Given that AS changes all the time, this seems to be as good as you can get with a tool.
Now just back off AS a bit, and then add a bit, with a centered solo vocalist, and see what you hear.
Anti Skating?
- Thread starter DLS
- Start date
Now just back off AS a bit, and then add a bit, with a centered solo vocalist, and see what you hear.
I use the ART Project Series USB Phono Plus PC interface (as recommended by AnalogMagik as they developed the software with it) linked between my CH Precision P1 Phono Stage RCA outputs (with the P1 linked to my tonearm via it's current / trans-impedance input connections) and a Lenovo i5 Laptop (also recommended by AnalogMagik as they also developed the software with this Laptop).
So I am therefore assuming any distortions from the USB Phono Plus PC interface and the Laptop are taken into account with the AnalogMagik software !
Well, maybe... but the ART Project is a different league than your CH P1. Just a look at the wall wart power supply of the ART tells you it's probably 100X noisier than the CH. Remember it's an A to D converter, and like me, you probably realize that the quality of ADC or DAC units makes a huge difference. But... it's all that's available and may be is better than nothing...
I'm surprised that more hasn't been done along the lines of AnalogMagik. With a well designed interface, a good quality A to D converter, there's a lot of value that can be generated.
This thread has been very interesting. A few comments:
@J.R. Boisclair I think your 'mission' to define and measure these adjustments ( alignment parameters ) is fantastic. Of the various tools you make the skater is the one that really intrigues me. I have yet to get hands on one to really see how it functions and what that offers. Will do so. I do feel there can be a further pricess of 'ear based experimentation' yet I do not see thia as any sort of denial of objective criteria, in my view they can coexist. It is funny to me that our hearing is our most sensitive tool and at the same time can easily be fooled, we can skew how we interpret it. ( expectation bias etc. ) So having some good tools to guide us through the woods is important
@DasguteOhr Great post on using oscilloscope. I agree that the rather simple visual allows an easy understanding of what is happening, although not so much for topic at hand ( anti skate ), which you also mention. Wow that link to the multimwter + scope was interesting. So affordable, especially compared to my trusty old Fluke 88. I bought an old Tektronics scope cheap at a garage sale. It works fine for the purpose but is rather large
@Another Johnson Your race car analogy was very helpful. Of course we want to setup a car with alignment tools. And ideally we can repeat what settings end up being preferred. But determining what settings are ideal for the track ( and maybe driver ) is discovered with experience and for a specific car. I thought this exactly applies to the topic at hand.
@Zeotrope Your point that being able to listen...hearing changes is essential... resonates with me. Decent tools to get you in the zone are important imho, although I did know one guy that mounted his carts entirely by ear ( no scale, no protractor, nothing ) which is not something I would ever want to do.
Anyway seems like a tool ( wally, analog magik etc ) for getting a base line for AS is a good thing, and being able to hear if it then seems right is too!
@J.R. Boisclair I think your 'mission' to define and measure these adjustments ( alignment parameters ) is fantastic. Of the various tools you make the skater is the one that really intrigues me. I have yet to get hands on one to really see how it functions and what that offers. Will do so. I do feel there can be a further pricess of 'ear based experimentation' yet I do not see thia as any sort of denial of objective criteria, in my view they can coexist. It is funny to me that our hearing is our most sensitive tool and at the same time can easily be fooled, we can skew how we interpret it. ( expectation bias etc. ) So having some good tools to guide us through the woods is important
@DasguteOhr Great post on using oscilloscope. I agree that the rather simple visual allows an easy understanding of what is happening, although not so much for topic at hand ( anti skate ), which you also mention. Wow that link to the multimwter + scope was interesting. So affordable, especially compared to my trusty old Fluke 88
. I bought an old Tektronics scope cheap at a garage sale. It works fine for the purpose but is rather large @Another Johnson Your race car analogy was very helpful. Of course we want to setup a car with alignment tools. And ideally we can repeat what settings end up being preferred. But determining what settings are ideal for the track ( and maybe driver ) is discovered with experience and for a specific car. I thought this exactly applies to the topic at hand.
@Zeotrope Your point that being able to listen...hearing changes is essential... resonates with me. Decent tools to get you in the zone are important imho, although I did know one guy that mounted his carts entirely by ear ( no scale, no protractor, nothing ) which is not something I would ever want to do.
Anyway seems like a tool ( wally, analog magik etc ) for getting a base line for AS is a good thing, and being able to hear if it then seems right is too!
Last edited:
I know 1 person who basically set his cartridge by ear. He is a 50 plus year audiophile. He is a individual of high precision and patience. The problem is, most readers are not that guy. Most people are not vinyl genious with the learned skills to do a By Ear setup correctly. Its missleading to advise the general public as such. Its missleading to tell an unskilled enthusiast its just fine to use your ear if you don't have tools or know how to use tools. Those that support By Ear seem to be patting themselves on the back for being a part of an infentesimally small club of skilled enthusiasts. What is good for them is not necessarily good for the masses.
Data and tools always help. Data and tools get you very close so that By Ear changes are more predictable in the outcome.
DasgutOhr is doing exactly as you should. He's using a tool as an aid. He can see the results, and as he sees it, he can listen and train himself to understand what the scope is telling him. . Now you are training yourself to understand what your ears are telling you.
It is very true all tools are not made the same. Some work better than others.
I recommend you to use x-y plotter to determine the applied correction is on the right direction or not.
IME after deciding the direction an oscilloscope can be used -as you did- to maximize. It’s easier.
Last edited:
IMHO the AM software is not a good starting point or baseline. It’s the end. I accept it’s very hard to use it properly. If you can not achieve the best possible setting with it then you‘re not using it optimally. I don’t say I could but I’m learning over time. It takes a lot of practice to master on AM.
Last edited:
IME:
You should get a resonance frequency very close to the calculated one.
If calculated one is also 16.5Hz (which is highly unlikely with relatively higher mass Kuzma 4P) then there is no problem.
I installed many cartridges using AM and there are two possibilities for getting a resonance frequency rising with the test track’s frequency:
- Cartridge’s suspension is deteriorated or start to deteriorate. You can determine how bad the suspension is by looking at the graph but it’s hard to explain here. Suspension can be like car tires at 5 years or 10 years and 60.000km. There are levels of deterioration.
- Tonearm is not rigid enough. I encountered this situation mostly with unipivots.They’re not rigid enough to keep cartridge steady on low frequencies. There is no need to use a software. It can be seen that cartridge is moving violently on AM resonance track if tonearm is not up to the task.
BTW there is nothing wrong with your AM anti-skating results. They’re quite good actually. I have never seen it changing in big numbers with any cartridge.
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with ART USB and it’s not noisy. It’s very well checked by AM stuff. I didn’t believe them and made a comparison using a RME interface which is famous with it's noise and distortion free products. It’s almost the same result, nothing to impart AM readings. Keep using ARC USB. IME/IMHO it’s good enough for the job.
Last edited:
I find this topic of turntable adjustments difficult because of variations in album quality. How do you know whether to attribute distortion, for example, to an issue with the master tape, the copy you own, or to a setup issue?
Thank you 'mtemur' for your feedback to my results using AnalogMagik (AM). Very much appreciated.
My MSL Eminent Ex cartridge was bought brand new and installed by a Kuzma Dealer in Finland when I bought my one owner Kuzma XL DC and 4Point 11" tonearm from them back in July last year. I now have 585 hours on the Ex so assume it is still relatively new.
I have assumed the Kuzma 4Point 11" is a very rigid and stable tonearm. When I have been watching the behaviour of the arm when playing the AM resonance (lateral and vertical) tracks, it is very steady throughout the resonance test tracks. Same when I have used in the past the 'Hi-News' Analogue Test LP - 'The Producer's Cut' resonance test tracks (LP side 2 - Band 2 (lateral) and Band 3 (vertical )).
To try and reduce the resonance values, I both increased and decreased both the horizontal and vertical damping on the 4Point arm. But it didn't make any difference to the resonance frequency values.
I'm glad if I can help.
I don't recommend you to use any damping. BTW I've seen bad suspensions on both new and newly retipped cartridges. Elastomer deterioration is not always the case, sometimes coil assembly isn't properly aligned to apply required pressure over elastomer.
Not just the arm but also the cartridge should stay steady over resonance tracks. Cantilever should move from one side to another violently. This is how AM screen should look:
Last edited:
Ok, I will take off the vertical and horizontal damping completely then (I have read on WBF a while back that some folk have taken off the damping mechanisms completely off the Kuzma 4Point 11" and say it sounds far better removed !) and test for resonance using AM and look at how the cartridge cantilever is behaving either tomorrow evening or over this coming weekend.
Thank you 'mtemur' for your invaluable help. Very much appreciated.
no problem my pleasure. Good old measuring devices are perfectly adequate for this. I just wanted to show how easy and cheap the one box solution is. Fluke is the Rolls-Royce of multimeters.This thread has been very interesting. A few comments:
@J.R. Boisclair I think your 'mission' to define and measure these adjustments ( alignment parameters ) is fantastic. Of the various tools you make the skater is the one that really intrigues me. I have yet to get hands on one to really see how it functions and what that offers. Will do so. I do feel there can be a further pricess of 'ear based experimentation' yet I do not see thia as any sort of denial of objective criteria, in my view they can coexist. It is funny to me that our hearing is our most sensitive tool and at the same time can easily be fooled, we can skew how we interpret it. ( expectation bias etc. ) So having some good tools to guide us through the woods is important
@DasguteOhr Great post on using oscilloscope. I agree that the rather simple visual allows an easy understanding of what is happening, although not so much for topic at hand ( anti skate ), which you also mention. Wow that link to the multimwter + scope was interesting. So affordable, especially compared to my trusty old Fluke 88
@Another Johnson Your race car analogy was very helpful. Of course we want to setup a car with alignment tools. And ideally we can repeat what settings end up being preferred. But determining what settings are ideal for the track ( and maybe driver ) is discovered with experience and for a specific car. I thought this exactly applies to the topic at hand.
