Micro, I don't know what you mean by this. What is the "plane of the spinning disk"? What is the movement that defines this angle? Movement of what? Is this "plane" the same for each and every record, regardless of vinyl thickness, depth of groove, or original cutting head angle?
Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Micro, I don't know what you mean by this. What is the "plane of the spinning disk"? What is the movement that defines this angle? Movement of what? Is this "plane" the same for each and every record, regardless of vinyl thickness, depth of groove, or original cutting head angle?
Ack, I answered your question as best I could in the other thread. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?25143-My-thoughts-on-cartridge-arm-set-up/page8
I appreciate your taking the discussion over there and out of my system thread.
One of the joys of analog reproduction is that there are numerous variables to be contended with.IME, this is what makes the hobby more interesting,and for some, more fun. I agree with Peter, very slight adjustments of the VTA and even the Azimuth ( which he cannot do with his arm) can show a significant change to the SQ of the recording, assuming that one's system is resolving enough to hear that. If we then add in the condition of the pressing, the pressing number itself, the formulation of the vinyl ( which IME does make some minor difference) and how flat the record is to begin with-- which will certainly impact the SQ based on the quality and type of the arms bearing; then we have numerous ways to discover how the LP can sound.
IMO, the over-riding factor here is actually none of the above, what I believe is that one is never going to get a 'silks purse out of a sow's ear' --so IF the recording engineer or crew screwed up in the first place ( or used multiple stages in the recording) then the SQ just isn't going to be that pleasing...regardless. This is why I am a little surprised that the new One Step by MFSL is of the BOTW album...which is known to have a lousy master tape to begin with. ( therefore, Music Direct basically created a 'silks purse out of a sow's ear' LOL)
Sorry to take the thread a little off-track, but I thought we needed to add a little perspective.
IMO, the over-riding factor here is actually none of the above, what I believe is that one is never going to get a 'silks purse out of a sow's ear' --so IF the recording engineer or crew screwed up in the first place ( or used multiple stages in the recording) then the SQ just isn't going to be that pleasing...regardless. This is why I am a little surprised that the new One Step by MFSL is of the BOTW album...which is known to have a lousy master tape to begin with. ( therefore, Music Direct basically created a 'silks purse out of a sow's ear' LOL)
Sorry to take the thread a little off-track, but I thought we needed to add a little perspective.
Sorry, it seemed obvious to me - the LP plane. Considering that the differences due to LP thickness are minimal, they can be discarded. I adjust for "normal" thickness LPs and forget. And yes, they assume we can forget the variation of depth of groove and cutting head angle.
I think most people will agree in general, and everyone will tell his system is very resolving ...
The main question is in the quantification - 1. Do you correct VTA for different LP thickness? 2. Do you optimally adjust VTA by ear for each recording?
OK, that is what I thought. That LP plane is horizontal, but I suspect we do not agree on where the top of the plane is or if it is constant, or how thick the plane is. It is just a theoretical, flat, constant surface, round disk 12" in diameter. We are operating on different premises, Fransisco, and that is probably the reason that we have different opinions about the importance of changing arm height.
Do the designers of tonearms that can accommodate rapid and repeatable changes in arm height also operate on a different premise? You have one premise and conclusion and David said he agreed with it. I have a different premise and conclusion based on different experience.
You write that "differences due to LP thickness are minimal, they can be discarded." Let's look at this. The difference in thickness between my original pressing of Holst' The Planets and the reissue is somewhere between 0.5mm and 1.0mm. Let's call it 0.75mm. Are you saying that if no arm height adjustments are made, that the SRA will not change with this LP thickness change when we play each record? David previously wrote that a .5mm arm height change can be "crucial" to the sound. This is about a 3/20th of one degree change in SRA. How would changing the height of the LP plane by 0.75mm not change, in your very words, the "optimal fixed angle relative to [the] plane of the spinning disk"?
You could argue that 3/20th of one degree of SRA can also "be discarded" because it is "minimal", but that is a greater amount than the difference that David said "could be crucial." I now understand why you wrote "Please note that some people consider that each stylus should be adjusted to an optimal fixed angle relative to [the] plane of the spinning disk - it is the movement that defines this angle, not the grove modulations."
I am one of the other people who take a different approach.
You are now on a different premise - should we compensate for LP thickness? Theoretically yes, but as I have a minimal number of thick LPs and do not care about modern re-issues, I do not bother to do it. But this is a simple geometric effect, that IMHO should be adjusted using a caliper and a dial if we care about it ... It is why I separated matters when answering to to DaveyF.
I can accept that some cartridges will be more sensitive that others to VTA variation. Perhaps yours is extremely sensitive to it.
