Antiskating vs Speed

[PierreB]

Does the speed of the turntable have an effect on the antiskating adjustment?
If for example the antiskating is adjusted to a rpm of 33.33, will it be good if I listen to a vinyl at 45 rpm.
Or will the difference be negligible.
Thanks.

 

[hb22]

Does the speed of the turntable have an effect on the antiskating adjustment?
If for example the antiskating is adjusted to a rpm of 33.33, will it be good if I listen to a vinyl at 45 rpm.
Or will the difference be negligible.
Thanks.

Don't stress yourself too much because, you'll never get the anti-skating set up correctly, just like you'll never get your cartridge at the right angle ;-)

 

[PierreB]

Yes, I totally agree with you, but it's something that bothers me a little.

 

[ravenacustic]

Ditto to the comments. TTs, arms, carts, setup, record pressings are all sources of pleasure and pain. All you can do is get as much correct as you can. Listen the the music after that.

 

[mtemur]

You can set anti-skating well enough to overcome the issues of skating. Anyone can adjust it correctly, and it doesn’t have to be extremely precise. More importantly, the variation in skating force across the record surface is not significant. Yes, it changes, but only slightly. If anyone disagrees, please provide actual measured data proving there are huge differences in skating force across the record surface. Ignoring proper anti-skating setup just because vinyl playback has its challenges is not the way to go.

On the other hand, skating force does change with speed, so you should increase anti-skating when moving from 33.3 to 45 rpm. I can’t say exactly how much, but in my opinion, it should be at least twice as much.

 

[hb22]

Yes, I totally agree with you, but it's something that bothers me a little.

I wanted to say that he should buy a tangential tonearm, there won't be these problems and only in this case will all the parameters be set correctly.

 

[mtemur]

I wanted to say that he should buy a tangential tonearm, there won't be these problems and only in this case will all the parameters be set correctly.

A tangential tonearm is still prone to skating and requires anti-skating. If you meant linear tracking tonearm then alright it’s not prone to skating. But linear tracking arms and tangential arms have bigger issues than overhanged pivoted arms’ anti-skating problem. The cure is worse than the disease.

 

[hb22]

A tangential tonearm is still prone to skating and requires anti-skating. If you meant linear tracking tonearm then alright it’s not prone to skating. But linear tracking arms and tangential arms have bigger issues than overhanged pivoted arms’ anti-skating problem. The cure is worse than the disease.

I'm not familiar with these problems you mention.

 

[mtemur]

I'm not familiar with these problems you mention.

Tnagential arms suffer from dependency to multiple bearings/pivots and hardly offers solid, grounded sound. The same sound signature is true for linear trackers cause they suffer from air bearing and more importantly the load on the damper. Whole arm assembly moves by the drag of stylus from outer to inner grooves which loads the damper asymmetrically. Pivoted overhanged arms only need to be twisted which is considerably easier and a lighter load. Besides that anti-skating mechanism evens it out. I haven't heard a linear tracking or tangential arm that sounds as dynamic, as grounded and as detailed as a good-pivoted-tonearm. And I'm not the only one who says that.

 

[Another Johnson]

A tangential tonearm is still prone to skating and requires anti-skating. If you meant linear tracking tonearm then alright it’s not prone to skating. But linear tracking arms and tangential arms have bigger issues than overhanged pivoted arms’ anti-skating problem. The cure is worse than the disease.

Most people use the tangential and linear terms interchangeably, but to a handful of the best informed, they’re not really the same in the “classification of tonearms.”

All linear trackers are also tangential trackers, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true.

FWIW, I love my Clearaudio TT2. It is not that hard to climb the set up learning curve, in spite of popular belief.

FWIW #2, I love my Linn Ekos SE too.

Advice: Don’t borrow trouble. If your ears tell you there’s a problem, work on it. Otherwise let the angels dance on the head of the pin … no need to count them.

 

[hb22]

Tnagential arms suffer from dependency to multiple bearings/pivots and hardly offers solid, grounded sound. The same sound signature is true for linear trackers cause they suffer from air bearing and more importantly the load on the damper. Whole arm assembly moves by the drag of stylus from outer to inner grooves which loads the damper asymmetrically. Pivoted overhanged arms only need to be twisted which is considerably easier and a lighter load. Besides that anti-skating mechanism evens it out. I haven't heard a linear tracking or tangential arm that sounds as dynamic, as grounded and as detailed as a good-pivoted-tonearm. And I'm not the only one who says that.

In the first part you write about some theories that have nothing to do with the Holbo tonearm/turntable.

The owner of the Garrard 301+Ikeda IT345 bought the Holbo turntable as soon as he compared it. The realistic stage in height, depth and width and the natural color of the instruments convinced him instantly. Denon DL103R on the Holbo tt.

 

[Holmz]

Does the speed of the turntable have an effect on the antiskating adjustment?
If for example the antiskating is adjusted to a rpm of 33.33, will it be good if I listen to a vinyl at 45 rpm.
Or will the difference be negligible.
Thanks.

It is a good question.
I maybe should be able to figure it out, but is it the drag that makes it skate?
If so then tracking force and the music should also change the anti-skate needed.

 

[mtemur]

Let me answer,

is it the drag that makes it skate?

Yes, because of overhang

If so then tracking force and the music should also change the anti-skate needed.