@Zeotrope Your point that being able to listen...hearing changes is essential... resonates with me. Decent tools to get you in the zone are important imho, although I did know one guy that mounted his carts entirely by ear ( no scale, no protractor, nothing ) which is not something I would ever want to do.
Anyway seems like a tool ( wally, analog magik etc ) for getting a base line for AS is a good thing, and being able to hear if it then seems right is too!
@mtemur
i could have brought up a whole park of measuring devices from rohde&schwarz.
everyone would have said too much expensive I'm not interested.
should be fun to get a taste of why it sounds like it or not. I just wanted to show how to do it and where to look out for it. lissajous phase angle images are too complex for here.
Try this experiment:
Take a situation where the calculated and measured resonant frequencies match and add weight to the headshell to double the mass and see what happens to the measured and calculated resonant point.
dave
I didn’t do it specifically but when I replaced bolts with longer, heavier ones I noticed that resonance frequency drops slightly.
the math says that doubling the mass should 1/2 the Fres and in my experiences I have yet to see this happen. the Korf audio guy found the same thing but in his case he changed the compliance. http://korfaudio.com/blog70
dave
dave
I read the blog and I will shortly explain what it is all about based on my humble opinions:
- First of all people writing Korf Blog made very poor choices about cartridges. As I have stated before cartridge damper (elastomer) is like car tire. After 5 years car tires need to be replaced even if they've spent that time on the shelf cause they deteriorate over time. Shure M97 and Ortofon SL-15E are surely very old and I suspect Denon DL-103 is not new either. Making experiments with very old cartridges that possibly have deteriorated dampers is remotely scientific. On the other hand I have seen newly made cartridges with defective suspension/dampers let alone the old ones. For the sake of reliability of test results all cartridges' suspensions must be checked beforehand with a reliable method. But they did not do it instead they used old cartridges with possibly deteriorated dampers.
- Their choice of tonearm is very poor too. I really like Jelco tonearms they offer great performance regarding the price but for a test like this a better and more rigid tonearm should have been chosen. For this kind of test it's better to use a well made tonearm which has either gimbal or ball bearings because of rigidity concerns. As I have stated before most very well made unipivots (ex. Graham Elite) are not rigid enough for 0-20Hz frequency sweep, let alone basic Jelco. Even they admit it's lack of rigidity on their blog somewhere else. Besides being a budget and not rigid arm, the Jelco they used for the test may have flaws due to age, abuse or manufacturing. It needs to be checked beforehand just like cartridges.
- There is also the matter of isolation. In order to eliminate low frequency interference from outside world, the turntable and the test rig must be isolated properly but I couldn't see anything about it.
As a result; the Korf Blog's conclusions on cartridge-tonearm resonance hardly contain any truth, far from being scientific and unusable. IME I can easily guess that the constant resonance peak they encounter with all cartridges is due to shortcomings of Jelco tonearm.
BTW they refer to the azimuth topic on their blog which has also questinable conclusions. I recommend you to take Korf Blog with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
Can you please share with us how you came to this conclusion? How do you measure this deterioration?
Jelco's first mode is slightly below 300 Hz. I am yet to see any tonearm with a resonant mode below 50 Hz. What are your conclusions based on? You say the tonearms are supposedly "not rigid enough". How did you measure it?
What can possibly be a source of movement in the 0-20 Hz range of a 2 inch hardwood desk screwed to a 45 cm basement concrete wall? Where this interference from the outside world come from and how will it affect the measurements?
Oh pity me, my life is now ruined. But before I take my monastic wows and forego the secular life altogether... Can we please see any objective data on which you base your opinion?
I see no spot for the age of the damper in the formula used for low frequency cartridge resonance. Sure, as a damper ages its properties may change. This change would be included in the compliance part of the formula and should not invalidate it. In fact *if* the formula is to be trusted, this test could be used to quickly test the condition of the suspension. Assuming reasonably contemporary materials/design* none of this matters for my initial proposed experiment because the compliance is assumed as a constant and a different variable is changed to calculate the unknown. As I said above in trying this nothing changed appreciably which suggests either the facts or the theory must be called into question. Since this was a small sample of evidence from a single person (me). I simply requested others to repeat the experiment and report back to increase the sample size.
Dave
*I'll defer to alex for a deeper dive into this (welcome Alex!)
Dave
*I'll defer to alex for a deeper dive into this (welcome Alex!)
