I consider them all friends AND I have never suggested they remove or replace their arms. Why should they when the arms sound good.

Who's being hyper sensitive again?

Bob's arms are the perfect arms for trying your SRA technique as it will be repeatable within seconds when different record thicknesses are involved. W/o a graham, you can only get close. That said, I hope you aren't suggesting Graham owners abandon the graham jig for overhang and zenith ? I did Mint for 6 mos. The Graham jig sounded superior.

 

[rockitman]

fwiw, if you ask Bob Graham he prefers his 9.5" arm and dissuades users to go 12 inch "if you don't have a good reason to" because tracing errors are magnified if the stylus isn't perfectly aligned - all the theoretical benefits of 12" arms are more than offset in many cases by user error.

The 12" is grand. Sounds like your talking pre supreme 12" arms. My experience level does not invite the level of error you refer too.

 

[Dre_J]

Bob's arms are the perfect arms for trying your SRA technique as it will be repeatable within seconds when different record thicknesses are involved. W/o a graham, you can only get close. That said, I hope you aren't suggesting Graham owners abandon the graham jig for overhang and zenith ? I did Mint for 6 mos. The Graham jig sounded superior.

I think our conversation is done. Instead of looking objectively at my comments you are changing and trying to put words in my mouth. I'm not playing that game.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

How many of you actually read the PRINT article before posting and shooting from the hip?

guilty as charged. sorry.

i've not recieved that issue and not read the article; and was simply posting about my set-up viewpoint.

i also called my wife and asked her if we renewed Absolute Sound as i might have missed an issue. she is checking.

i have the utmost respect for what you do.

 

[rockitman]

I think our conversation is done. Instead of looking objectively at my comments you are changing and trying to put words in my mouth. I'm not playing that game.

It's on my to do list soon. I will comment further if needed. Chill Brother...It's all good !

Edit: I will say for a professional reviewer published in one of the major hi Fi mags, your attacks on me are less than professional. I am looking forward to reading your article in detail. You are not the first one to talk about micro managing sra with a digital micro scope.

Double edit: and just so you know, I did not make the connection of your WBF moniker with the article author until you called me out. I certainly meant no disrespect with my first post.

 

[mep]

remember... the saying: word.

mep has spoken. perfect.

So what's that mean Peter? I'm being honest when I say I was shocked at the response this thread has elicited. Analog playback is all about precision. We are using electrical/mechanical transducers that when optimally set up in a pivoted arm have two places across the arc where the tangency is perfect and that is just for starters with regards to everything that has to be set up in order to maximize the geometry and extract the most information possible out of the record grooves. From what I have read and heard, I think Andre's methods of setting up cartridges is at the edge of the setup art.

 

[rockitman]

So what's that mean Peter? I'm being honest when I say I was shocked at the response this thread has elicited. Analog playback is all about precision. We are using electrical/mechanical transducers that when optimally set up in a pivoted arm have two places across the arc where the tangency is perfect and that is just for starters with regards to everything that has to be set up in order to maximize the geometry and extract the most information possible out of the record grooves. From what I have read and heard, I think Andre's methods of setting up cartridges is at the edge of the setup art.

I luv cryptic....

 

[mep]

I luv cryptic....

Man, either I'm being dense or people aren't explaining themselves very well. How is what I said cryptic?

Look, I started this thread because I was happy that someone who is a member on our forum was written up in TAS complete with a photo shoot to show his expertise in optimizing the setup of phono cartridges. Andre is someone that many of us have met at the RMAF shows and have spent time around him at the annual RMAF dinner. I didn't even mention the fact that the turntable that graced the cover of the latest TAS magazine was the table that Andre reviewed in that edition. I for one am happy that Andre is getting the exposure he is because I think he deserves it. In my experience with talking to Andre, he is someone that is intelligent and very soft spoken. He is not someone who is a loud mouth braggart that is constantly beating his chest and seeking attention. Andre is the opposite of that as I find him to be humble and very genuine. Andre is the kind of guy I would be proud to call a friend.

Color me amazed at the reaction this thread I started has caused.