Yes, groove modulation and tracking force primarily determine the amount of anti-skating needed, mostly vertical tracking force.

 

[mtemur]

In the first part you write about some theories that have nothing to do with the Holbo tonearm/turntable.

They’re not theories but real world experiences and applies to all tonearms and turntables including Holbo. Denying won’t change it.

 

[ledoux1238]

I know the OP is about anti-skating. And I’ll be happy to take this elsewhere…..but the comments on Linear tracking is baffling, or rather the belief that radial tracking is the ‘ lesser of two evils’ in vinyl playback, is baffling.

What is the best radial tracking arm length? The answer is of course infinity, that is when the radial tracing arc approaches a straight line, i.e. the tangential line. Barring infinity, 9”-14” have been the next best ‘compromise’ lengths together with two main prescribed arc geometry, again a compromise to the tangential. Given the many generations of applied science, engineering, and design, let’s say the pivot tonearm is nearer to perfect execution than any linear tracking arm. Why would a better executed pivot arm, with the inherent flaw in its tracing geometry be the lesser evil to a LT?

On the execution of LT arms, the use of air bearing is one common way of levitating the arm wand. The criticism of the air bearing presumably concerns the use of compressors or pumps with their own created pulsation and frequencies. These would affect the quality of the air flow. But filtration treatment can mitigate this to a considerable level. One can use a room size of air filtration. It is impractical, but unlike arm length of infinity, not impossible. Bruce Thigpen of Emminent Technology offers a sub-woofer than requires the construction of a room to produce subsonic bass frequencies. The Techdas Airforce 10 pivot arm uses air-bearing to float its wand. Well executed air bearing system for both types of arm is not the limiting factor.

It is often said that LT arms do not produce bass. Now I read that LT arms are limited in dynamics. But there are more than a few CS Port TT and LT arm users on the WBF. And I don’t believe they would subscribe to these general misinformation. I, too, have both types. I am just tired of reading misconceptions about the LT arm and its inherent flaws.

End of gripe with apologies !

 

[thekong]

No arm design is perfect, or else every designer would follow the same or similar design! I love airbearing LT arms, which I have a few, including 3 Rockports, but they do have their limitations.

As mtemur has pointed out, the horizontal effective mass of LT arms are extremely high, equal to the mass of the whole moving assembly including the cartridge and counterweight. I have measured that of the Rockport 6000 arm mounted with the Ortofon A90 and matching counterweight, and it came to around 120g!!! In comparison, the effective mass of the FR66s, a pivotal arm known to be very heavy, is only around 33g. Even the almighty Kuzma Safir 9 only has a 60g effective mass.

So, just imagine the stylus/cantiliver/damper assembly has to drag that 120g while tracking the groove, that got to create higher than normal stress to the damper. Not to mention that the arm will be dragging that 120g back and forth if you play an off-centred LP!

As mtemur has also pointed out, the airbearings on LT arm are necessarily looser than well designed conventional bearings. I have compared the Rockport Sirius II arm with the Kuzma Safir 9 in my system, and to my ears, the Rockport’s bass, as well as the imaging, are not as tight and well defined as the Safir. So, the Rockport does sound mellower, but in exchange, it has a slightly wider soundstage, which I love.

I love both airbearing LT arms and pivotal arms, but they do sound different, and only the user can decide which is the lesser evil !

 

[ledoux1238]

@thekong Thanks for sharing your experience of top notch LT and pivot arms and a balanced perspective regarding the two tracking technologies. With my entry level arms of both types, I do hear differences, but not necessarily a distinct lack of dynamics and bass from the LT arm.

Now back to the regular programming.

 

[hb22]

No arm design is perfect, or else every designer would follow the same or similar design! I love airbearing LT arms, which I have a few, including 3 Rockports, but they do have their limitations.

As mtemur has pointed out, the horizontal effective mass of LT arms are extremely high, equal to the mass of the whole moving assembly including the cartridge and counterweight. I have measured that of the Rockport 6000 arm mounted with the Ortofon A90 and matching counterweight, and it came to around 120g!!! In comparison, the effective mass of the FR66s, a pivotal arm known to be very heavy, is only around 33g. Even the almighty Kuzma Safir 9 only has a 60g effective mass.

So, just imagine the stylus/cantiliver/damper assembly has to drag that 120g while tracking the groove, that got to create higher than normal stress to the damper. Not to mention that the arm will be dragging that 120g back and forth if you play an off-centred LP!

As mtemur has also pointed out, the airbearings on LT arm are necessarily looser than well designed conventional bearings. I have compared the Rockport Sirius II arm with the Kuzma Safir 9 in my system, and to my ears, the Rockport’s bass, as well as the imaging, are not as tight and well defined as the Safir. So, the Rockport does sound mellower, but in exchange, it has a slightly wider soundstage, which I love.

I love both airbearing LT arms and pivotal arms, but they do sound different, and only the user can decide which is the lesser evil !

Holbo tonearm = 48 grams whole tonearm incl. Denon dl103 ( 9,5 g ) and counterweight which can carry a cartridge up to 12 grams

 

[hb22]

They’re not theories but real world experiences and applies to all tonearms and turntables including Holbo. Denying won’t change it.

No.With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[mtemur]

No.With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok.