It is difficult to align the cartridge geometry visually, even with your favourite protractor. I use the following method:
Attach a very light straight rod on the front flat surface of the cartridge, where it meets the headshell. I use a 0.3 pencil refill lead, fixed with a piece of adhesive tape. This rod should align the radius of the disc at the null points, viewed from the top.
Obviously, this method can be used only for cartridges having a flat front surface.
You can check the azimuth also by measuring the height of the ends of this rod from the record surface.
Attach a very light straight rod on the front flat surface of the cartridge, where it meets the headshell. I use a 0.3 pencil refill lead, fixed with a piece of adhesive tape. This rod should align the radius of the disc at the null points, viewed from the top.
Obviously, this method can be used only for cartridges having a flat front surface.
You can check the azimuth also by measuring the height of the ends of this rod from the record surface.
That is the beauty of Walter's protractor, it actually factors in the human error. He also recommends using a pencil lead on the cartridge if the front is flat.
This is the summary from Walter courtesy of Google Translate:
Google Translate
Do you know what are you talking about?
The image in the video was magnified at least 200%. You can't see the stylus drag in the video, but you can see it live. How could you say that!
Plenty enough to be audible? You don't make sense to me.
Last edited:
And this is why I chose to add that discoputz and the johnmath names to my Ignore List.
As "picky" as I am sometimes, and being reasonably open-minded, I become annoyed when someone insists that they are right, and then bombard and badger me with their rediculous replies.
The internet is peppered with these insistant and obsessive brainiac types on all types of sites, but nevertheless I refuse to succumb to the BS.
I have to admit that the video quality can be improved. They all hand-held iPhone videos.
1. It is a hand-held video. My hand might shake during videoing. It could cause the difference from peak to peak.
2. The test LP has about 3mm eccentricity. In reality, it doesn't exist at all. It is torture for the cartridge. The extreme eccentricity will increase the lateral inertia of the cartridge movements.
However, ±1 - ±2.5° tracking errors are not possible. I will try to make better videos and do some measurements.
No no, the image is not as sharp as it would be in real time with my own eyes. Where do you see me state I "can't" see it?? I said I see it more readily in the first vid, less in the others because there's less deflection, iow I'm "observing" less in the other two vids because there "is" less. And yes, that pressure moving the cantilever back and forth and the added pressure against the stylus is surely audible.
Why might it be an issue for you?
Last edited:
You didn't give anyone much to go on. Any single point protractor will only be correct for two unknown conditions:
- The effective tonearm length (pivot to stylus tip), and
- The assumptions for start and end radii for the playable surface.
Until those two conditions are known you might as well use a lucky prize wheel to set the overhand.
Once those two conditions are known, you can use the link given in post 4 to create your own protractor to suit your setup and not use someone else's assumptions and settings for an unknown turntable.
4th cartridge Alignment protracror
Maybe you should pay attention to trigonometry and geometry, since that is what you are discussing. I would like to see your analysis of that geometry problem. Do you think the cantilever deflection would be more or less that the 0.2 degree arm error? Justify your answer. Now given your estimate (or observation)of cantilever deflection, what do you calculate for angular error at the stylus, and how?
I am thinking of buying an MC cartridge (Denon DL103) and have been suggested to use the original template from the TT manufacturer.
I have always used it with several capsules, all MM, and with good results for my ears.
The current ones and the ones I had at the time I bought the TT. 😀
I would like to know what everyone thinks of this phrase:
"Using the supplied cartridge caliper should be fine."
Post 16 Nov 2020 23:41
Am I adjusting my cartridge Ortofon Red correctly ?- Vinyl Engine
Do you agree with that opinion? , or should I continue to insist with templates and look for the famous colon nulls? Hasn't the manufacturer already done it?
I have always used it with several capsules, all MM, and with good results for my ears.
The current ones and the ones I had at the time I bought the TT. 😀
I would like to know what everyone thinks of this phrase:
"Using the supplied cartridge caliper should be fine."
Post 16 Nov 2020 23:41
Am I adjusting my cartridge Ortofon Red correctly ?- Vinyl Engine
Do you agree with that opinion? , or should I continue to insist with templates and look for the famous colon nulls? Hasn't the manufacturer already done it?
Last edited:
Any gauge has potential sources of error, for example the bearing position and tonearm pivot position are both subject to small tolerances in real turntables. A two point protractor does not rely on conditions that are not necessarily true because it takes into account the real physical setup, not an idealised version.
What any turntable manufacturer does is rightly or wrongly make assumptions about the end points of the records you play. Contemporary records tend to have more runout space so some contemporary turntable manufacturers including Clearaudio have their inner null point at a fairly large radius.
This alignment can make unplayable the last track of long playing records with fine grooves recorded right up to the inner minimum radius specification. You can see how quickly distortion rises inside the inner null regardless of the alignment chosen.
I can only assume that Clearaudio think their turntables are used exclusively for playing 45rpm albums which have plenty of runout.
The second issue it that it is difficult to get the alignment exactly right. There is usually no way to know if the tip is square to the cantilever, and the cantilever may not be parallel to the cartridge longitudinal axis, yet these two things are assumed to be true when aligning by sighting the body.
An alignment error may cause a positive or negative angular tip displacement from ideal, but in terms of distortion a positive and negative error of the same amount are not equal!
Walter Schoen's contemporary analysis of the best null points puts the stylus not into the geometric center, but into the null of audible distortion between positive and negative errors, and can be more forgiving of small errors in sighting the alignment and also of errors in the cartridge itself. I've been using this tool for five years and done nearly 100 alignments on all sorts of turntables from cheap and nasty to rare and expensive, and always been happy with the result as have my clients.
I am sure Walter won't mind me uploading the English version of his paper which he sent to me. The principles are explained well with simple illustrations.
What any turntable manufacturer does is rightly or wrongly make assumptions about the end points of the records you play. Contemporary records tend to have more runout space so some contemporary turntable manufacturers including Clearaudio have their inner null point at a fairly large radius.
This alignment can make unplayable the last track of long playing records with fine grooves recorded right up to the inner minimum radius specification. You can see how quickly distortion rises inside the inner null regardless of the alignment chosen.
I can only assume that Clearaudio think their turntables are used exclusively for playing 45rpm albums which have plenty of runout.
The second issue it that it is difficult to get the alignment exactly right. There is usually no way to know if the tip is square to the cantilever, and the cantilever may not be parallel to the cartridge longitudinal axis, yet these two things are assumed to be true when aligning by sighting the body.
An alignment error may cause a positive or negative angular tip displacement from ideal, but in terms of distortion a positive and negative error of the same amount are not equal!
Walter Schoen's contemporary analysis of the best null points puts the stylus not into the geometric center, but into the null of audible distortion between positive and negative errors, and can be more forgiving of small errors in sighting the alignment and also of errors in the cartridge itself. I've been using this tool for five years and done nearly 100 alignments on all sorts of turntables from cheap and nasty to rare and expensive, and always been happy with the result as have my clients.
I am sure Walter won't mind me uploading the English version of his paper which he sent to me. The principles are explained well with simple illustrations.
Last edited:
To answer the questions on antiskating in the Vinyl Engine post, the actual antiskating value is not entirely critical. The purpose of the antiskating force is to keep the same pressure on each side of the stylus to its respective groove wall, so that in extreme conditions that one side does not lose contact before the other, thus resulting in the greatest traceability before distortion. Over the life of a stylus it will also keep the wear on either side even.
The amount of skating force that needs to be balanced varies as the radius of the pickup changes. In a good turntable, the antiskating mechanism adjusts the antiskating force to keep a complementary amount to the skating force as the tonearm angle varies.
Test records often have twin tone gymnastic test tracks recorded at levels to force mistracking. The antiskating is set correctly when the distortion is balanced in both channels, and/or when contact is lost and buzzing starts equally in both channels. It helps to listen with headphones when doing this adjustment.
Another test is to run the stylus on a band of 'land' i.e. un-grooved vinyl between tracks. Some test records have a band especially for this purpose. I am not sure if an X-ray has the same coefficient of friction as record vinyl.
In any case putting the tip of the stylus on land is not the same as having the sides of the stylus wedged in a V groove. Nevertheless I find that the two different methods seem to be in rough agreement, and with antiskating settings close enough is near enough.
In my experience if the two methods of setting antiskating are not resulting in nearly identical settings, it points to another problem such as stylus azimuth being incorrect, or the stylus tip not being square to the cantilever.
The amount of skating force that needs to be balanced varies as the radius of the pickup changes. In a good turntable, the antiskating mechanism adjusts the antiskating force to keep a complementary amount to the skating force as the tonearm angle varies.
Test records often have twin tone gymnastic test tracks recorded at levels to force mistracking. The antiskating is set correctly when the distortion is balanced in both channels, and/or when contact is lost and buzzing starts equally in both channels. It helps to listen with headphones when doing this adjustment.
Another test is to run the stylus on a band of 'land' i.e. un-grooved vinyl between tracks. Some test records have a band especially for this purpose. I am not sure if an X-ray has the same coefficient of friction as record vinyl.
In any case putting the tip of the stylus on land is not the same as having the sides of the stylus wedged in a V groove. Nevertheless I find that the two different methods seem to be in rough agreement, and with antiskating settings close enough is near enough.
In my experience if the two methods of setting antiskating are not resulting in nearly identical settings, it points to another problem such as stylus azimuth being incorrect, or the stylus tip not being square to the cantilever.
Last edited:
Thank you for responding promptly with a detailed explanation. I am glad that you have read the attached link from Vinyl Engine. It's late here, (5.25 AM) tomorrow I'll download the attached PDF for you and look at the antiskating setting issue.
I'm quite familier with the geometry involved, and what's necessary for proper playback of a record.
Having a truckload of bench test equipment available at the shop to run performance testing after servicing literally thousands of turntables over the decades provides me with all the information I need, and I put in simple terms my findings.
But your attempt at trying to draw me into the microscopic world of cantilever and stylus deflection during my earlier dicussion of playing of a record with a linear tracking tonearm is not working. 😎
Reason being, I'm a human from earth, with human hearing, and along with millions of others, couldn't care less about such drivel.
What are you doing on this site then? You're nothing but a troll. Especially if you have a truckload of test equipment you actually know how to use which is highly doubtful.
So any basic 2 point protractor will give satisfying results once correct overhang has been established. You can easily make your own. The null points are not critical in terms of where they are placed to start. They can be placed at 1/3 and 2/3 points. Where they end up is relative to the end groove. Once you're in the ball park you can then tune it in over time by listening and making tiny incremental changes.
Anti-skating is best done on the fly as well as VTA. Both of these are much more critical than a static adjustment can achieve. You will hear very similar 'fade in', 'fade out' performance peaks with both in terms of extent, very obvious. You literally 'tune' it in. A well designed tone arm(not necessarily expensive) will maintain ant-skating adjustment perfectly across the whole record. If you have not experienced these procedures on the fly, you will never know if your system is functioning optimally or grasp the critical nature of this. Your ears are better than the test records. If there is eccentricity in the record, all bets are off. Anti-skating is now operating for only 1/2 revolution, probably less because of the abrupt change and deflection of the cantilever. The way to deal with that is to take the time to visually identify and correct it by first observing it, turning off the tt, and pushing the record against the spindle opposite to the wobble. This will probably take a few tries but when it's established, just draw a light pencil line along that radius. Now you just use that line when you play the record. It's usual for the hole to be large enough to do this. There's only been a couple I've actually increased the size of the hole on.
This has been my experience over the past 40 years fwiw.
Anti-skating is best done on the fly as well as VTA. Both of these are much more critical than a static adjustment can achieve. You will hear very similar 'fade in', 'fade out' performance peaks with both in terms of extent, very obvious. You literally 'tune' it in. A well designed tone arm(not necessarily expensive) will maintain ant-skating adjustment perfectly across the whole record. If you have not experienced these procedures on the fly, you will never know if your system is functioning optimally or grasp the critical nature of this. Your ears are better than the test records. If there is eccentricity in the record, all bets are off. Anti-skating is now operating for only 1/2 revolution, probably less because of the abrupt change and deflection of the cantilever. The way to deal with that is to take the time to visually identify and correct it by first observing it, turning off the tt, and pushing the record against the spindle opposite to the wobble. This will probably take a few tries but when it's established, just draw a light pencil line along that radius. Now you just use that line when you play the record. It's usual for the hole to be large enough to do this. There's only been a couple I've actually increased the size of the hole on.
This has been my experience over the past 40 years fwiw.
Here is the analysis I am showing you now. Let’s assume that stylus drag is zero for now. Please see the image.
Situation A
1, All the parameters are from johnmath’s calculations. You can see angle Y is tracking error. It should be the same as his assumption that 0.2 degree.
2, Now, let’s introduce stylus drag into the equation. However, why in the world it will be 6 degree? Do you understand how big 6 degrees stylus drag in reality? It is not playable if it is 6 degrees.
Situation B
Let’s assume there is 0.2 degree tracking error which is inherent in the construction of the arm. But in reality, you should adjust the cartridge base upon the cantilever. So, the stylus can still be tangential to the groove, and the tracking error is zero.
I also have a problem with johnmath’s statement to generalize his calculations about a particular linear arm to all the servo-driven and passive linear arms.
When wiseoldtech said his Kenwood linear arm is rated for less than 0.2 degrees of any tracking error. It doesn’t necessary to mean there is an error 0.2 tracking error in the base of the arm wand. When we say tracking error, it always means the relationship between stylus and groove. In my drawing, it is angle Y. If Y=0.2 degree, it is reasonable and creditable. Therefore, johnmath’s following calculation is simply nonsense.
(tan0.2°)x180 = 0.63mm
So is
arctan(0.63/6.0) = 6.0°
Attachments
Last edited:
Thank you super10018 for doing the drawing which makes my mistake obvious! The tracking error at the stylus is not going to be near as large as I stated becasue the deflection of the cantilever is correcting tracking error, not exacerbating it as I incorrectly thought. I should have drawn it like you have.
However your drawing highlights that the problem manifests in a different way: there is still a potential 6° error at the cartridge for a 0.2° tonearm error - not between the stylus tip and the groove, but between the cantilever and cartridge body (and the magnetic drive system inside).
At the very least this is equivalent to a serious skating force in a pivoting tonearm. But for many cartridges, especially high output designs, any deviation from 0° for the cantilever will begin to modulate the output level from the cartridge. Over the years I have found some cartridges are particularly sensitive to output level modulation from cantilever position offset. Note: I am not claiming all cartridges are!
Discopete brings up the issue of off centre records, where even a fraction of a millimetre of eccentricity causes audible problems.
With a typical linear tracking tonearm, the tonearm tends to advance in small steps, either as a result of stiction in a passive design, or as a result of the fact that displacement is needed to create and error signal to drive the servo in an active design.
When the linear tracking tonearm moves, the cantilever will swing from an error relative to the cartridge body on one direction, to the same magnitude of error in the other direction. This is akin to playing an off centre or eccentric record and will cause sudden short pitch variations and possibly output level modulation in some cartridges.
I have a Goldmund T5 servo driven linear tracking tonearm in the workshop not mounted on a turntable. When I get the chance I'll set it up and have a play.
Of course another limitation with of tonearms is the short length between the vertical pivot and the playing surface, which exacerbates pitch variations as the stylus climbs hills and falls into valleys on warped records. All tonearms suffer from this but even small amount of extra length reduces the effect.
Basically, this is how my turntable functions......
Arm inward movement during play is monitored by an optical sensor which is obviously highly sensitive.
The system reads the the sensor's beam from a photocell, which slowly varies in resistance due to interruption of beam intensity caused by a blocking flag on the tonearm.
The 0.2 degree rating is the maximum "un-tangent" that the arm could be while playing, but in actuality, the system "nudges" the carriage motor a tiny bit before that 0.2 is reached. - because if that happens, the carriage motor runs faster in order to "catch up" and correct, as when the stylus changes songs, or moves quickly in the lead-out area.
The arm is practically never allowed to deviate from true tangency, and does so silently.
As for the stylus "angle", there is nothing to discuss there, the frictional drag , while small, keeps the cantilever straight in the cartridge.
There is no rediculous 6 degree crap going on.
But try as I may to discuss things in a simple sensible way, I get these weirdos jumping all over with their brainiac comments.
Apparently, nothing's simple to them, because anything like that is a trigger of their "in denial" brain cells, and they have to make a mountain out a molehill.
Which I'm not about to be bothered with., nor entertained by.
Last edited:
This reminds me of the UK "golden ears " of the 1980 on-wards where a certain well know ( in the UK ) golden ear made a statement referring to direct drive turntables that --- " because they are always trying to correct variances they are never at the correct speed ".
I leave that statement to him but it caused a bit of upset not only with owners of DD turntable which are electronically controlled but with the UK importers of Japanese DD,s of that era.
His preference was belt driven .
I leave that statement to him but it caused a bit of upset not only with owners of DD turntable which are electronically controlled but with the UK importers of Japanese DD,s of that era.
His preference was belt driven .