 

[jazdoc]

Man, either I'm being dense or people aren't explaining themselves very well. How is what I said cryptic?

Look, I started this thread because I was happy that someone who is a member on our forum was written up in TAS complete with a photo shoot to show his expertise in optimizing the setup of phono cartridges. Andre is someone that many of us have met at the RMAF shows and have spent time around him at the annual RMAF dinner. I didn't even mention the fact that the turntable that graced the cover of the latest TAS magazine was the table that Andre reviewed in that edition. I for one am happy that Andre is getting the exposure he is because I think he deserves it. In my experience with talking to Andre, he is someone that is intelligent and very soft spoken. He is not someone who is a loud mouth braggart that is constantly beating his chest and seeking attention. Andre is the opposite of that as I find him to be humble and very genuine. Andre is the kind of guy I would be proud to call a friend.

Color me amazed at the reaction this thread I started has caused.

+1! -- Andre is one of the good guys in this hobby and I am also proud that he is my friend. He also happens to be the boss at tonearm/cartridge set up

 

[rockitman]

So where do I attack Dre ? Dre is the one who unprofessionally over-reacted in an uncalled for way...irregardless that his methods have good merit. Everyone would like to get it just exactly perfect. Some people don't need to spend there time fretting over sra that is going to change from record weight to record weight.

 

[PeterA]

Bob's arms are the perfect arms for trying your SRA technique as it will be repeatable within seconds when different record thicknesses are involved. W/o a graham, you can only get close. That said, I hope you aren't suggesting Graham owners abandon the graham jig for overhang and zenith ? I did Mint for 6 mos. The Graham jig sounded superior.

SRA is not dependent upon record thickness, so you don't want a repeatable setting for all LPs of a given thickness, or at least I don't want it. But you do want repeatability. I have LPs of every thickness, and within each group (ie. 180g, 150g etc), I have LPs that have varying VTA heights of up to 2mm, or 1/4 degree. I have an SME 12" arm, so no Graham bubble level, but settings are repeatable. You just have to know what the proper VTA setting is for a particular LP and be able to repeat it for subsequent plays. This can be easily done using the scale on the side of the SME protractor.

I have not received the article as I just got the previous issue of TAS yesterday. When I do get it, I will eagerly read it and I'm sure I'll learn something.

From what I have read about Andre, I consider him an expert in the cartridge/arm set up area. I felt the same way about Jim Smith after reading his book, so hired him to voice my system. I am forever grateful for the improvement he brought to my system and for what he taught me. Learning first hand from an expert of Jim or Andre's caliber is a rare treat and I have every confidence that one's system performance would benefit from Andre's attention.

 

[audioarcher]

Congrats on the cartridge set up article and TT review Andre! Look forward to reading it when I receive my copy.

It's always good to keep an open mind, even if you are having success with what you are doing now.

 

[rockitman]

SRA is not dependent upon record thickness, so you don't want a repeatable setting for all LPs of a given thickness, or at least I don't want it. But you do want repeatability. I have LPs of every thickness, and within each group (ie. 180g, 150g etc), I have LPs that have varying VTA heights of up to 2mm, or 1/4 degree. I have an SME 12" arm, so no Graham bubble level, but settings are repeatable. You just have to know what the proper VTA setting is for a particular LP and be able to repeat it for subsequent plays. This can be easily done using the scale on the side of the SME protractor.

I have not received the article as I just got the previous issue of TAS yesterday. When I do get it, I will eagerly read it and I'm sure I'll learn something.

From what I have read about Andre, I consider him an expert in the cartridge/arm set up area. I felt the same way about Jim Smith after reading his book, so hired him to voice my system. I am forever grateful for the improvement he brought to my system and for what he taught me. Learning first hand from an expert of Jim or Andre's caliber is a rare treat and I have every confidence that one's system performance would benefit from Andre's attention.

So your saying when VTA changes sra does not ? that does not compute. Bubble levels don't lie for point of reference. Grind away.

 

[PeterA]

So your saying when VTA changes sra does not ? that does not compute. Bubble levels don't lie for point of reference. Grind away.

No, not at all. Please point out where I wrote that. I'm saying that a bunch of different 180g LPs, or any given thickness, will have different SRA/VTA settings. I have 180g LPs that have the same SRA/VTA setting as 140g LPs, and visa versa. You can not assume just because LPs have the same thickness, that they should all be played at the same SRA/VTA setting. Just reread my posts for clarification. It's not based on thickness, it's based on trying to match the original cutting head angle.

Bubble levels are fine for a point of reference, if they have a printed scale, or some reference markings and if they are accurate. But they are not the only way to achieve repeatability.

Grind away at what?

 

[rockitman]

No, not at all. Please point out where I wrote that. I'm saying that a bunch of different 180g LPs, or any given thickness, will have different SRA/VTA settings. I have 180g LPs that have the same SRA/VTA setting as 140g LPs, and visa versa. You can not assume just because LPs have the same thickness, that they should all be played at the same SRA/VTA setting. Just reread my posts for clarification. It's not based on thickness, it's based on trying to match the original cutting head angle.

Bubble levels are fine for a point of reference, if they have a printed scale, or some reference markings and if they are accurate. But they are not the only way to achieve repeatability.

Grind away at what?

My point is, not all 180 gram records are the same thickness even within the same brand. Same for 200 and 150 gram ect. You can set your sra to one record thickness and make a mark or take note on your lifter for each thickness. You will be off on some records. Setting the perfect sra for one thickness is easily repeatable for any thickness with a calibrated bubble level. Only the Graham has this, therefore it is a much easier arm to get your VTA/sra where you want repeatably versus standard non bubble level VTA lifter. If you don't have VTA on the fly you are really screwed and just wasting your time micro managing sra with a digital microscope.

 

[PeterA]

My point is, not all 180 gram records are the same thickness even within the same brand. Same for 200 and 150 gram ect. You can set your sra to one record thickness and make a mark or take note on your lifter for each thickness. You will be off on some records. Setting the perfect sra for one thickness is easily repeatable for any thickness with a calibrated bubble level. Only the Graham has this, therefore it is a much easier arm to get your VTA/sra where you want repeatably versus standard non bubble level VTA lifter. If you don't have VTA on the fly you are really screwed and just wasting your time micro managing sra with a digital microscope.

I no longer use a digital microscope to set SRA. I tried that, and it is pretty precise for getting in the ballpark. For that it is an excellent tool and worth the effort, IMO. From there, listening will tell you how far you need to deviate from the 92, or whatever angle you use, for the best sound. Knowing the exact angle is not what I think is important. The reason is that it can vary between different LPs, regardless of thickness, or record weight.

So Christian, if I understand you, you have found an SRA angle that you think sounds best on a variety of LPs. You then make note of that angle by looking at the Graham bubble. In this way, you assure yourself of repeating the same SRA angle for different LPs, regardless of thickness, by always returning your arm to that same bubble level mark for each LP. Does this describe your methodology correctly?

That makes a lot of sense but only up to a point. If this indeed describes your method, my question for you is this: How does this method account for different cutting head angles? You can always return to the same angle for your arm (VTA) which assures your SRA is always the same when it hits the groove. The problem is that the ideal angle in the groove varies and it is not dependent upon record thickness. Ideally, what you are trying to do is match the original cutting angle.

I have a friend who had a very precise set of calipers and he measured the thickness of each LP before he played it. He had a chart which showed which setting to use on his Graham arm (if I remember correctly) for each LP thickness. You are right that not all 180g LPs are the same thickness. He adjusted for that. What he failed to realize is that his method was very good at assuring that his arm was always at the same angle and that his SRA was always the same for each LP he played. What he did not understand was why some LPs sounded right and others did not. He did not account for different cutting head angles. This means that the ideal SRA angle truly varies from LP to LP. To my knowledge, there is no cutting head angle standard, or if there is, it is not always adhered to. Perhaps Andre would know more about this.

I fully realize that many people don't want to go through the hassle of figuring this all out, especially considering that cartridge suspensions sag over time and people change cartridges, so SRA angles are in flux. And I also fully understand that an arm with on the fly VTA adjustment like the Graham is a lot more convenient that one like my SME is without it. But once you realize that SRA is a bit more complicated, and you decide to adjust for it for each LP, you will be rewarded with better sound.

 

[rockitman]

I no longer use a digital microscope to set SRA. I tried that, and it is pretty precise for getting in the ballpark. For that it is an excellent tool and worth the effort, IMO. From there, listening will tell you how far you need to deviate from the 92, or whatever angle you use, for the best sound. Knowing the exact angle is not what I think is important. The reason is that it can vary between different LPs, regardless of thickness, or record weight.

So Christian, if I understand you, you have found an SRA angle that you think sounds best on a variety of LPs. You then make note of that angle by looking at the Graham bubble. In this way, you assure yourself of repeating the same SRA angle for different LPs, regardless of thickness, by always returning your arm to that same bubble level mark for each LP. Does this describe your methodology correctly?

That makes a lot of sense but only up to a point. If this indeed describes your method, my question for you is this: How does this method account for different cutting head angles? You can always return to the same angle for your arm (VTA) which assures your SRA is always the same when it hits the groove. The problem is that the ideal angle in the groove varies and it is not dependent upon record thickness. Ideally, what you are trying to do is match the original cutting angle.

I have a friend who had a very precise set of calipers and he measured the thickness of each LP before he played it. He had a chart which showed which setting to use on his Graham arm (if I remember correctly) for each LP thickness. You are right that not all 180g LPs are the same thickness. He adjusted for that. What he failed to realize is that his method was very good at assuring that his arm was always at the same angle and that his SRA was always the same for each LP he played. What he did not understand was why some LPs sounded right and others did not. He did not account for different cutting head angles. This means that the ideal SRA angle truly varies from LP to LP. To my knowledge, there is no cutting head angle standard, or if there is, it is not always adhered to. Perhaps Andre would know more about this.

I fully realize that many people don't want to go through the hassle of figuring this all out, especially considering that cartridge suspensions sag over time and people change cartridges, so SRA angles are in flux. And I also fully understand that an arm with on the fly VTA adjustment like the Graham is a lot more convenient that one like my SME is without it. But once you realize that SRA is a bit more complicated, and you decide to adjust for it for each LP, you will be rewarded with better sound.

yes, that describes my method.... as far as worrying about different cutting head angles ? I don't think that is a very common issue and I choose to not worry about it. Remember, we always have our ears to fine tune.

 

[dmnc02]

This is what Jonathan Carr had to say on the subject in another forum:

"FWIW, there never has been any published industry standard for SRA. The sole documentation supporting the 92-degree SRA that I have been able to find - in any language - is the Jon Risch article, and that never became part of any industry standard. What does "mounted correctly" mean if there never was a standard?

There is more of a standard for VTA (originally 15 degrees, which is where Shure's "V-15" name comes from, later gradually revised upwards until it became 20 degrees) than there is for SRA, but even so, some cartridges (both present and vintage) deviate from this significantly. [...]

As a general message [...], rather than attempting to force all cartridges into a single SRA "standard" that never existed to begin with, it would be far more useful for both manufacturers and audiophiles if audiophiles would align the cartridges to their best-sounding position, measure the resulting SRA (and VTA), and the various real-world experiences could gradually be collected into a single table for further study."

 

[MylesBAstor]

yes, that describes my method.... as far as worrying about different cutting head angles ? I don't think that is a very common issue and I choose to not worry about it. Remember, we always have our ears to fine tune.

Depends what era stereo records we're talking about and listen to. Bets are off pretty much until maybe the last decade or two. IIRC some of the early Mercs are closer to the 15 deg VTA setting.

 

[rockitman]

Depends what era stereo records we're talking about and listen to. Bets are off pretty much until maybe the last decade or two. IIRC some of the early Mercs are closer to the 15 deg VTA setting.

I agree on older records. I play a ton of classic records and analogue productions, quality records. I think it is pretty safe to assume they were using the same cutting angle for the most part.