Fransisco, it's fine if you do not hear the differences or you don't want to make the effort to compensate for the differences. It makes no difference to me what you choose to do when you listen to your records.
All this VTA fine-tuning sounds like a lot of precision toil and trouble.
Tape is a lot simpler. And for our audiophile purposes tape seems less finicky. I don’t like to think about how out of calibration must be many of the tape machines out there, but somehow they all seem to sound great anyway.
On second thought, Peter, you might be wanting to adjust azimuth individually with every tape!
Tape is a lot simpler. And for our audiophile purposes tape seems less finicky. I don’t like to think about how out of calibration must be many of the tape machines out there, but somehow they all seem to sound great anyway.
On second thought, Peter, you might be wanting to adjust azimuth individually with every tape!
Have we entered the twilight zone? Ron, you must be teasing me.
In my experience, not all tape "... sounds great anyway." In fact some tape does not sound very good at all. I have no idea about calibration of tape machines or adjusting azimuth, but for whatever reason, the tape I have heard in other peoples' systems in direct comparison to their vinyl, came up short. I don't know why, but the owners agreed with me that their vinyl sounded better. Perhaps it was the tapes themselves.
Vinyl does not have to be a lot of precision toil and trouble. You will see when you some day get your own system up and running. David will set it all up for you and you will simply have to turn on the platter and move the arm over. You won't even need to clean your LPs or cartridge. On second thought, Ron, with your aversion to any sort of fiddling, I'm surprised you don't just switch over to digital. Many people think it is now good enough. Didn't you recently have a digital epiphany? All that requires is a finger and iPad.
EDIT: Ron, I should add, what is your four year house renovation project if not "a lot of precision toil and trouble"? You may find with your house, as I do with my vinyl records, the end result is worth all of the effort to get there.
Last edited:
No, Peter many people find digital is on par with the best analog, although different. And that digital properly used can provide excellent experiences in stereo reproduction that were not possible with analog.
If you are interested, please read the excellent article that can be found in the link posted by Audiocrack in another thread: https://www.psaudio.com/article/bert-van-der-wolf/. And perhaps also the comments of MFremer on digital Beethoven in the Aida II review.
Probably you will disagree with them, but IMHO it is always nice to know properly what are the views of others on these matters.
Yes, even though I did that in the past, now I would not anymore classify digital as just 'good enough'.
Peter wrote an indisputably accurate statement: “Many people think it is now good enough.” I’m sure there are many people who think digital still is not good enough. I am sure there are many people who think digital is better than analog.
Why start a fencing match?
It was not my idea. It is a way of showing disagreement on bringing the analog / digital difference, a fundamental and well studied issue to a debate on vinyl preference.
BTW, my hope is that as time goes by, people understand that none of them (analog or digital) can be considered better, just that we can prefer what professionals produce with any of this media in our systems at a certain time.
Fransisco, I guess you missed entirely the point I was trying to make. You wrote in my other thread that the SME protractor is "good enough", implying to me that you were completely satisfied when using it. I used your phrase "good enough" to make the point that some people are completely satisfied with digital, as Al M. clearly is, and as I am when I hear digital in his system. Digital can sound great. Even Ron has heard this. Here is your original quote:
But even reading my use of the phrase, there is nothing to argue about, as Ron points out. It is "indisputably accurate", and there is no need to bicker about this. I happen to prefer vinyl, in general, but do really appreciate digital when it is done right. For me, and for others, and for some, digital is "good enough". And, I should add, I'm not contending that one is "better" than the other, just that I prefer one to the other. I hope that this post helps to clarify my thoughts on the matter.
Precisely. That is why I qualified my statement with the word "some". Digital is changing rapidly and some people are changing their ideas/biases about how it sounds. You have changed, as you admit here, Ron just had a very positive digital experience, and I changed my opinion when you and I heard the Rossini DAC and more recently when I have heard your current digital. People may still have their preferences of one over the other, and some may still contend one is "better" than the other, but there is a growing consensus that one is not 'better" than the other. I happen to think that both are "good enough" to enjoy a musically involving listening session. And under certain circumstances, each can sound great.
BREAKING NEWS: PETER IS CORRECT THAT SMALL ADJUSTMENTS IN TONEARM HEIGHT (VTA) CAN RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN SOUND QUALITY!
While visiting Peter this week Peter proved to me repeatedly the important changes in sound resulting from small adjustments in tonearm height. I still do not want to be determining a particular tonearm height for each record, and then adjust the height of the tonearm every time I play that particular record, but there is no doubt that Peter is correct that slight changes in VTA can result in big differences in the quality of the sound coming off that LP.
Listening the first time to the extremely well-recorded LP of Dave Brubeck’s Take Five I heard slightly muddy or “thuddy” piano strikes and slightly splashy (spitty?) cymbals. Peter wanted to tinker with the VTA. By raising the tonearm 1.5mm Peter improved the sound materially.
After the VTA adjustment there was a slightly greater openness and transparency to the sound overall. The piano strikes were no longer “thuddy” but were more clear and higher in resolution and detail. Cymbals sounded more natural and the splashiness went away. Overall the sound became one or two shades more alive and present.
I asked Peter to play Carole King’s Tapestry album. I know this album extremely well, and I have heard it many, many dozens of times.
When Peter first started playing it Carole’s voice sounded thin and not convincingly present — a bit like we were listening to the recording on an old transistor radio (although that way overstates the point I am trying to convey). Overall the sound of the recording was thin and cool-ish. Tapestry is not a well-recorded album, so it doesn’t not sound great in the best of circumstances, but I knew it was not supposed to sound like what we were hearing.
After Peter adjusted the VTA the tonality of Carole’s voice became the sound to which I am accustomed, and her voice no longer sounded thin and reedy. There was a greater openness overall to the sound. The entire tonal balance of the recording shifted slightly warmer, and sounded like what I am used to from this album.
When we evaluate and cartridges and tonearms are we sure of what we are hearing and to what we are attributing various sonic attributes? This experience with Peter tells me that unless one spends time and attention optimizing the VTA on a particular test record conclusions about the sound of that cartridge and tonearm combination are going to be spurious. Should we be replacing a phono stage because the sound is not very transparent, or should we be changing the VTA of the tonearm on the turntable in that system to allow the system to sound more open and to prevent is from falsely accusing the phono stage of manifesting a lack of transparency or detail, on the one side, or a lack of warmth and weightiness, on the other side?
Does this mean we should find tonearms with easy-to-adjust and calibrated VTA towers (like the Axiom)? But then we run into the concern that tonearms with easy-to-adjust VTA towers may not have bearings and overall structures as rigid as tonearms which do not permit easy VTA adjustment. Maybe we should have two pairs of identical cartridge models on identical tonearms on our turntables, with one combination adjusted for thin records and the other combination adjusted for thick records?
While visiting Peter this week Peter proved to me repeatedly the important changes in sound resulting from small adjustments in tonearm height. I still do not want to be determining a particular tonearm height for each record, and then adjust the height of the tonearm every time I play that particular record, but there is no doubt that Peter is correct that slight changes in VTA can result in big differences in the quality of the sound coming off that LP.
Listening the first time to the extremely well-recorded LP of Dave Brubeck’s Take Five I heard slightly muddy or “thuddy” piano strikes and slightly splashy (spitty?) cymbals. Peter wanted to tinker with the VTA. By raising the tonearm 1.5mm Peter improved the sound materially.
After the VTA adjustment there was a slightly greater openness and transparency to the sound overall. The piano strikes were no longer “thuddy” but were more clear and higher in resolution and detail. Cymbals sounded more natural and the splashiness went away. Overall the sound became one or two shades more alive and present.
I asked Peter to play Carole King’s Tapestry album. I know this album extremely well, and I have heard it many, many dozens of times.
When Peter first started playing it Carole’s voice sounded thin and not convincingly present — a bit like we were listening to the recording on an old transistor radio (although that way overstates the point I am trying to convey). Overall the sound of the recording was thin and cool-ish. Tapestry is not a well-recorded album, so it doesn’t not sound great in the best of circumstances, but I knew it was not supposed to sound like what we were hearing.
After Peter adjusted the VTA the tonality of Carole’s voice became the sound to which I am accustomed, and her voice no longer sounded thin and reedy. There was a greater openness overall to the sound. The entire tonal balance of the recording shifted slightly warmer, and sounded like what I am used to from this album.
When we evaluate and cartridges and tonearms are we sure of what we are hearing and to what we are attributing various sonic attributes? This experience with Peter tells me that unless one spends time and attention optimizing the VTA on a particular test record conclusions about the sound of that cartridge and tonearm combination are going to be spurious. Should we be replacing a phono stage because the sound is not very transparent, or should we be changing the VTA of the tonearm on the turntable in that system to allow the system to sound more open and to prevent is from falsely accusing the phono stage of manifesting a lack of transparency or detail, on the one side, or a lack of warmth and weightiness, on the other side?
Does this mean we should find tonearms with easy-to-adjust and calibrated VTA towers (like the Axiom)? But then we run into the concern that tonearms with easy-to-adjust VTA towers may not have bearings and overall structures as rigid as tonearms which do not permit easy VTA adjustment. Maybe we should have two pairs of identical cartridge models on identical tonearms on our turntables, with one combination adjusted for thin records and the other combination adjusted for thick records?
Similar threads
