None of them. The coefficient of friction that each of those grooves would create with your stylus is far above your average playback coefficient of friction, leading you to add way too much anti-skating force.
Anti Skating?
- Thread starter DLS
- Start date
Thanks - I could guess it from your post. My question was what precise level of a 300 Hz recording track - or simply the velocity - should we use to set the bias?
I think there is a misunderstanding cause @audiobomber is most probably referring to uneven record wear not stylus.
Yes, that is true, but if your LP's are worn on one side of the groove, eventually your stylus will show uneven wear as well. I've never seen this on my worn out styli, viewed under a microscope.
Aha! Thanks, mtemur, for the clarification.
So how to determine if you have uneven wear in the grooves? I've never actually thought about that but I suppose you'd have to have really good 3D microscopy and software to see it. What would it sound like? I suppose a softening of high frequencies in one channel would be a good indicator. If there were actually groove damage (meaning features created that weren't cut into the record in the first place) then you'd likely hear it quite easily and it would look pretty noticeable under the microscope because the deformation would only present itself on a certain section of the 45 degree angled wall; i.e., the musical content's groove undulations would not be uniform from top of the groove to bottom of the groove as they normally would. You'd have a "stripe" of damage somewhere in the middle of the wall.
"no analogy with your childhood experiences as the stylus does not rotate with the platter and experiences no centrifugal force."
As grown adults we all learned that the Earth spins, definitely about the Sun, rather then everything else around us ?
Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is generally credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centred astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric). At that time, however, Aristarchus’s heliocentrism gained few supporters and 18 centuries would then pass before Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus produced a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system.
“The sun strings these worlds – the earth, the planets, the atmosphere – to himself on a thread.”
If one is indeed mindful of the use of a pivoted arm and care about distortion and uneven groove and stylus wear, then yes, you should use the correct antiskate force. That is the debate.
When I was new to vinyl, an old master in turntable setup friend told me to use only a little antiskate force for 9 inch tonearm and can largely avoid using any for 12 inch arm.
It is my guide for many years and seems to be correct all along.
It is my guide for many years and seems to be correct all along.
Here is an article about anti-skating. IMHO it's very well put together on explaining the subject and the forces involved.
https://www.audioasylum.com/images/Skating-force-Misunderstanding-and-misinformation-about-it.pdf
I have some remarks:
1. Garrard Zero arm is mentioned as "no overhang arm". It should be "zero offset arm" or "offset changing arm" cause additional articulating arm only changes offset angle of the head shell. Garrard Zero is a fixed pivot tonearm just like Thales arms. IOT change overhang it's pivot position should move just like Reed 5T.
2. I don't think using blank record for anti-skate adjustment is good for modern stylus profiles.
https://www.audioasylum.com/images/Skating-force-Misunderstanding-and-misinformation-about-it.pdf
I have some remarks:
1. Garrard Zero arm is mentioned as "no overhang arm". It should be "zero offset arm" or "offset changing arm" cause additional articulating arm only changes offset angle of the head shell. Garrard Zero is a fixed pivot tonearm just like Thales arms. IOT change overhang it's pivot position should move just like Reed 5T.
2. I don't think using blank record for anti-skate adjustment is good for modern stylus profiles.
I normally go with the tonearm manufacturers instructions for the required anti-skate / bias setting vs the tracking force setting as recommended by the cartridge manufacturer.
In my current case I have the MSL Eminent Ex set at 2g tracking force so I have set my Kuzma 4Point 11" with a bias distance of 8mm.
To obtain such fine mm distance tolerances for the Kuzma 4Point 11" arm is near impossible (due to the location of the bias weight and steel bar the bias weight is thread through and trying to measure with a rule) tells me that this is not an exact and accurate science.
If it was I am sure Kuzma would have designed and manufactured a very accurate way of getting the bias / anti-skate spot on (which also goes for many other tonearm manufacturers who have very crude ways of adjusting the anti-skate bias settings).
I would also guess that with a 11'/12' or 14" arm that Kuzma make, the bias setting becomes less critical, especially also with an offset / angled head shell to the tonearm's arm (although I am guessing that may not be so if you have a cartridge with a very sensitive and fragile cantilever i.e. a diamond cantilever for instance).
Therefore the smaller 7" or 9" arms especially ones without any head shell offset from the tonearm's arm would be manufactured with respectably accurate and repeatable adjustments for the bias / anti skate settings.
Continuing with setting up the bias / anti-skate on my Kuzma 4Point 11", I also look at how the cantilever of the cartridge (eyeing the front of the cartridge at the cantilever's horizontal level) is reacting / behaving when it tracks onto the first series of grooves on the first track of a record i.e. you can see if you have too little or to much bias by seeing the cantilever either pulling to much to the left i..e not enough bias or too much to the right i.e. too much bias. If you use a reasonable quality USB Microscope (I use approx. 100x ish magnification) on a steady stand with reasonable accurate adjustment (for focusing onto the stylus and cantilever), you can see quite clearly the cartridge's cantilevers movements.
Finally I will listen to different records (different record thicknesses, different ages of records and different music genres). If they all sound ok, then I am comfortable both the tonearm and cartridge have been set up correctly.
I haven't tried different bias distances on my Kuzma 4point 11" vs Kuzma's recommended distance.
I feel I don't need to as I like what I am currently hearing from the music and LPs I am playing.
And I guess that is the ultimate goal....to just sit back, relax and enjoy the music, whilst looking and admiring your hifi system !
In my current case I have the MSL Eminent Ex set at 2g tracking force so I have set my Kuzma 4Point 11" with a bias distance of 8mm.
To obtain such fine mm distance tolerances for the Kuzma 4Point 11" arm is near impossible (due to the location of the bias weight and steel bar the bias weight is thread through and trying to measure with a rule) tells me that this is not an exact and accurate science.
If it was I am sure Kuzma would have designed and manufactured a very accurate way of getting the bias / anti-skate spot on (which also goes for many other tonearm manufacturers who have very crude ways of adjusting the anti-skate bias settings).
I would also guess that with a 11'/12' or 14" arm that Kuzma make, the bias setting becomes less critical, especially also with an offset / angled head shell to the tonearm's arm (although I am guessing that may not be so if you have a cartridge with a very sensitive and fragile cantilever i.e. a diamond cantilever for instance).
Therefore the smaller 7" or 9" arms especially ones without any head shell offset from the tonearm's arm would be manufactured with respectably accurate and repeatable adjustments for the bias / anti skate settings.
Continuing with setting up the bias / anti-skate on my Kuzma 4Point 11", I also look at how the cantilever of the cartridge (eyeing the front of the cartridge at the cantilever's horizontal level) is reacting / behaving when it tracks onto the first series of grooves on the first track of a record i.e. you can see if you have too little or to much bias by seeing the cantilever either pulling to much to the left i..e not enough bias or too much to the right i.e. too much bias. If you use a reasonable quality USB Microscope (I use approx. 100x ish magnification) on a steady stand with reasonable accurate adjustment (for focusing onto the stylus and cantilever), you can see quite clearly the cartridge's cantilevers movements.
Finally I will listen to different records (different record thicknesses, different ages of records and different music genres). If they all sound ok, then I am comfortable both the tonearm and cartridge have been set up correctly.
I haven't tried different bias distances on my Kuzma 4point 11" vs Kuzma's recommended distance.
I feel I don't need to as I like what I am currently hearing from the music and LPs I am playing.
And I guess that is the ultimate goal....to just sit back, relax and enjoy the music, whilst looking and admiring your hifi system !
I strongly recommend not to rely on eyeing technique. It can be misleading.
Have you had a bad experience on eyeing up the cartridge cantilever or it has led to a mishap 'mtemur' ?
Yes, it has happened to me. It's hard to decide anti-skating due to different compliance of cartridges and impossibility of sighting a playing cantilever.
Last edited:
I’m a believer in setting Antiskate by ear. Since it’s never going to be perfect, it’s best to listen to several albums, specifically with a single vocalist in the center of the soundstage. Ideally, a mono recording that you playback in stereo.
Remove all AS and then slowly add more and listen for the soundstage to be centered. Any sibilance should be centered as well, not “echo” in the L or R channels.
It’s really not hard and yields the best results. You’re never going to get better than listening to music with the stylus in groove. The other tools and tricks are just shortcuts - they may get you close, but there’s no substitute to actual listening.
Don’t be afraid to trust your ears!
Remove all AS and then slowly add more and listen for the soundstage to be centered. Any sibilance should be centered as well, not “echo” in the L or R channels.
It’s really not hard and yields the best results. You’re never going to get better than listening to music with the stylus in groove. The other tools and tricks are just shortcuts - they may get you close, but there’s no substitute to actual listening.
Don’t be afraid to trust your ears!
Those have their own issues. Everything is a compromise with vinyl.
There have been many commonly held beliefs about anti-skating force that have popped up in this thread. Many of those same beliefs are held by some tonearm and cartridge designers and some audio journalists. Unfortunately, many of them are simply not true. I'll cover a few of them here, but first a primer:
SKATING FORCE IS A FUNCTION OF TWO ELEMENTS - FRICTION AND EFFECTIVE MOMENT ARM (EMA)
I'm sure everyone understands friction, so what is EMA? I went over this in an attachment on one of my past website blog articles but below is the relevant slide. Just think about having to draw a three line segment series with each joint at 90 degrees. It is important to start the drawing series with the starting point at the spindle and drawn to stylus location. The second line in the series runs from the stylus to a point where the line will be at 90 degrees to a line drawn to the pivot point of the arm. (This second line will also happen to be the SAME length as the effective length of the tonearm.) The last line segment completes the journey to the arm's pivot point. Remember, each join angle must be 90 degrees.
As long as the third segment (the Effective Moment Arm) in that series EXISTS in the drawing there will be a skating force. The longer the EMA, the greater the skating force. In the drawing below you can see how the EMA is longest with the stylus at the outer area of the record followed by a decrease and then increases again at the inner area of the record. If you were to draw this line segment sequence for a tangential bearing arm, you'd see there was no third line - and therefore, no skating force.
MYTH #1: Longer arms do not have skating force
As you can see from above, EMA does not decrease when moving to a longer tonearm but skating does decrease in longer arms because the ratio between EMA and effective length changes. Since 12" arms are about 30% longer than 9" arms, does that mean that skating force decreases by 30% for 12" arms? NO! This is because friction remains independent from arm length and friction is the second element required to have a skating force develop. It takes a more sophisticated logarithm to calculate the true decrease in skating force when moving to a longer arm. I won't touch that one now, but suffice it to say the decrease in skating force is nowhere near 30% less skating force when moving to a 12" arm.
MYTH #2: You can adjust anti-skate by ear by listening for the balance between channels
Cartridges are velocity sensitive devices. The higher the velocity, the higher the output. Given a groove with equal modulation levels in both channels, to say that changing the horizontal force of the stylus on the groove walls will change the tracing velocity with which the stylus will trace one groove wall versus the other just doesn't hold any water. You can claim (rightly) that the higher the horizontal force, the more groove deformation occurs in one channel. You could maybe further an argument for groove deformation vis a vis higher inertial forces resulting in slightly greater excursion distances over the same time period resulting in slightly higher output but I'm not aware of any study that hasn't found mistracking occurs far before measurable channel output changes (much less perceivable ones) . Maybe it's out there, but I've not seen it.
It is FAR, FAR more likely that the reason people hear a change in channel balance when adjusting anti-skating is because they are imparting enough horizontal torque (via either skating force or anti-skating force NET of any arm stiction and the tonearm’s internal horizontal torque force) that the coils rotate with respect to the 45 degree groove wall. In other words, you are changing azimuth!
We know very well that when you change azimuth, it is very easy to generate up to 2dB and more of channel imbalance. I've seen it hundreds of times in my lab. It takes very little rotational force to shift a coil bobbin around its central axis.
There are so, so, so many problems with optimizing by ear that I should write a book about it one day. Notice I didn't say there are problems with IMPROVING the sound by ear. (Improving and optimizing are not synonymous because the latter aims at known goals that will deliver the pinnacle performance using both objective and subjective measures.) While IMPROVING your sound by ear is entirely possible, as I've explained many times before, you will often never know if the NET improvement you just heard resulted in a deterioration of another parameter or two.
There really are 7 targets to hit to get the most out of the groove. My point is: why not take each one down in a UNIVARIATE manner rather than using a multivariate attempt such as listening (or using a test record! - exception on azimuth, of course). Multivariate tests are almost always the foil to certainty and optimization.
Almost all adjustment functions on a tonearm will change at least two - and up to five- other parameters. I don't want to wonder whether the improvement I just got by listening for improvements when adjusting something resulted in enough of an audible improvement to mask a deterioration in other parameters. By using univariate means of setup and optimization, one need not wonder.
MYTH #3: Since skating force is a moving target, it doesn't matter enough to get things precisely tuned because it will never be “right”
Yes, skating force changes with EMA (as above) and it also changes with the coefficient of friction (e.g., groove amplitude, vinyl formulation, etc., etc.). However, we KNOW THE RANGE OF VARIABILITY. If we know the range of variability, what is the best thing to do to be right most of the time? AIM FOR THE MEAN.
A distribution curve has a high point and two tails. We aim for the high point in the dataset since that is where most of the action is! That is what the WallySkater has been about from day 1 of its development by Wally.
What continues to amaze me about the skating arguments in audiophilia is that these published scientific studies have been known about for decades and repeat tested time and again with the same outcomes. Why does the will to misunderstand - even among some manufacturers - persist?
MYTH #4: I can trust the tonearm manufacturer with regards to the anti-skate setting
The degree to which this is a myth varies by manufacturer. There are tonearm designers who really do understand skating force. There are tonearm designers who understand skating force but can't seem to design an effective anti-skating device. There are tonearm designers who don't understand skating force at all and there are even a couple designers who have defeated the laws of physics somehow because their pivoted tonearms "don't need it".
I won't touch the last example as it would take too much negative energy from me.
Even with well calibrated anti-skate mechanisms, we need to be concerned with the internal torque force of the tonearm WITHOUT anti-skate engaged. Is this force (since it usually exists to at least a small degree) complementary or fighting our anti-skate target? Many designers are quite ham-handed with their application of anti-skate and a lighter approach is needed. One exceedingly expensive design is quite the opposite. In any case, the instructions to apply a prescribed amount of anti-skate force cannot apply to every given arm off an assembly line since every arm comes off that line with varying degrees of internal horizontal torque force - usually caused by the tonearm wires themselves but sometimes the bearings as well.
MYTH #5: Look at the alignment of the cantilever during playback to set your anti-skate
I almost didn't want to mention this one as it is kind of "out there". Assuming you can get a good view of the cantilever, against what fiducial will you align? How will you ensure you've eliminated parallax error? How do you account for tonearm bearing stiction? How do you account for horizontal compliance? At what radius are you doing this measurement? With what groove amplitude are you doing this measurement? (I heard one person's approach that doesn't even involve groove friction; just lowering the arm to a non moving record!)
So many issues on this one. Enough said.
See next post for remainder...
SKATING FORCE IS A FUNCTION OF TWO ELEMENTS - FRICTION AND EFFECTIVE MOMENT ARM (EMA)
I'm sure everyone understands friction, so what is EMA? I went over this in an attachment on one of my past website blog articles but below is the relevant slide. Just think about having to draw a three line segment series with each joint at 90 degrees. It is important to start the drawing series with the starting point at the spindle and drawn to stylus location. The second line in the series runs from the stylus to a point where the line will be at 90 degrees to a line drawn to the pivot point of the arm. (This second line will also happen to be the SAME length as the effective length of the tonearm.) The last line segment completes the journey to the arm's pivot point. Remember, each join angle must be 90 degrees.
As long as the third segment (the Effective Moment Arm) in that series EXISTS in the drawing there will be a skating force. The longer the EMA, the greater the skating force. In the drawing below you can see how the EMA is longest with the stylus at the outer area of the record followed by a decrease and then increases again at the inner area of the record. If you were to draw this line segment sequence for a tangential bearing arm, you'd see there was no third line - and therefore, no skating force.
MYTH #1: Longer arms do not have skating force
As you can see from above, EMA does not decrease when moving to a longer tonearm but skating does decrease in longer arms because the ratio between EMA and effective length changes. Since 12" arms are about 30% longer than 9" arms, does that mean that skating force decreases by 30% for 12" arms? NO! This is because friction remains independent from arm length and friction is the second element required to have a skating force develop. It takes a more sophisticated logarithm to calculate the true decrease in skating force when moving to a longer arm. I won't touch that one now, but suffice it to say the decrease in skating force is nowhere near 30% less skating force when moving to a 12" arm.
MYTH #2: You can adjust anti-skate by ear by listening for the balance between channels
Cartridges are velocity sensitive devices. The higher the velocity, the higher the output. Given a groove with equal modulation levels in both channels, to say that changing the horizontal force of the stylus on the groove walls will change the tracing velocity with which the stylus will trace one groove wall versus the other just doesn't hold any water. You can claim (rightly) that the higher the horizontal force, the more groove deformation occurs in one channel. You could maybe further an argument for groove deformation vis a vis higher inertial forces resulting in slightly greater excursion distances over the same time period resulting in slightly higher output but I'm not aware of any study that hasn't found mistracking occurs far before measurable channel output changes (much less perceivable ones) . Maybe it's out there, but I've not seen it.
It is FAR, FAR more likely that the reason people hear a change in channel balance when adjusting anti-skating is because they are imparting enough horizontal torque (via either skating force or anti-skating force NET of any arm stiction and the tonearm’s internal horizontal torque force) that the coils rotate with respect to the 45 degree groove wall. In other words, you are changing azimuth!
We know very well that when you change azimuth, it is very easy to generate up to 2dB and more of channel imbalance. I've seen it hundreds of times in my lab. It takes very little rotational force to shift a coil bobbin around its central axis.
There are so, so, so many problems with optimizing by ear that I should write a book about it one day. Notice I didn't say there are problems with IMPROVING the sound by ear. (Improving and optimizing are not synonymous because the latter aims at known goals that will deliver the pinnacle performance using both objective and subjective measures.) While IMPROVING your sound by ear is entirely possible, as I've explained many times before, you will often never know if the NET improvement you just heard resulted in a deterioration of another parameter or two.
There really are 7 targets to hit to get the most out of the groove. My point is: why not take each one down in a UNIVARIATE manner rather than using a multivariate attempt such as listening (or using a test record! - exception on azimuth, of course). Multivariate tests are almost always the foil to certainty and optimization.
Almost all adjustment functions on a tonearm will change at least two - and up to five- other parameters. I don't want to wonder whether the improvement I just got by listening for improvements when adjusting something resulted in enough of an audible improvement to mask a deterioration in other parameters. By using univariate means of setup and optimization, one need not wonder.
MYTH #3: Since skating force is a moving target, it doesn't matter enough to get things precisely tuned because it will never be “right”
Yes, skating force changes with EMA (as above) and it also changes with the coefficient of friction (e.g., groove amplitude, vinyl formulation, etc., etc.). However, we KNOW THE RANGE OF VARIABILITY. If we know the range of variability, what is the best thing to do to be right most of the time? AIM FOR THE MEAN.
A distribution curve has a high point and two tails. We aim for the high point in the dataset since that is where most of the action is! That is what the WallySkater has been about from day 1 of its development by Wally.
What continues to amaze me about the skating arguments in audiophilia is that these published scientific studies have been known about for decades and repeat tested time and again with the same outcomes. Why does the will to misunderstand - even among some manufacturers - persist?
MYTH #4: I can trust the tonearm manufacturer with regards to the anti-skate setting
The degree to which this is a myth varies by manufacturer. There are tonearm designers who really do understand skating force. There are tonearm designers who understand skating force but can't seem to design an effective anti-skating device. There are tonearm designers who don't understand skating force at all and there are even a couple designers who have defeated the laws of physics somehow because their pivoted tonearms "don't need it".
I won't touch the last example as it would take too much negative energy from me.
Even with well calibrated anti-skate mechanisms, we need to be concerned with the internal torque force of the tonearm WITHOUT anti-skate engaged. Is this force (since it usually exists to at least a small degree) complementary or fighting our anti-skate target? Many designers are quite ham-handed with their application of anti-skate and a lighter approach is needed. One exceedingly expensive design is quite the opposite. In any case, the instructions to apply a prescribed amount of anti-skate force cannot apply to every given arm off an assembly line since every arm comes off that line with varying degrees of internal horizontal torque force - usually caused by the tonearm wires themselves but sometimes the bearings as well.
MYTH #5: Look at the alignment of the cantilever during playback to set your anti-skate
I almost didn't want to mention this one as it is kind of "out there". Assuming you can get a good view of the cantilever, against what fiducial will you align? How will you ensure you've eliminated parallax error? How do you account for tonearm bearing stiction? How do you account for horizontal compliance? At what radius are you doing this measurement? With what groove amplitude are you doing this measurement? (I heard one person's approach that doesn't even involve groove friction; just lowering the arm to a non moving record!)
So many issues on this one. Enough said.
See next post for remainder...
Last edited:
MYTH #6: My arm sounds better without anti-skating applied
My first thought whenever I hear this is, "Did you control for the variables that can influence the horizontal behavior of the tonearm BEFORE coming to that conclusion?" I usually get a blank stare at that question.
What do I mean? A frequently encountered example:
I have been to many people's homes who claimed their arm sounds better without anti-skating force applied. In every case, THEY WERE RIGHT. However, they were right about what matters (the sound) but ascribed the basis of their claim to the wrong thing (the anti-skate mechanism). In every case, these fellows' tonearms had their own horizontal torque forces generating as much as, or more than, the required anti-skate force necessary WITHOUT EVEN ENGAGING THE ANTI-SKATE DEVICE. So, of course, when they would engage the anti-skate mechanism the arm would start mistracking or skipping or at least sounded more "closed-in" and robbed of life. They did not know their arm had a significant internal horizontal torque force doing the anti-skating job for them in the first place.
So, for those who say their arm sounds better without vs with anti-skating applied, they probably already have it applied by the arm itself without knowing it. Of course, in these situations you can be nearly certain that at the time of their cantilever alignment they messed things up pretty badly. Why? Since they did not know that horizontal torque force was present at the time of cantilever alignment the horizontal torque force generated on the cantilever by the arm would have skewed it visually and made it to LOOK like they needed to revolve the cartridge counterclockwise to align properly but...you know how the story goes, I hope!
I'll stop here, but there are many more I could cover that I've wrote and discussed on before such as the test record approach, blank record approach, etc.
Guys, I really hope I'm not coming off as mean spirited, but we have ALL been sold a bad bill of goods by clueless manufacturers and reviewers on this issue for years. Don't buy a WallySkater for these measurements. That's fine. I’m not trying to sell them on you by way of this post. JUST BE WELL INFORMED. Isn't that why we come here?
My first thought whenever I hear this is, "Did you control for the variables that can influence the horizontal behavior of the tonearm BEFORE coming to that conclusion?" I usually get a blank stare at that question.
What do I mean? A frequently encountered example:
I have been to many people's homes who claimed their arm sounds better without anti-skating force applied. In every case, THEY WERE RIGHT. However, they were right about what matters (the sound) but ascribed the basis of their claim to the wrong thing (the anti-skate mechanism). In every case, these fellows' tonearms had their own horizontal torque forces generating as much as, or more than, the required anti-skate force necessary WITHOUT EVEN ENGAGING THE ANTI-SKATE DEVICE. So, of course, when they would engage the anti-skate mechanism the arm would start mistracking or skipping or at least sounded more "closed-in" and robbed of life. They did not know their arm had a significant internal horizontal torque force doing the anti-skating job for them in the first place.
So, for those who say their arm sounds better without vs with anti-skating applied, they probably already have it applied by the arm itself without knowing it. Of course, in these situations you can be nearly certain that at the time of their cantilever alignment they messed things up pretty badly. Why? Since they did not know that horizontal torque force was present at the time of cantilever alignment the horizontal torque force generated on the cantilever by the arm would have skewed it visually and made it to LOOK like they needed to revolve the cartridge counterclockwise to align properly but...you know how the story goes, I hope!
I'll stop here, but there are many more I could cover that I've wrote and discussed on before such as the test record approach, blank record approach, etc.
Guys, I really hope I'm not coming off as mean spirited, but we have ALL been sold a bad bill of goods by clueless manufacturers and reviewers on this issue for years. Don't buy a WallySkater for these measurements. That's fine. I’m not trying to sell them on you by way of this post. JUST BE WELL INFORMED. Isn't that why we come here?
Last edited:
At one time I sold (and owned) the Souther Triquartz linear tracking tone arms on which Clearaudio’s current linear trackers are based. I was a dealer for Souther, Clearaudio, VPI, Dynavector, and others.
I’ve also owned VPI uni-pivots, VPI gimbals, Linn Ittok’s and Linn Ekos SE, a Grado wooden tonearm (Joe’s original on his TT), tonearms from Dual, tonearms from Garrard, tonearms from Technics, tonearms from Dynavector (owned and sold), etc. And I’ve traded with and followed Peter Lederman and his company, Sound-Smith.
It’s pretty clear to me that bias force varies with groove modulation and geometry. There is no exact setting that is correct in every situation.
So bias adjustment is a compromise best determined by the ears of the person who sets up your cartridge (in my case, that would be me unless I’m having Thomas O’Keefe install some upgrade to my LP12s).
I love the Ittok and Ekos SE arms because bias force can be set, adjusted, evaluated, and reset with precision every time in every case.
The Rube Goldberg approaches that use strings, weights, wire twists and other unrepeatable methods cause me nothing but aggravation. One day they deliver Nirvana, another day they just get on your nerves.
I’ve also owned VPI uni-pivots, VPI gimbals, Linn Ittok’s and Linn Ekos SE, a Grado wooden tonearm (Joe’s original on his TT), tonearms from Dual, tonearms from Garrard, tonearms from Technics, tonearms from Dynavector (owned and sold), etc. And I’ve traded with and followed Peter Lederman and his company, Sound-Smith.
It’s pretty clear to me that bias force varies with groove modulation and geometry. There is no exact setting that is correct in every situation.
So bias adjustment is a compromise best determined by the ears of the person who sets up your cartridge (in my case, that would be me unless I’m having Thomas O’Keefe install some upgrade to my LP12s).
I love the Ittok and Ekos SE arms because bias force can be set, adjusted, evaluated, and reset with precision every time in every case.
The Rube Goldberg approaches that use strings, weights, wire twists and other unrepeatable methods cause me nothing but aggravation. One day they deliver Nirvana, another day they just get on your nerves.
Setting anti-skating by ear is not the best approach as explained by other members but I’m sure there will be people continue to do that. I prefer to use tools to set anti-skating.
I measured anti skating force on my two SME V tonearms. What I did is an utterly primitive way and very far from being scientific. I just wanted to check it IOT see if bearings have any friction. Luckily there isn’t.
- 9” measured 0.19g at anti skating setting 2.
- 12” measured 0.16g at anti skating setting 2.
I measured anti skating force on my two SME V tonearms. What I did is an utterly primitive way and very far from being scientific. I just wanted to check it IOT see if bearings have any friction. Luckily there isn’t.
- 9” measured 0.19g at anti skating setting 2.
- 12” measured 0.16g at anti skating setting 2.
Last edited:
