Subject: Re: [teres] VTA Adjustment Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:17:20 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: teres@aiko.com My musings about this kinda stumbled down the same path. Collaterally, I had always planned to use a machinists' dial indicator, suitably attached to the raisable assembly, to achieve repeatable setting. Micrometers do kinda the same thing, and certainly impress the peasants... But, I too, am disquieted somewhat about the attendant adaptation required. At first blush, it seems the only way to make this really work is to go the whole distance and get an XYZ device, register it to 0, 0, 0 and play with *all* the parameters. THEN you could get one of the Fancy Dan Velleman's remote setups and motorize the whole shebang. That would really impress the peasants. Peter C - Original Message ----- From: "Igor Kuznetsoff" To: Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 9:50 PM Subject: RE: [teres] VTA Adjustment > Interesting stuff & nicely made, but very > *pricey*! Cheapest thing I saw in there was an > adaptor clamp for $30. Most stages seem to run from a > low of $205 to an average of $600-$700, and top out at > around $2,000. > A goniometer or a tilt platform look like they > could be a way to effect azimuth adjustment, for as > little as $200 & some, if there was a practical way to > mount the arm (via an additional bracket or adaptor > ostensibly). Some of the goniometer radius centers > look usable. What is not obvious is how these various > devices could be adapted for our use. Almost all of > them look, at first examination, like they would > require adapters (at yet more cost) to mount an arm, > which would have to be entirely above these devices, > arm stub & all, unless a right angled one was used, > and that looks like it might interfere with the arm > itself. This would result in a rather tall assembly, > taller than than the arm mounting post. > The promise of precision adjustment is attractive, > but a means of using these nice looking assemblies is > not immediately apparent, at least on my first pass > through, intriguing as they may be. I would also > wonder about how good of an acoustic coupling could be > achieved through them. Some of them are "lockable", > which is promising in that regard, and potentially > useful for locking in the settings as well, but just > how much of their contacting surfaces would be > tightened together under lockdown? > Which one(s) did you have in mind to use, and how? > > Igor > > --- Jon Lane wrote: > > A choice of positioning systems suitable for VTA > > already on > > the shelf... > > > > http://www.optosigma.com/stages/stages.html > > > > Jon Lane > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > Subject: RE: [teres] VTA Adjustment Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:30:39 -0700 From: Schei, Kenneth, Schei, Kenneth To: 'teres@aiko.com' Another reason why poor Enid might want to re-adjust VTA is because different cutting lathes may vary in the angle of their cutting styli. Recording and manufacturing techniques are not always as neat and tidy as they should be. When I was experimenting with Absolute Phase, I discovered that not only do different records and CDs have different absolute phase, but the absolute phase could change from cut to cut, and sometimes even within a selection. I gave up worrying about absolute phase except to verify that my system doesn't change it. Cheers, Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella [SMTP:tmackris@earthlink.net] > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:07 PM > To: teres@aiko.com > Cc: Blair Hansen > Subject: Re: [teres] VTA Adjustment > ........For the reasonably well-adjusted individual (why is "anal" in the word > analog? ) VTA is set and forget. Perhaps, more accurately, it's set > and > forget, set and forget. As a cartridge's suspension breaks in (after say, > 20-100 hours of play) you should re-check/adjust your VTA. I continually > confuse SRA (stylus rake angle) with VTA, but the adjustments are both > effected by raising and lowering the arm at the post. On a related note, > I > recall Enid Lumley (tortured but brilliant soul that she is) writing in an > old issue of The Absolute Sound about indexing your records by thickness > and > adjusting your VTA for your thickest records, shimming the thinner records > in order to get them to the proper height. Enid burned out and left audio > ... got it? > Subject: Re: [teres] VTA Adjustment Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:23:59 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Oh, well, back to the drawing board. Regrettably, no time for any progress in that regard to report. Looks like a purpose-designed device is unavoidable if we want it to do everything that's important to us, or punt with an adapted existing compromise for simplicity & cost. At least adding a vernier dial to what I have in mind might have some promise, even if it won't impress as many peasants. 'Course, after we add the remote triggering device to our bomb, we could add a laser readout which could project the readout on the ceiling like one of those confargled new clocks. Bet that would draw some oohs & aahs from the unwashed. :-) Igor --- phclark wrote: > My musings about this kinda stumbled down the same > path. Collaterally, I > had always planned to use a machinists' dial > indicator, suitably attached to > the raisable assembly, to achieve repeatable > setting. Micrometers do > kinda the same thing, and certainly impress the > peasants... But, I too, am > disquieted somewhat about the attendant adaptation > required. > > At first blush, it seems the only way to make this > really work is to go the > whole distance and get an XYZ device, register it to > 0, 0, 0 and play with > *all* the parameters. THEN you could get one of the > Fancy Dan Velleman's > remote setups and motorize the whole shebang. That > would really impress the > peasants. > > Peter C > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Igor Kuznetsoff" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 9:50 PM > Subject: RE: [teres] VTA Adjustment > > > > Interesting stuff & nicely made, but very > > *pricey*! Cheapest thing I saw in there was an > > adaptor clamp for $30. Most stages seem to run > from a > > low of $205 to an average of $600-$700, and top > out at > > around $2,000. > > A goniometer or a tilt platform look like they > > could be a way to effect azimuth adjustment, for > as > > little as $200 & some, if there was a practical > way to > > mount the arm (via an additional bracket or > adaptor > > ostensibly). Some of the goniometer radius > centers > > look usable. What is not obvious is how these > various > > devices could be adapted for our use. Almost all > of > > them look, at first examination, like they would > > require adapters (at yet more cost) to mount an > arm, > > which would have to be entirely above these > devices, > > arm stub & all, unless a right angled one was > used, > > and that looks like it might interfere with the > arm > > itself. This would result in a rather tall > assembly, > > taller than than the arm mounting post. > > The promise of precision adjustment is > attractive, > > but a means of using these nice looking assemblies > is > > not immediately apparent, at least on my first > pass > > through, intriguing as they may be. I would also > > wonder about how good of an acoustic coupling > could be > > achieved through them. Some of them are > "lockable", > > which is promising in that regard, and potentially > > useful for locking in the settings as well, but > just > > how much of their contacting surfaces would be > > tightened together under lockdown? > > Which one(s) did you have in mind to use, and > how? > > > > Igor > > > > --- Jon Lane wrote: > > > A choice of positioning systems suitable for VTA > > > already on > > > the shelf... > > > > > > http://www.optosigma.com/stages/stages.html > > > > > > Jon Lane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > > http://im.yahoo.com > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: [teres] Re: Fw: [Thom] VTA Adjustment Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 00:46:57 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com > We may be thinking along the same lines. It is so difficult to envision verbal descriptions of mechanical parts that we may be playing the Three Blind Men describing the elephant. We really need some drawings. I think we may be getting closer to our descriptions, but could discover that we are holding different parts of that elephant. In my conception, conduction would not depend, to speak of, on contact with the lifting wedges, which would sit entirely *inside* a U-shaped piece which would carry & solidly contact (especially after lockdown) the traveling mounting block the arm would be mounted in, above them. Consequently, locating the wedges would not be as important as in the concepts below, assuming I've got Peter's and Thom's parts of the elephant fingered out correctly. Igor --- Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella > > To: > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:57 PM > Subject: Re: [teres] VTA Adjustment > > > Gosh, Peter & Igor - > > My high school trigonometry is really rusty. After > reading both of your > comments, it occurs to me that you could indeed site > the plane of movement > such that overhang changes could be null or > minimized. > > Another point about overhang, especially in the > context of an overall height > change of .25" was mentioned by Igor - that this > would be inconsequential, > especially if you dialed in the VTA at your > "compromise" setting with the > adjuster at it's mid point so that you're really > talking about plus or minus > .125" of vertical change. > > Additionally, with all of the different alignment > theories out there, > changing the overhang adjustment by this small of an > amount would merely > shift the bias of your adjustment to another > alignment, as opposed to making > it wrong. > > I'll read & think before posting next time. > > Cheers, > Thom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: phclark > To: > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:12 PM > Subject: Re: [teres] VTA Adjustment > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella" > > To: > Cc: "Blair Hansen" > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 5:07 PM > Subject: Re: [teres] VTA Adjustment > > > > Hi Peter - > > > > One thing to consider with any VTA scheme is to > not compromise how your > arm > > is mounted. I know this is obvious, but in light > of all of the discussion > > on tonearm release energy (George Merrill's term > for what we've been > > discussing), I thought I'd re-state this. If I > understand your inclined > > plane concept, it's a lot like what we were > talking about in the dialog on > > tensioning the drive belt. In that dialog, I > believe Stan took the ball > and > > ran with my idea of sliding surfaces and coupled > it with a pair of > inclined > > planes. > > We may be thinking along the same lines. As > envisioned, two teflon faced > inclined planes would "face" each other, point > first. They would > interleave, like fingers on right and left hands, > sitting flat on the > plinth. The arm would be mounted to a block with a > "V" shaped bottom, the > "V" conforming to the interleaved wedges' included > angle. Moving the wedges > closer (or further apart) would achieve a balanced > vertical motion, the "V" > block supported on both sides by the wedges. A > screw adjuster would be > fairly simple to implement, and a "rubber band" > return has the virtue of > simplicity. > > This would permit the "block" to be as massive as > you chose and permit > securely mounting the arm without having to make > provision for routine > access to the mounting nut for periodic adjustment. > The consensus that .25" > of useful vertical travel is all that would be > required, thus making this > lashup fairly compact. > > >One consideration regarding VTA is that with the > sliding planes as > > I understand your concept, you'll be changing the > stylus overhang > adjustment > > at the same time, which is a no-no. > > Yes, or, actually, no. Thanks for mentioning it, > though. I thought of this > and dreamed up a registration pin on the > plinth/socket on the bottom of the > wedge assembly dingus to facilitate positioning and > to prevent the > spindle/pivot measurement from wandering (more than > the slop between the pin > and socket.) > > My $0.02. > > Peter C > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: [teres] Record Cleaning Fluid - Laura Dearborn Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 22:09:12 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: Teres_List All, A while back, we were discussing record cleaning formulations. Several folks had requested small amounts of the Triton X-100 wetting agent that I have on hand. I had to buy a large amount of it (8 oz.) and needless to say, I won't use it up in *this* lifetime. I was unable to find the recommended X-114 variant, but they are functionally the same according to a web search I recently performed. My apologies for not getting it out to you, but I haven't had a chance to pick up the bottles to ship it. Since it's so late in the game, I'm planning on packaging the X-100 it safely along with the motor/controller shippment. Here's a quote from p. 277 of Laura Dearbon's book "Good Sound" on record cleaning fluid. Cheers, Thom <<<< begin quoted text >>>> RECORD CLEANING FLUID The safe formula is the same as archival commercial preparations, except that you are mixing it yourself and therefore it costs you a fraction of the price of ready mixed. It can be used for both hand and vacuum cleaning. It is a 25 percent solution of isopropyl alcohol in water, with a drop of surfacant. Ethyl alchol, sometimes applied to records in the form of vodka is more damaging to vinyl than is isopropyl. Use it only in an absolute pinch. Drugstore isopropyl contains too many impurities to qualify it for record cleaning. Use technical or lab-grade isopropyl, which is extremely pure. Reagent grade is unnecessary and far more expensive. Water should be steam distilled, triple de-ionized. Both of these are readily available at a chemical supply house, which should sell them to you in pint and gallon sizes. You also need to add a drop of surficant, or wetting agent, to reduce the surface tension of the water so the formula can penetrate down into the grooves. Very high frequency grooves, in the range of 15 kHz, can be as small as four millionths of an inch, according to Wald Davies of LAST. Though alcohol itself helps somewhat, you still need a wetting agent. Two excellent and safe choices are Triton X-114 from Rohm-Haas and Monolan 2000 from Diamond Shamrock. Both of these are nontoxic - but don't take them internally - and biodegradable. Very importantly, they leave behind no residue on the record. They are harmless in thhese small amounts to record vinyl and, as far as is known, to any of the conceivable by-products and impurities likely to be found in record vinyl. Kodak's Kodaflow is sometimes recommended as a wetting agent. Do *not* use this as it contains chemicals in addition to surfacants that would leave behind residues bad for both record and stylus. Kodak recommends against this application. <<<<< end - quoted text >>>> Subject: [teres] Fw: Rega RB250 and modifications Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:08:07 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: Teres ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hartmut Quaschik" To: "Analogue Addicts" Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Rega RB250 and modifications > > What do you suggest for a globally neutral balance, instead the Rega, for > > the Garrard then? > > The Rega is good enough, if matched with a "lean" or "fast" cartridge, > that I think it is neutral enough then. Cheap Ortofons like MC10 or > MC15 fall into that category. And the Rega can really drive cheap > moving coils. Driving expensive moving coils like Ortofon Rohmann, > I would prefer the Wheaton, because it gives just a class more of > resolution in mid and treble, which it does against the SME V, too. > > To make it clear, the Rega has the same warm balance as an SME V, > but does not sound as artificially restricted damped in that region. > This is why I would prefer the Rega to the V. > > if you don't want to match it on the cartridge side, you can go for > a Naim ARO or some other "fast tonearm". Then you can take e.g. a > Denon 103 and are still quite neutral from tonal balance. > > it is just a matter how much warmth you like. > > regards, > Hartmut > ============================= > To Subscribe/Unsubscribe, send email with the subject: > subscribe (or unsubscribe) analogueaddicts > and NO message in the body to: > analogueaddicts@cableinet.co.uk > (Substitute analogueaddicts-digest if you wish the digest.) > > Analogue Addicts Archive at :- > http://www.analogue-domain.org.uk > http://members.tripod.com/markowitzgd > Subject: Re: [teres] Rega RB250 and modifications Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:18:14 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com All, Thanks for forwarding Hartmut's posts, Peter. Hartmut's appraisal of the RB-250 is no faint praise. For the folks who hopped onto this list after early January, Hartmut was one of the people who indirectly inspired this whole Teres project via his Scheu posts on both AA and the Joe List. Hartmut's comments carry a lot of credibility with me, and I concur with his remarks about the SME V. When I had my V and shifted from a Kiseki Purpleheart Saphire (premature death) to a Linn K-18 cartridge (succumbing to the evils of the Linn cult - Joe S. and Dave at Sounds Like Music in Phoenix), everything just got a bit too bland for my taste. I'd guess that the K-18 was balanced for the relatively bright sounding Akito and Ittok arms. I can think of two reasons for the SME behaving like this with the K-18: a) capacitance in the tonearm wiring b) it has a fairly high-Q bass according to Bob Graham. One of Bob Graham's main criticisms of the SME relates to its high Q bass. When developing his arm, Graham was concerned that it would be harshly judged (in comparison to the SME V) as being too lean because the bass was better damped than that of the V. I can see where the higher Q of of the V might require a leaner (peaky ?) cartridge to compensate for its slight bloat. This raises an interesting question for the folks (i.e. George M.) who are considering a Benz Glider for their OL-RB250's. The Benz to my ears (having heard Ron's on his WTT and Chris B's on his Thorens) seems to come close to a Grado-like lushness while at the same time having an *extroadinarily* harmonically rich bass along with extended highs (to my 49 year old ears). Will it be too lush in the mids when partnered with the OL-RB-250? Beats me. When you get to Colorado in July, I have a friend (Keith Fox) who has a Basis 1400 / Rega RB900 / Benz M0.9 which ought to tell you a lot. The Benz M0.9 is the step up from the Glider, and Keith reports that it has a bit warmer midrange than the Glider. On another note, check Chris' site for the link (off the main page) to his equipment stand project. I'm building the middle two shelves myself. The turntable stand will be 5" square MDF posts filled with concrete - top & bottom double layer MDF plates with a sandbox sitting on top of that and lots of options to experiment with in terms of where to place the air bladders. The equipment stands are sandboxes supported by 1.25" x 3" cherry. Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: phclark To: Teres Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:42 PM Subject: [teres] Fw: Rega RB250 and modifications ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hartmut Quaschik" To: "Analogue Addicts" Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Rega RB250 and modifications > > What do you suggest for a globally neutral balance, instead the Rega, for > > the Garrard then? > > The Rega is good enough, if matched with a "lean" or "fast" cartridge, > that I think it is neutral enough then. Cheap Ortofons like MC10 or > MC15 fall into that category. And the Rega can really drive cheap > moving coils. Driving expensive moving coils like Ortofon Rohmann, > I would prefer the Wheaton, because it gives just a class more of > resolution in mid and treble, which it does against the SME V, too. > > To make it clear, the Rega has the same warm balance as an SME V, > but does not sound as artificially restricted damped in that region. > This is why I would prefer the Rega to the V. > > if you don't want to match it on the cartridge side, you can go for > a Naim ARO or some other "fast tonearm". Then you can take e.g. a > Denon 103 and are still quite neutral from tonal balance. > > it is just a matter how much warmth you like. > > regards, > Hartmut > ============================= > To Subscribe/Unsubscribe, send email with the subject: > subscribe (or unsubscribe) analogueaddicts > and NO message in the body to: > analogueaddicts@cableinet.co.uk > (Substitute analogueaddicts-digest if you wish the digest.) > > Analogue Addicts Archive at :- > http://www.analogue-domain.org.uk > http://members.tripod.com/markowitzgd > Subject: Re: [teres] Re; Teres, Rega RB 250 and Mods Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:40:28 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: teres@aiko.com Hi Michael, Having heard Blair Hansen's BPS (he's off-list, e-mail challenged but is purchasing a Teres), I'd have to agree with the review in The Listener: a cartridge for people who like the sound of digital. Not to be overly harsh, because it's actually quite a decent cartridge, but they preferred the Grado and Dynavector 10x4. For free, I'd *definitely* keep it & use it. Blair says there are three types of Blue Points: (1) the ones whose cantilever snaps when you just think about it, (2) most of the rest, and then (3) a few that are accidentally made too good. Blair had two of category #1 :-( He suspects that his most recent one is from category 3, although he's in love with his Dynavector now. I had the opportunity to plug it into a spare headshell on my Audiocraft unipivot arm (Merrill 'table, highly modded Super It - by Igor). And was pleasantly surprised. I'd say that it's a rock 'n roll / jazz cartridge. Classical music seems to show up slight discontinuities in it's tonal balance which is not noticible on r&r & jazz. Re-read Hartmut's comments about the Rega - I'd say that there's a strong possibility of a synergistic tonal balance between the two. Definitely listen to it. Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Micheal Larosa To: Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:24 PM Subject: [teres] Re; Teres, Rega RB 250 and Mods Does anyone have any opinions on the Sumiko Blue Point Special? A friend gave one to me in trade for some work I did for him a while back. I have been using it in a Kyocera PL-701 for a while.Sounds fine to me but, as I've never really listened to any other MC cartridges I don't really know what I'm hearing. How about pairing this cart up with the OL RB-250? Or should I just blow $300 on a new Grado Woodie and be done with it? Thanks in advance, Mike Subject: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:21:28 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: Teres_List CC: Blair Hansen; Bob Pickwoad(w); Keith Fox All, I'm of the understanding that there are two ways to consider azimuth adjustment: >From a mechanical perspective: Aligining the cantilever so that the stylus is perpindicular to the record groove. >From an electrical perspective: Getting a perfect left/right balance, as viewed for example by a trace on an ocilliscope. Why would using these two methods result in different azimuth settings? I'll discuss MC's but the same holds true for MM's. No cartridge is perfect, and most likely the the coils on the cantilever are not perfectly centered in the magnetic field. Getting them centered, and thus producing an equal L-R trace on a scope means that you'd most likely have to tilt the cartridge in order to physically load the cantilever into a position where the coils are centered in the magnetic field. This cannot be a good thing to do, but I may be wrong. I was reading Bob Graham's white paper & it is his contention that in the area of overhang adjustment, it is critical to reduce even the smallest overhang error - even on a pivoted arm. I had always been of the opinion that getting real close was good enough, and that any minor error merely meant that you were shifting the two null points slightly on the record. Recent twiddling with overhang adjustment and getting it to be absolutely, positively "spot on" substantiates Graham's assertions as well as those of the folks at Tri-Planar with whom Chris was recently talking. If one then takes it for granted that getting the stylus to seat properly in the record groove is of paramount importance over everything else, it would appear to me that getting the mechanical azimuth would take precedence over the electrical azimuth. At one time, I experimented with getting the electrical azimuth adjusted, without the benefit of a scope. I would play a mono record. The left & right phono cables fed into a "Y" interconnect which blended both channels into one, while reversing the phase of one of the channels. The idea was that within the limits of the cartridge's separation, that you've optimized the azimuth (electrically) when the signal coming out of the one channel is weakest (i.e. the greatest cancellation between the two out of phase channels is effected). This did not prove to be a very good tool however, as I noticed that very visible changes in the azimuth hardly resulted in any sonic changes(change in the degree of signal cancellation), and ultimately I gave up on this method. These days, I use the anti-skate track on my Hi Fi News & Record Review test disk. After optimizing the anti-skate, I then fiddle with the azimuth. My reasoning is that the anti-skate adjustment is intended to equalize the pressure against the inner & outer record groove walls and that by getting the azimuth properly adjusted (so the stylus sits "perfectly" in the groove), you'd also be equalizing the pressure on the inner and outer grooves. Comments? Thom Subject: Re: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 02:24:54 -0700 From: Steve Zettel, Steve Zettel To: teres@aiko.com I think you summarize the salient differences in getting an electrical balance (which after all can be compensated for by balance controls) and the optimum mechanical alignment to the record groove. Electrical balance from channel to channel merely compares the absolute magnitude of the signals in each, regardless of how good or poor a representation of the physical groove modulations that happens to be. Mechanical alignment should, I think, have as it's goal the most accurate tracing of the fine undulations of the record's groove. The idea is to wave that little magnet or those little coils (or that little inductor) about in the magnetic field of the cartridge's generator as accurately as possible. > > If one then takes it for granted that getting the stylus to seat properly in > the record groove is of paramount importance over everything else, it would > appear to me that getting the mechanical azimuth would take precedence over > the electrical azimuth. I would agree. > > At one time, I experimented with getting the electrical azimuth adjusted, > without the benefit of a scope. I would play a mono record. The left & > right phono cables fed into a "Y" interconnect which blended both channels > into one, while reversing the phase of one of the channels. The idea was > that within the limits of the cartridge's separation, that you've optimized > the azimuth (electrically) when the signal coming out of the one channel is > weakest (i.e. the greatest cancellation between the two out of phase > channels is effected). This did not prove to be a very good tool however, > as I noticed that very visible changes in the azimuth hardly resulted in any > sonic changes(change in the degree of signal cancellation), and ultimately I > gave up on this method. Ditto. > > These days, I use the anti-skate track on my Hi Fi News & Record Review > test disk. After optimizing the anti-skate, I then fiddle with the azimuth. > My reasoning is that the anti-skate adjustment is intended to equalize the > pressure against the inner & outer record groove walls and that by getting > the azimuth properly adjusted (so the stylus sits "perfectly" in the > groove), you'd also be equalizing the pressure on the inner and outer > grooves. > > Comments? > I wonder if you would care to elaborate in more detail just how you go about optimizing the antiskate with the HFN&RR LP? How do you decide when it is optimum? Next, what are you looking for, what are your criteria and desired outcome for "fiddling with the azimuth"? I ask not to be argumentative, but out of genuine curiosity. In a case of synchronicity, Thom, you bring this up just as I am struggling to optimize the setting of my phono cartridge, using the same HFN&RR LP. Though I would rate the overall performance of my Sigma as outstanding, I noted that on several heavily modulated LPs I experience mistracking that surprised me. Starting over at square one in my setup procedure, I have triple-checked and eliminated most everything I can think of other than azimuth adjustments (not easily accomplished in the fixed-headshell Rega RB-300). I'd be interested in you, and other Teres members thoughts. Thanks, Steve Z near Libby, MT Subject: RE: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:00:02 -0700 From: Schei, Kenneth, Schei, Kenneth To: 'teres@aiko.com' CC: Blair Hansen; Bob Pickwoad(w); Keith Fox Thom: I agree that the mechanical azimuth alignment would seem to be the most important. My understanding is that we want our stylus to match the geometry of the original cutting stylus as closely as possible. Misalignment of coils (or magnets) is an unfortunate result of the impossibility to achieve perfection and hopefully is rather modest in megabuck cartridges. I think alignment by audible nulling only guarantees that the amplitude of each channel is matched, which may not give satisfactory results. Another potential problem with nulling is that you're nulling the whole system, not just the cartridge. If mismatched amplitude were the only misalignment problem, it could be alleviated by the balance control (if you have one). As you know, my system doesn't have a balance control, it being sacraficed to the "KISS" principle. I balance the system by reversing tubes from one channel to the other, which is reasonably effective. It would probably drive Igor crazy, he who would like to adjust the balance (and azimuth) from the listening position. :>) The overhang alignment is interesting. I'm not sure I understand why it has to be better than "reasonably close" either. Cheers, Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella [SMTP:tmackris@earthlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 12:58 AM > To: Teres_List > Cc: Blair Hansen; Bob Pickwoad(w); Keith Fox > Subject: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment > > All, > > I'm of the understanding that there are two ways to consider azimuth > adjustment: > > From a mechanical perspective: Aligining the cantilever so that the > stylus is perpindicular to the record groove. > From an electrical perspective: Getting a perfect left/right balance, as > viewed for example by a trace on an ocilliscope. > > Why would using these two methods result in different azimuth settings? > I'll discuss MC's but the same holds true for MM's. No cartridge is > perfect, > and most likely the the coils on the cantilever are not perfectly centered > in the magnetic field. Getting them centered, and thus producing an equal > L-R trace on a scope means that you'd most likely have to tilt the > cartridge > in order to physically load the cantilever into a position where the coils > are centered in the magnetic field. This cannot be a good thing to do, > but > I may be wrong. > > I was reading Bob Graham's white paper & it is his contention that in the > area of overhang adjustment, it is critical to reduce even the smallest > overhang error - even on a pivoted arm. I had always been of the opinion > that getting real close was good enough, and that any minor error merely > meant that you were shifting the two null points slightly on the record. > Recent twiddling with overhang adjustment and getting it to be absolutely, > positively "spot on" substantiates Graham's assertions as well as those of > the folks at Tri-Planar with whom Chris was recently talking. > > If one then takes it for granted that getting the stylus to seat properly > in > the record groove is of paramount importance over everything else, it > would > appear to me that getting the mechanical azimuth would take precedence > over > the electrical azimuth. > > At one time, I experimented with getting the electrical azimuth adjusted, > without the benefit of a scope. I would play a mono record. The left & > right phono cables fed into a "Y" interconnect which blended both channels > into one, while reversing the phase of one of the channels. The idea was > that within the limits of the cartridge's separation, that you've > optimized > the azimuth (electrically) when the signal coming out of the one channel > is > weakest (i.e. the greatest cancellation between the two out of phase > channels is effected). This did not prove to be a very good tool however, > as I noticed that very visible changes in the azimuth hardly resulted in > any > sonic changes(change in the degree of signal cancellation), and ultimately > I > gave up on this method. > > These days, I use the anti-skate track on my Hi Fi News & Record Review > test disk. After optimizing the anti-skate, I then fiddle with the > azimuth. > My reasoning is that the anti-skate adjustment is intended to equalize the > pressure against the inner & outer record groove walls and that by getting > the azimuth properly adjusted (so the stylus sits "perfectly" in the > groove), you'd also be equalizing the pressure on the inner and outer > grooves. > > Comments? > > Thom > Subject: Re: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:56:43 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com CC: Bob Pickwoad(w); Blair Hansen Hi Steve, A note for those of you who don't have the HFN&RR LP. There are four anti-skate adjustment tracks on this record, each one with progressive levels of sensitivity or "magnification". These tracks create a buzzing distortion sound. When your anti-skate is off, a channel imbalance is heard through your speakers. The object of the game is to balance this sound heard through your speakers by changing the anti-skating force adjustment on your arm. As you dial the anti-skate in the using the "easiest" track, you proceed to the next level of "magnification" and repeat the process. You continue to the third and finally the fourth track. Due to the mechanical limits of phono cartridges, it's understood that you won't get perfection when using the fourth track. It would seem to me that after one dials in the anti-skate, that proceding to use these tracks to optimize azimuth (on arms with such an adjustment) would be beneficial. My thinking here is that the imbalanced buzzing sound heard as you're setting up the anti-skate is a result of a bias toward one side of the record groove or the other. I would expect a similar imbalance to result from a stylus which deviates from being perpindicular to the record groove. As I write this, it occurs to me that since the HFN&RR LP is measuring output (channel balance), that this is actually an electrical anti-skate (& azimuth) we're talking about and not a mechanical anti-skate and azimuth adjustment. I would guess that the only thing you could do to improve on this would be to chill out and listen to your records for a while after getting it dialed in. When you hear some mistracking or inner groove distortion on a particular record, take note of your anti-skate setting (so you can return to your starting point) and adjust it slightly for more or less force and see if you hear an improvement. I would guess that you'd do the same for azimuth if you're lucky (unlucky?) enough to have such an adjustment. Does this make sense? Am I missing something? Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Zettel Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 2:19 AM Subject: Re: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment [snip] I wonder if you would care to elaborate in more detail just how you go about optimizing the antiskate with the HFN&RR LP? How do you decide when it is optimum? Next, what are you looking for, what are your criteria and desired outcome for "fiddling with the azimuth"? I ask not to be argumentative, but out of genuine curiosity. In a case of synchronicity, Thom, you bring this up just as I am struggling to optimize the setting of my phono cartridge, using the same HFN&RR LP. Though I would rate the overall performance of my Sigma as outstanding, I noted that on several heavily modulated LPs I experience mistracking that surprised me. Starting over at square one in my setup procedure, I have triple-checked and eliminated most everything I can think of other than azimuth adjustments (not easily accomplished in the fixed-headshell Rega RB-300). I'd be interested in you, and other Teres members thoughts. Thanks, Steve Z near Libby, MT Subject: RE: Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:19:11 -0700 From: Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123), Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123) To: 'Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella'; Teres_List CC: Blair Hansen; Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123); Keith Fox Thom, Of course, I'm no expert in this matter, but my feelings are that the Azimuth setup should be done mechanically. Yes, there are probably minor differences in coil positions,but I have to wonder just "how" different these may be. In my opinion, the mechanical setup will allow for a baseline and any other anomalies in the construction of the pickup will not be great enough to provide a significant effect. In keeping with your other post regarding anti-skate, maladjustment of this will contribute more in that it will cause a tilt between the stylus/cantilever that will more than make up for a proper mechanical alignment. Actually, I've never quite "gotten" in with the antiskate deal. So many different ways to set or monitor this, and of course the speed of the record rotation and it's position on the disk will cause a variance unless, of course, the anti-skate mechanism compensates for this. As you know, my Stax arm uses a little cantelevered weight assembly, but I've never really analyzed it to see if it compensates for the difference between the inner and outer grooves. What I've been doing is setting the stylus down in the center of the rotating record and then adjusting the weight so that I cannot detect any "lean" one way or the other. Pretty crude, but it works for me (I think). That test record you have sounds very interesting...what's the possibility of copying it onto a CD? Bob -----Original Message----- From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella [mailto:tmackris@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:58 PM To: Teres_List Cc: Blair Hansen; Bob Pickwoad(w); Keith Fox Subject: Azimuth Adjustment All, I'm of the understanding that there are two ways to consider azimuth adjustment: >From a mechanical perspective: Aligining the cantilever so that the stylus is perpindicular to the record groove. >From an electrical perspective: Getting a perfect left/right balance, as viewed for example by a trace on an ocilliscope. Why would using these two methods result in different azimuth settings? I'll discuss MC's but the same holds true for MM's. No cartridge is perfect, and most likely the the coils on the cantilever are not perfectly centered in the magnetic field. Getting them centered, and thus producing an equal L-R trace on a scope means that you'd most likely have to tilt the cartridge in order to physically load the cantilever into a position where the coils are centered in the magnetic field. This cannot be a good thing to do, but I may be wrong. I was reading Bob Graham's white paper & it is his contention that in the area of overhang adjustment, it is critical to reduce even the smallest overhang error - even on a pivoted arm. I had always been of the opinion that getting real close was good enough, and that any minor error merely meant that you were shifting the two null points slightly on the record. Recent twiddling with overhang adjustment and getting it to be absolutely, positively "spot on" substantiates Graham's assertions as well as those of the folks at Tri-Planar with whom Chris was recently talking. If one then takes it for granted that getting the stylus to seat properly in the record groove is of paramount importance over everything else, it would appear to me that getting the mechanical azimuth would take precedence over the electrical azimuth. At one time, I experimented with getting the electrical azimuth adjusted, without the benefit of a scope. I would play a mono record. The left & right phono cables fed into a "Y" interconnect which blended both channels into one, while reversing the phase of one of the channels. The idea was that within the limits of the cartridge's separation, that you've optimized the azimuth (electrically) when the signal coming out of the one channel is weakest (i.e. the greatest cancellation between the two out of phase channels is effected). This did not prove to be a very good tool however, as I noticed that very visible changes in the azimuth hardly resulted in any sonic changes(change in the degree of signal cancellation), and ultimately I gave up on this method. These days, I use the anti-skate track on my Hi Fi News & Record Review test disk. After optimizing the anti-skate, I then fiddle with the azimuth. My reasoning is that the anti-skate adjustment is intended to equalize the pressure against the inner & outer record groove walls and that by getting the azimuth properly adjusted (so the stylus sits "perfectly" in the groove), you'd also be equalizing the pressure on the inner and outer grooves. Comments? Thom Subject: [teres] RE: Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:19:57 -0700 From: Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123), Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123) To: 'Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella'; Teres_List CC: Blair Hansen; Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123); Keith Fox Thom, Of course, I'm no expert in this matter, but my feelings are that the Azimuth setup should be done mechanically. Yes, there are probably minor differences in coil positions,but I have to wonder just "how" different these may be. In my opinion, the mechanical setup will allow for a baseline and any other anomalies in the construction of the pickup will not be great enough to provide a significant effect. In keeping with your other post regarding anti-skate, maladjustment of this will contribute more in that it will cause a tilt between the stylus/cantilever that will more than make up for a proper mechanical alignment. Actually, I've never quite "gotten" in with the antiskate deal. So many different ways to set or monitor this, and of course the speed of the record rotation and it's position on the disk will cause a variance unless, of course, the anti-skate mechanism compensates for this. As you know, my Stax arm uses a little cantelevered weight assembly, but I've never really analyzed it to see if it compensates for the difference between the inner and outer grooves. What I've been doing is setting the stylus down in the center of the rotating record and then adjusting the weight so that I cannot detect any "lean" one way or the other. Pretty crude, but it works for me (I think). That test record you have sounds very interesting...what's the possibility of copying it onto a CD? Bob -----Original Message----- From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella [mailto:tmackris@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:58 PM To: Teres_List Cc: Blair Hansen; Bob Pickwoad(w); Keith Fox Subject: Azimuth Adjustment All, I'm of the understanding that there are two ways to consider azimuth adjustment: >From a mechanical perspective: Aligining the cantilever so that the stylus is perpindicular to the record groove. >From an electrical perspective: Getting a perfect left/right balance, as viewed for example by a trace on an ocilliscope. Why would using these two methods result in different azimuth settings? I'll discuss MC's but the same holds true for MM's. No cartridge is perfect, and most likely the the coils on the cantilever are not perfectly centered in the magnetic field. Getting them centered, and thus producing an equal L-R trace on a scope means that you'd most likely have to tilt the cartridge in order to physically load the cantilever into a position where the coils are centered in the magnetic field. This cannot be a good thing to do, but I may be wrong. I was reading Bob Graham's white paper & it is his contention that in the area of overhang adjustment, it is critical to reduce even the smallest overhang error - even on a pivoted arm. I had always been of the opinion that getting real close was good enough, and that any minor error merely meant that you were shifting the two null points slightly on the record. Recent twiddling with overhang adjustment and getting it to be absolutely, positively "spot on" substantiates Graham's assertions as well as those of the folks at Tri-Planar with whom Chris was recently talking. If one then takes it for granted that getting the stylus to seat properly in the record groove is of paramount importance over everything else, it would appear to me that getting the mechanical azimuth would take precedence over the electrical azimuth. At one time, I experimented with getting the electrical azimuth adjusted, without the benefit of a scope. I would play a mono record. The left & right phono cables fed into a "Y" interconnect which blended both channels into one, while reversing the phase of one of the channels. The idea was that within the limits of the cartridge's separation, that you've optimized the azimuth (electrically) when the signal coming out of the one channel is weakest (i.e. the greatest cancellation between the two out of phase channels is effected). This did not prove to be a very good tool however, as I noticed that very visible changes in the azimuth hardly resulted in any sonic changes(change in the degree of signal cancellation), and ultimately I gave up on this method. These days, I use the anti-skate track on my Hi Fi News & Record Review test disk. After optimizing the anti-skate, I then fiddle with the azimuth. My reasoning is that the anti-skate adjustment is intended to equalize the pressure against the inner & outer record groove walls and that by getting the azimuth properly adjusted (so the stylus sits "perfectly" in the groove), you'd also be equalizing the pressure on the inner and outer grooves. Comments? Thom Subject: Re: [teres] RE: Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:34:31 -0700 From: Roscoe Primrose, Roscoe Primrose To: teres@aiko.com "Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123)" wrote: > > Thom, > > Of course, I'm no expert in this matter, but my feelings are that the > Azimuth setup should be done mechanically. Yes, there are probably minor > differences in coil positions,but I have to wonder just "how" different > these may be. In my opinion, the mechanical setup will allow for a baseline > and any other anomalies in the construction of the pickup will not be great > enough to provide a significant effect. > Any differences is coil position should (in a properly designed MC) have a trivial effect on channel balance. The magnatic field that the coil sits in should be fairly (ideally completely) uniform throughout the possible range of motion of the coils if the output it to remain linear. If the magnetic field were completely uniform (which it obvously can't be since it was man-made) then the at-rest position of the coils would make no difference on the channel balance, the output would depend soley on the winding balance between the coils and whether or not they both moved the same ammount. Peace -- Roscoe Primrose -- mailto:roscoe@aiko.com -- http://www.aiko.com/roscoe "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right." Robert Hunter "640K ought to be enough for anybody" , Bill Gates, 1981 Subject: [teres] RE: Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:44:19 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: Teres_List >From my off-list, Merrill owining buddy Bob Pickwoad in Phoenix, who I copied on this post. It seems as if we're all "leaning" toward getting the azimuth mechanically correct rather than electrically. Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123) Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:19 AM Subject: [teres] RE: Azimuth Adjustment Thom, Of course, I'm no expert in this matter, but my feelings are that the Azimuth setup should be done mechanically. Yes, there are probably minor differences in coil positions,but I have to wonder just "how" different these may be. In my opinion, the mechanical setup will allow for a baseline and any other anomalies in the construction of the pickup will not be great enough to provide a significant effect. In keeping with your other post regarding anti-skate, maladjustment of this will contribute more in that it will cause a tilt between the stylus/cantilever that will more than make up for a proper mechanical alignment. Actually, I've never quite "gotten" in with the antiskate deal. So many different ways to set or monitor this, and of course the speed of the record rotation and it's position on the disk will cause a variance unless, of course, the anti-skate mechanism compensates for this. As you know, my Stax arm uses a little cantelevered weight assembly, but I've never really analyzed it to see if it compensates for the difference between the inner and outer grooves. What I've been doing is setting the stylus down in the center of the rotating record and then adjusting the weight so that I cannot detect any "lean" one way or the other. Pretty crude, but it works for me (I think). That test record you have sounds very interesting...what's the possibility of copying it onto a CD? Bob Subject: Re: [teres] RE: Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:33:36 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com CC: Blair Hansen; Keith Fox; Bob Pickwoad(w) Thanks, Roscoe - For someone who is weak in magnetics (me), your comments come as good news and serve as further validation that the mechanical approach is the correct one. Even more importantly, optimizing electrically (with a scope, or whatever) will give you substantially the same results. Cheers, Thom PS all of this Afro-Pop talk got me to pull out my Hamza El Dim album last night (Mickey Hart is on it & Dan Healey recorded it). ----- Original Message ----- From: Roscoe Primrose To: Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [teres] RE: Azimuth Adjustment "Pickwoad, Robert (Z75123)" wrote: > > Thom, > > Of course, I'm no expert in this matter, but my feelings are that the > Azimuth setup should be done mechanically. Yes, there are probably minor > differences in coil positions,but I have to wonder just "how" different > these may be. In my opinion, the mechanical setup will allow for a baseline > and any other anomalies in the construction of the pickup will not be great > enough to provide a significant effect. > Any differences is coil position should (in a properly designed MC) have a trivial effect on channel balance. The magnetic field that the coil sits in should be fairly (ideally completely) uniform throughout the possible range of motion of the coils if the output it to remain linear. If the magnetic field were completely uniform (which it obvously can't be since it was man-made) then the at-rest position of the coils would make no difference on the channel balance, the output would depend soley on the winding balance between the coils and whether or not they both moved the same amount. Peace -- Roscoe Primrose -- mailto:roscoe@aiko.com -- http://www.aiko.com/roscoe "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right." Robert Hunter "640K ought to be enough for anybody" , Bill Gates, 1981 Subject: [teres] Re: Arms and anti skate Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:23:37 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: Teres_List; Stewart Ono Good points, Stu. Another reason to do this by ear (as opposed to sighting down the cantilever) is that there's no guarantee that the stylus is pressed into the cantilever perfectly. Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart Ono To: Thom Mackris Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:58 AM Subject: Arms and anti skate Thom: [snip] As for azimuth, I adjust azimuth after aligning my arm with a Dennesen protractor and setting VTF. I use the ear method, which sometimes means you'll have to readjust azimuth after the cartridge breaks in. I adjust azimuth by playing a mono lp and carefully listening to each speaker from about a 12" away. I adjust till the speakers sound identical: identically bad or good. I then adjust vertical tracking height and repeat the process. You can visually verify a lot on a MC by carefully sighting down the front. Generally most MC's require that the cantilever be centered within the pole piece. This is generally most affected by tracking force, however. A mechanical azimuth alignment seems to be compounded by the fact that you can really see the stylus tip; maybe with a really bright light and a jeweler's loupe, this may be possible, but I have yet to be successful. Stu Subject: Re: [teres] Re: Arms and tracking force Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:03:03 -0700 From: Alexander Lee, Alexander Lee To: teres@aiko.com Hi Thom, Good information Thom & Stewart. A valuable experience that I acquired thru the years on setting up cartridges is tracking force. I honestly think that tracking force should be set before VTA, azimuth and antiskating force. And there is such a thing as optimum tracking force within the range given by the manufacturer. If one is to observe how the suspension of a cartridge tracks the 1st band of an LP from very close distance, you will definitely see either #1 - the cantilever flexing up and down/cartridge body not moving one bit, #2 - the body of cartridge as well as the cantilever moving up and down in concert(or sometime preferably cantilever flexing a little bit more than the cartridge body) or #3 - the cantilever flexing/moving a lot less than the body of the cartridge . If tracking force is on the high side within range, generally you will see cantilever moving but not the body. Vice versa if the tracking force is on the light side within range, you will see cantilever moving less than the body of the cartridge. It is only under optimum tracking force (as observation $2) that you will see the suspension of the cartridge performing its magic. Only after an optimum tracking force is selected then we will start doing VTA, azimuth and anti-skate. And of course the offset angle and overhang must be set before dialing in the tracking force. Alexander Lee --- Thom Mackris wrote: > Good points, Stu. Another reason to do this by ear (as opposed to sighting > down the cantilever) is that there's no guarantee that the stylus is pressed > into the cantilever perfectly. > > Cheers, > Thom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stewart Ono > To: Thom Mackris > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:58 AM > Subject: Arms and anti skate > > > Thom: > > [snip] > > As for azimuth, I adjust azimuth after aligning my arm with a Dennesen > protractor and setting VTF. I use the ear method, which sometimes means > you'll have to readjust azimuth after the cartridge breaks in. I adjust > azimuth by playing a mono lp and carefully listening to each speaker from > about a 12" away. I adjust till the speakers sound identical: identically > bad or good. I then adjust vertical tracking height and repeat the process. > You can visually verify a lot on a MC by carefully sighting down the front. > Generally most MC's require that the cantilever be centered within the pole > piece. This is generally most affected by tracking force, however. A > mechanical azimuth alignment seems to be compounded by the fact that you can > really see the stylus tip; maybe with a really bright light and a jeweler's > loupe, this may be possible, but I have yet to be successful. > > > Stu > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ Subject: Re: [teres] Azimuth Adjustment Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:20:51 -0700 From: Steve Zettel, Steve Zettel To: teres@aiko.com on 6/1/00 08:55, Thom Mackris at thom_mackris@hotmail.com wrote: > Hi Steve, > > A note for those of you who don't have the HFN&RR LP. There are four > anti-skate adjustment tracks on this record, each one with progressive > levels of sensitivity or "magnification". These tracks create a buzzing > distortion sound. When your anti-skate is off, a channel imbalance is > heard through your speakers. The object of the game is to balance this > sound heard through your speakers by changing the anti-skating force > adjustment on your arm. > > As you dial the anti-skate in the using the "easiest" track, you proceed to > the next level of "magnification" and repeat the process. You continue to > the third and finally the fourth track. Due to the mechanical limits of > phono cartridges, it's understood that you won't get perfection when using > the fourth track. > > It would seem to me that after one dials in the anti-skate, that proceding > to use these tracks to optimize azimuth (on arms with such an adjustment) > would be beneficial. My thinking here is that the imbalanced buzzing sound > heard as you're setting up the anti-skate is a result of a bias toward one > side of the record groove or the other. I would expect a similar imbalance > to result from a stylus which deviates from being perpindicular to the > record groove. > > As I write this, it occurs to me that since the HFN&RR LP is measuring > output (channel balance), that this is actually an electrical anti-skate (& > azimuth) we're talking about and not a mechanical anti-skate and azimuth > adjustment. I don't think so -- the change in channel balance or output is a manifestation of the stylus being in greater contact with one side of the groove than the other, due to mechanical (tracing and antiskate) considerations. The buzzing likewise is mistracking of the two-tone test signal in one or both channels as the stylus/cantilever/suspension and arm system reaches it's limit of ability to maintain the stylus in full contact with the surface of the highly modulated groove (each band is cut at a +2dB higher level, starting with +12db for the first band). So my take on this is that the record is a guage of mechanical tracking or antiskate setting that uses some resulting electrical balance and audible cues as indicators. Besides being used as a way to set antiskate, this series of bands can be used to check for overall set-up QA and tracking ability, and was used in the past as a sort of "figure of merit" by audio reviewers of the Stereo Review persuasion, as in, "The Shure V15 MK IV was the only cartridge to cleanly track band four of the HFN&RR torture test." > I would guess that the only thing you could do to improve on > this would be to chill out and listen to your records for a while after > getting it dialed in. When you hear some mistracking or inner groove > distortion on a particular record, take note of your anti-skate setting (so > you can return to your starting point) and adjust it slightly for more or > less force and see if you hear an improvement. (Tongue firmly in cheek) I could copy the settings onto a card tucked into each record's jacket, along with info like what thickness mat specific to that LP, and where the record should be statically indexed on the table when cuing up. . . > I would guess that you'd do > the same for azimuth if you're lucky (unlucky?) enough to have such an > adjustment. Then again, I could just find a used ET2 or Air Tangent arm and render some of this moot! > > Does this make sense? Am I missing something? Well, I still think the HFN&RR LP is a mechanical vs electrical setup tool, but I appreciate this, and all of the other discussion so far. Thanks! Steve Z near Libby, MT USA Subject: Rega Dimensions Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:24:36 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: Igor Kuznetsoff Igor, I unboxed Blair's Rega. Here are the critical dimensions. Diameter of threaded center stub which passes through the armboard: .901" (must be .900 ?) Length of Stub: 1.25" almost all of it is threaded with the exception of perhaps the top .2" Diameter of the flange at the top of the stub: 1.355" I'll try to measure the Merrill clamp tomorrow. We put the house on the market & things have been slightly mad. Shipping the Regas is just one minor complication I don't need at the moment. I'm trying to (slowly) get back in shape. I'm squeezing in a couple of bike rides and a couple of runs a week. It's beginning to pay dividends but is hell on my schedule. No one promised me it would be easy. Off to beddy bye ... Thom Subject: [teres] VTA Bases Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:31:03 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com There are several VTA adjusters that the group has been looking into. 1) Kal Rubinson had designed his own. I can't dig up the dialog on this at the moment. 2) Origin Live has one http://www.originlive.com/index.htm 3) Gyrodec makes a very nice one *if* you have easy access to the underside of your armboard. http://www.artech-electronics.com/ (note the USA & Canada selections - prices reflect the particular currency, so click the appropriate one) 4) Express machining is reported to be coming out with one http://www.expressmachining.com/ 5) Igor is working on an integrated armboard/VTA base Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: George Powell To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [teres] dimension dementia What this on a "VTA adjuster"? >From: "Anya & Fred Humphrey" >Reply-To: teres@aiko.com >To: >Subject: [teres] dimension dementia >Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:13:16 -0400 > >Thom, Chris and group >Those pictures look great. I'm starting construction on my own chassis >which >will be a skeletal aluminum T-bar affair. But I need some dimensions and I >can't even find the ones I thought I had. Specifically: > 1) what's the ideal size mounting hole for the bearing? > 2) taking into account the bearing flange and how the spindle >sits in the bearing, what will be the total clearance between chassis >and platter? > 3) is the platter's proposed >thickness still 2 15/16s? > 4) does anyone know if the Rega arm base should be >about an inch below the platter? >Thanks in advance. By the way, if you haven't bought your VTA adjuster yet, >check out the Incognito in the June HiFi+. >Fred > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Subject: Re: [teres] Cartridges Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:28:51 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com Joel, Igor (a highly esteemed member of our group) has attained fine sound in his current 'table with a Shure and a highly modded Moscode Super It phono stage. Check out Origin Live's website ( http://www.originlive.com/index.htm ) for the reasons a dozen of the Teres group have chosen the RB250 (modded by Origin) over the RB300. Certainly both arms are a great value, but if starting from scratch, the RB250 must be considered as a viable (perhaps better, according to them) alternative. Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Valder To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [teres] Cartridges > If tracking is that important, then you probably do want a > good moving magnet. The Shure V15MXR-V is actually very > highly regarded. Grant speaks the truth. The problem with most current reviews of this cartridge is that the reviewers don't seem to take it seriously, so they don't put it on their highest-end rigs. I know 2 people who use them on their fully-loaded Linn LP12's as their reference cartridge (not that this necessarily means anything, but one of 'em was a regular reviewer for Stereophile), and they rave about them. I bought one and it's SUPER quiet and full sounding. It's a great cartridge! It does not have that "crisper than real life" sound that a lot of MC's do. I previously had a Grado reference platinum, which was a terrible match with my slightly chatter-y tonearm (I have a suspended, heavy platter, semi-high-end Yamaha belt drive table from the mid-80's)... I have heard good things about the Denon that Manfred mentioned, and that's pretty cheap, but for another $100, ($200 total), I think the V15MXR-V is the way to go. To quote one of the Linn/Shure owners, "real men use moving magnets!" Are you using the RB-250 on the Teres table? I am hoping to build mine with an RB-300, so I'm interested in how that works out for you. Joel Subject: Re: [teres] Cartridges Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:36:53 -0700 From: Stephen Tag, Stephen Tag To: teres@aiko.com I have the Dynavector in my Morch on my Merrill, and I'm VERY happy with it. It presents a great combination of warmth, body, detail, musicality, emotion, and value. Seems like the best of MM and MC worlds at a realistic price. Very highly recommended. I'm very envious of you guys who are now getting your platters; I got in too late for that part of the order. I've got the Rega 250 origin, it looks great; and I'm in on the motor order. I'm really hoping that a spare or unwanted platter and bearing becomes available somehow, or that a second run could happen. You guys must be pysched!! Steve Tag rockdoc@nantucket.net -----Original Message----- From: Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [teres] Cartridges >Blair Hansen reports excellent results (agreeing with The Listener review) >with his Dynavector 10 x 2 (list $325, but available through the web at ~ >$275). A good compliance match for a Rega (unlike the Shure which matches >up with light mass arms). It's supposed to be much quieter in the grooves >than the Grados. I have yet to hear Blair's cartridge. > >You're also probably aware of the Denon DL-103 series of cartridges which >have quite a following in the Joe List community. Art Dudly (The Listener) >favorably compares this with his Lyra Lydian Beta. > >I'm not familiar with the Benz's in this price range, but am a big fan of >their pricier cartridges. Perhaps you can hear one of those as well as >Clearaudio's offering. > >Cheers, >Thom > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Daus Studenberg >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 12:50 AM >Subject: Re: [teres] Teres Bearing Filling Procedure > > >Hi Terresists! > >I too am finally back after a camping trip. I was out in the North Georgia >wilderness... haven't had such a fun outdoor experience since my scouting >days! Anyway, I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of my platter as well. >So anxious, that I ordered a copy of the Classics Records reissue of >Stravinsky's "Firebird Suite". > >Anyway, I managed to catch up a little on the discussion of the bearing and >the air pockets. I think that just playing around with it like Chris did >over time should do a fine job. If you really want to speed up the process, >I think putting the bearing in a vacuum chamber should do the job as all the >air will be evacuated from the bearing. Just keep a clamp on it to prevent >it from shooting out during evacuation. > >On a somewhat related note, I presume a lot of us will be using an RB-250, >300, etc... I was going to buy a Shure V15MXR-V but I have been told >repeatedly to just avoid it because it was dull sounding. I want the BEST >tracker I can find..along with having a great match with the Rega arm (i.e. >no mechanical resonance problems with compliance etc.. ). I have had my >eyes on the Audio Technica OC9-ML. Does anyone have a suggestion...based on >their experiences...on a good budget (less than 300 bucks.) cartridge for a >RB-250??? BTW, Grados prestige series are out of the question, I have a >blue and do not like its poor shielding. the wood bodies are an option >though.. > >Thanks...can't wait to build this! > >Daus > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Igor Kuznetsoff >To: >Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:35 PM >Subject: Re: [teres] Teres Bearing Filling Procedure > > >> Chris, >> I am in agreement with you about forcing out >> as much of the trapped air as possible. Had, in fact >> thought just this through this way originally. >> Fortunately, I believe that (reasonably small >> quantities of) air will easily work themselves out in >> short order, to be replaced by a very small amount of >> the oil from the rebated upper section sump. Not that >> I am in disagreement about using pressure to force the >> air out - I have thought all along that that is the >> best way to do that. The problem is not with the >> *a*-ssembly of the bearing, but, as I have maintained >> all along, the difficulties will be with the >> *dis*-assembly of the unit. You will recall that I >> had said that gravity, a little time, and the weight >> of the platter (perhaps with a little assist) are all >> on our side during insertion. The problem will come >> when *removal* is needed. Gravity & time will *not* >> be on our side then! Just imagine attempting to >> s-s-s-s-s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w-w-w-w-w-w-l-y >> extract the spindle by muscle power for a few hours or >> more. Mechanical leverage would be extremely >> inadvisable, as it could distort/damage the spindle >> shoulder! The only safe way to remove the spindle will >> be with minimal pressure spread out over time. And >> how are we going to effect that easily & practically? >> A pressure relief would *not* preclude >> evacuating the air as you suggest, but, rather, just >> make the operation somewhat neater, by eliminating the >> need to meter such a precise amount of oil at the >> start of the operation, and reduce the amount of >> excess spilled over the top at completion. By closing >> the relief at the beginning of the insertion, and >> following your procedure as outlined until the oil >> reaches the top, air will be evacuated. Then the >> relief can be opened, and the excess oil released. >> That's the slower way, but it can be performed with >> the bearing installed in the chassis, so long as there >> is access to the bottom of the bearing. Alternately, >> both parts can be pre-oiled to protect them, oil >> placed in the bearing, and the spindle inserted just >> far enough so that no oil will spill when the entire >> assembly is turned upside down. Then the relief can >> be opened, and the spindle pushed in, *easily*, until >> all the air is forced out, the spindle seats, & the >> excess oil is pushed out. Just like a doctor would do >> with a hypodermic, which is, essentially the same >> shape, if you think about it, and for exactly the same >> reasons - to remove all the air in the hypo. This way >> would be much faster, but requires either that the >> assembly not be mounted in the chassis, or that the >> whole shebang could be turned upside down, which could >> be impractical after the 'table becomes a working >> entity. >> Removal, OTOH, would be an entirely >> different oil game with the relief. Simply open the >> relief & pull the spindle out. In seconds. >> Otherwise, I fear assembly may well, for all intents, >> purposes & practicality, become essentially permanent. >> >> Igor >> >> >> --- Chris Brady wrote: >> > Igor Kuznetsoff wrote: >> > > >> > > Most impressive machine work. I look forward to >> > the >> > > superb freedom from FM modulation that this should >> > > give. I am concerned about the difficulty of >> > > disassembling the bearing in order to try >> > different >> > > oils, for instance, though. Perhaps the pressure >> > > relief I advocated early on is still a good idea?? >> > Is >> > > it too late to add a small drill through from the >> > > bottom of the bearing well to the drilled area >> > meant >> > > to accommodate a cone thread, at the bottom of the >> > > bearing? The installed cone, or, alternately, a >> > > threaded plug would easily then seal the relief. >> > > I suppose I could take a run at it by hand, but >> > this >> > > would be very risky that way, with none of the >> > nice >> > > hold-down equipment a machine shop is equipped >> > with. >> > > I would hate to miss the target area at the edge >> > of >> > > the well recess, and maybe hit the area the ball >> > sits >> > > on! >> > >> > While a pressure relief hole would make assembly >> > much easier >> > it solves only part of the problem. I think that we >> > want >> > to insure that all of the cavities in the bearing >> > are filled >> > with oil. If we put in a pressure relief hole we are >> > more likely >> > to vent oil than air. So we end up with a lot of >> > air in the bearing >> > rather than the oil sump that was envisioned. >> > >> > I don't think that this will be a problem, it just >> > will take a little >> > extra time and care when assembling. Bryce had no >> > difficulty >> > assembling a bearing with 50 weight oil. >> > >> > Chris >> > >> > Chris >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! >> http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > Subject: Re: [teres]Arm questions Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:11:38 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com Hi Alex, Steve Zettel says 222 mm from the center of the spindle to the center of the arm hole is the correct distance and *not* the 220 mm that Origin Live specifies. Did you receive any VTA adjustment shims with your arm? The arm that Blair Hansen received has no shims. I'm a bit puzzled. On a related note, an arm mounting plane (armboard) approximately 1" below the platter surface seems to be fine for the Rega. I re-checked my Merrill and found the arm mounting area to be approx. 1-7/8" below the platter surface. This works just fine with my Audiocraft arm and with the Linn arm I had previously mounted on it. As matter of fact, I have only about 1/3" downward adjustment on the arm which means that the highest my armboard could possibly be is about 1.5" below the platter surface. Because I have a ton of upward adjustment on my arm, I'm going to start off using only the 7/8" high armboard without the additional arm pillar which Chris designed for the purpose of getting to 1" below the platter. This will put the armboard approximately 2" below the platter surface. Chris' Triplanar works with the 1" setting. It would appear that there are two standards for the height of the arm mounting area: 1" below and 2" below. Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Mitaru To: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [teres]Arm questions hi guys, just received my arm from Origin Live, though I'm a bit disappointed that there are no instructions on how to mount the arm...does anyone know what the distance between the platter center and the arm center should be? thanks, alex ____________________________________________________________________ Alexandru Mitaru alexmi@omneon.com System Architect (503) 533-0621 ext 228 Omneon Video Networks (503) 533-5811 FAX Subject: Re: [teres]Arm Height Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:17:53 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: teres@aiko.com Another can of worms to be opened. I've hesitated to bring this subject up for fear of (certainty of) being thought a complete idiot. The arm I'm starting with has * 0 * commentary about arm height in the rather sketchy installation instructions. Not even about a desirable range within the approx. 1.5" available on the mounting post. They even treat the VTA range more fully. The most help they offer is "level tonearm." Grrr. Mercifully, my implementation leaves plenty of range available, should I decide to use it. So, I'm going with approx. 2". (This is why I've been in breathless anticipation of getting the motor plates. I'm using one to mount my arm, and can't get down and dirty with arm height until I have one (don't want to do this twice.)) I'm glad to see Thom is scratching his head as much as I am, misery loves company. Additionally, Chris, I just noticed some other new pictures on Chris' site. I'm desperately curious as to how the motor pod implementation with three inverted spikes is working out, considering the bandwidth wasted on this subject last Spring, myself included. I'm planning to use two mounted on the pod in the other direction. Is the pod heavy enough (with the shot) to maintain string tension? and how heavy is it? What's the guess on string tension? What material *is* the string, anyway? First approximations/guesses welcome. Peter C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Mackris" To: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [teres]Arm questions > Hi Alex, > > Steve Zettel says 222 mm from the center of the spindle to the center of the > arm hole is the correct distance and *not* the 220 mm that Origin Live > specifies. Did you receive any VTA adjustment shims with your arm? The arm > that Blair Hansen received has no shims. I'm a bit puzzled. > > On a related note, an arm mounting plane (armboard) approximately 1" below > the platter surface seems to be fine for the Rega. I re-checked my Merrill > and found the arm mounting area to be approx. 1-7/8" below the platter > surface. This works just fine with my Audiocraft arm and with the Linn arm > I had previously mounted on it. As matter of fact, I have only about 1/3" > downward adjustment on the arm which means that the highest my armboard > could possibly be is about 1.5" below the platter surface. > > Because I have a ton of upward adjustment on my arm, I'm going to start off > using only the 7/8" high armboard without the additional arm pillar which > Chris designed for the purpose of getting to 1" below the platter. This > will put the armboard approximately 2" below the platter surface. Chris' > Triplanar works with the 1" setting. It would appear that there are two > standards for the height of the arm mounting area: 1" below and 2" below. > > Cheers, > Thom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alex Mitaru > To: > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: [teres]Arm questions > > > hi guys, just received my arm from Origin Live, though I'm a bit > disappointed that there > are no instructions on how to mount the arm...does anyone know what the > distance > between the platter center and the arm center should be? > > thanks, alex > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Alexandru Mitaru alexmi@omneon.com > System Architect (503) 533-0621 ext > 228 > Omneon Video Networks (503) 533-5811 FAX > > > Subject: Re: [teres]Arm Height Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:11:47 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: teres@aiko.com No doubt that this arm is all it's been cracked up to be, but the instructions !! In the words of the great Brittish bicycling commentator, Phil Ligget "my goodnes me". It's a good thing that our designs are so flexible ... they have to be! I think that Steve is the best Rega resource on our list as far as dimensions & heights. It seems as if you have to get the height really close if you're using any kind of beefy (thick) armboard. The reason for this is that the thicker the armboard, the less thread you have available (range of adjustment) for shim insertion. This shouldn't be a horrible problem, but it is wholly unnecessary, IMHO. No doubt that Rega will spew forth the typical Brittish line about rigidity, etc. etc. Typical Brittish hair shirt approach to a problem ... warm beer due to refrigerators being made by Lucas My guess is that when Rega designed the arms, they were intended for their 'tables & they had their own ideas about how thick an armboard needed to be and its exact location - not an approach of universality, IMHO. With a 1" thick armboard you have to predict the base height too closely for comfort. It would appear that some experimentation is in order. Chris' armboard design consists of a 7/8" thick armboard (3/16" aluminum - 1/2" acrylic - 3/16" aluminum sandwich). The board is raised to the correct height by sitting on an aluminum tube which is filled with lead shot and epoxy. The combination of this pillar and armboard is approximately 2" in height. One could most certainly make this pillar interchangable with ones of differing height in order to get a good operating range for VTA adjustment. Ah, the Brits :-( Question: did anyone get shims with their arms? Shouldn't the arm come with shims? Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: phclark To: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [teres]Arm Height Another can of worms to be opened. I've hesitated to bring this subject up for fear of (certainty of) being thought a complete idiot. The arm I'm starting with has * 0 * commentary about arm height in the rather sketchy installation instructions. Not even about a desirable range within the approx. 1.5" available on the mounting post. They even treat the VTA range more fully. The most help they offer is "level tonearm." Grrr. Mercifully, my implementation leaves plenty of range available, should I decide to use it. So, I'm going with approx. 2". (This is why I've been in breathless anticipation of getting the motor plates. I'm using one to mount my arm, and can't get down and dirty with arm height until I have one (don't want to do this twice.)) I'm glad to see Thom is scratching his head as much as I am, misery loves company. Additionally, Chris, I just noticed some other new pictures on Chris' site. I'm desperately curious as to how the motor pod implementation with three inverted spikes is working out, considering the bandwidth wasted on this subject last Spring, myself included. I'm planning to use two mounted on the pod in the other direction. Is the pod heavy enough (with the shot) to maintain string tension? and how heavy is it? What's the guess on string tension? What material *is* the string, anyway? First approximations/guesses welcome. Peter C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Mackris" To: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [teres]Arm questions > Hi Alex, > > Steve Zettel says 222 mm from the center of the spindle to the center of the > arm hole is the correct distance and *not* the 220 mm that Origin Live > specifies. Did you receive any VTA adjustment shims with your arm? The arm > that Blair Hansen received has no shims. I'm a bit puzzled. > > On a related note, an arm mounting plane (armboard) approximately 1" below > the platter surface seems to be fine for the Rega. I re-checked my Merrill > and found the arm mounting area to be approx. 1-7/8" below the platter > surface. This works just fine with my Audiocraft arm and with the Linn arm > I had previously mounted on it. As matter of fact, I have only about 1/3" > downward adjustment on the arm which means that the highest my armboard > could possibly be is about 1.5" below the platter surface. > > Because I have a ton of upward adjustment on my arm, I'm going to start off > using only the 7/8" high armboard without the additional arm pillar which > Chris designed for the purpose of getting to 1" below the platter. This > will put the armboard approximately 2" below the platter surface. Chris' > Triplanar works with the 1" setting. It would appear that there are two > standards for the height of the arm mounting area: 1" below and 2" below. > > Cheers, > Thom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alex Mitaru > To: > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: [teres]Arm questions > > > hi guys, just received my arm from Origin Live, though I'm a bit > disappointed that there > are no instructions on how to mount the arm...does anyone know what the > distance > between the platter center and the arm center should be? > > thanks, alex > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Alexandru Mitaru alexmi@omneon.com > System Architect (503) 533-0621 ext > 228 > Omneon Video Networks (503) 533-5811 FAX > > > Subject: [teres] Rega Arm Tweaks Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:12:55 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: Teres_List Our hero, Hartmut from Munich reports on Arhus in the Joe List ... of interest to the group are his validating comments on the RB 250 arm and the tweaks he has performed. Enjoy, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Quaschik Hartmut To: Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 6:57 AM Subject: [JN] Arhus report #2 - some more remarks Folks, 1. Timo is right: the woofers for the Oris are 5 inch, not 7. They seem to look like the same drivers as in Lynn T. Olson's Ariel. 2. My Scheu turntable was equipped with a full blown RB250, having Eclectic Audio cabling, VTA adapter, counter weight and a steel rear stub from the RB300. Cartridge was an Ortofon MC10 -from about 1980, which I got NOS this year. For having more understanding of the Rega mods, I will append a post, which I have made for the Analogue Addicts some months ago. regards, Hartmut Quaschik from Munich --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi folks, Last week I got an OEM Rega RB 250 from Scheu. Then I was thinking about how to get correct VTA adjustment, as Rega normally does not provide such a thing. I found that Michell, Raeke (Transrotor), Origin Live, Reson, and probably every other OEM user of Rega tonearms produce such a thing. The Michell (you can see a pic on the US importer's homepage - http://www.artech-electronics.com/us/products/michell/mich_upg.html ) and Eclectic/Moth (see Hifi plus magazin issue 6 from UK) have a thread inside to make 1mm of height for each rotation. This is a very clever use the mounting thread of the Rega. The Michell is 39.99 USD, the Eclectic/Moth "Incognito" Rega VTA Raiser is 25 UKP or 79 DM. Eclectic is the manufacturer and Rega UK distributor. "Incognito" is the brand name Eclectic uses for all its Rega improvement parts. The Raeke (Transrotor), Origin Live http://www.originlive.com/rega.htm and the Reson hide the thread and clamp the tonearm by a screw instead, like Linn or others do. As Eclectic is a German company, I phoned them and they sent me such a VTA thing and also a new counterweight, which can be fixed with a screw and a set of new internal/external wiring, which has been favourably tested in Hifi plus, issues 4 and 5. They also said, that the Rega would benefit from the RB300's steel end stub, and I already ordered such a thing in UK. Eclectic will produce an even longer steel rear end stub in the future. First I installed the Rega with the VTA raiser. I used Ortofon MC10 and Denon 103 moving coil cartridges. Soundwise I rate the stock RB250 as similiar to an SME3012-2: warm, musical, involving, musical, but not much into hifi aspects, intended for listening for hours. Kind of muddy sweetness for a cold day. I had considerable hum due to the fact, that Rega connects the arm's ground to the left channel minus, and that I am using input step up transformes for moving coil. 10 hours of listening later, I tried the Incognito counterweight, and then I got crisp transients and better bass attacks. It was only win, no lose at all. BTW, the weight remained the same. The Incognito is just much prettier (polished stainless steel) and the hole for stub is not concentric, so you can place the mass at record level, approximately. By scrutinizing the original counterweight, I found that if one unscrews the spring/ball mechanism, one could also fit a screw for tightening the counterweight to the rear arm stub. There should be place for a cost effective mod getting most of the above positive effects, too. Yesterday I mounted the new cable, which is unbroken from the tonearm clips to the phono plugs. It took me 1 1/2 hours to get it right. I had to disassemble the tonearm wand to fiddle the new cables. The problem lies partly in the instructions, which are opimized for RB300 and do not provide an elegant method in doing it for the RB250. The 2 pairs of cables are solded together at the ends, and I had to disconnect them before I could get them through the tight hole in the main bearing (this should be mentioned in the manual, too). The "Hot wired Rega" internet article about recabling Rega RB250 http://www.hi-fi.com/diy/rega/ is more appropriate and should be read first. Otherwise the cable kit came really complete with allen hex keys, solder, pickup clips, heatshrinks for the clips and the more than 20 step by step items instruction pages. Soundwise it was then difficult to say which comes from the cable, and which comes from the then freshly adjusted vertical Rega bearings. I had to adjust them after reassembling the armtube. The sound improved very much: Air, resolution, soundstage was there, muddiness was gone. IMHO, the so modified Rega is now in the superarm class, and I do not doubt it is superior to a SME V, whose chalky treble I never learned to like. retail prices in Germany: Rega RB 250: DM 420 VTA raiser: 79 steel counterweight: 99 cable kit 369 steel tonearm end stub: 59 Eclectic offers a full blown RB250, called the "Incognito 500" (because they think it's double the quality of the 250) with steel counterweight and stub, new cables, but without the raiser for 799. Things left to do: 1.) adjusting the horizontal bearing (difficult with the cable inside, I should install a temporary outside cabling for opimization of the bearing adjustment). 2.) installing the steel tonearm end stubs of RB 300 3.) this idea I got from Ralph Gibbemeyer: removing the lacquer ffrom the armtube and then anodizing the blank aluminium to get it faster - but this could make the tonearm less universal, as it have been the fast tonearms (Ekos and ARO) in our latest tonearm shootout in Munich, which didn't mate well with high resolution cartridges. Well I am willing to sell some of my (expensive) superarms, then buy a three to five pack of RB 250 for all the experiments, and have some money left. Further reading: test report on Origin Live RB 250 from fellow analogue addict Thorsten Loesch: http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/olrb250_e.html regards, Hartmut from Munich Subject: Re: [teres] Rega Shims Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:10:33 -0700 From: George Munger, George Munger To: teres@aiko.com Thom, sorry for the delayed response, but no shims were found in my shipment and not much in the way of instructions, either. GM >>> "Thom Mackris" 08/09 4:12 PM >>> All, So far 3 folks (IIRC) have replied and none of them received shims with their arms. Sometime tomorrow (after a few more responses). I'll e-mail Mark Baker at Origin to find out what the scoop is. Hey, Steve Z! Can you remember if you got shims when you purchased your RB300? If not, did you get them through the US distributor? I would think that a non-standard (i.e. non-Rega) installation might call for more shims than are supplied with the arm (assuming any are supplied in the first place, of course). While the Rega is a killer deal even at a significantly higher price, I still find it somewhat tacky to not furnish shims ... there you are at midnight, mounting your arm, the corner Rega shim store is closed for the day ... what's an audiomaniac to do ? Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Mitaru To: Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [teres] Motor Controller Assembly [snip] Also, I owe you a reply, no I didn't get any shims with my Origin Live arm, the mounting instruction were practically non-existing...and packaging was very poor, I'm surprised it made it in perfect condition...but it did... cheers, alex ____________________________________________________________________ Alexandru Mitaru alexmi@omneon.com System Architect (503) 533-0621 ext 228 Omneon Video Networks (503) 533-5811 FAX Subject: [teres] Re: rega Shims Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:34:02 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: Teres_List All, I understand from at least one individual that shims are an extra cost option for Rega arms, even if purchased via a US distributor. Rega apparently took a tip from American car manufacturers Anyhow, in addition to the obvious option of getting shims through the distributor, the following advice was offered: "As a cheap alternative, bicycle headset spacers work quite well although some filing is required for the key way tab on the bicycle spacers." I'm guessing that the shims are fairly thin, but I may be wrong. If you need to build up the height by a significant amount, then perhaps large fender washers are the ticket. The arm post is .9" in diameter, BTW. Cheers, Thom Subject: RE: [teres] Rega Shims Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 02:30:58 -0700 From: Paul Croft, Paul Croft To: teres@aiko.com Thom, I thought I had replied, but I don't see the message. I, too, did not receive shims with my Rega from Origin Live. Cheers, Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-teres@aiko.com [mailto:owner-teres@aiko.com]On Behalf Of > Thom Mackris > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 4:13 PM > To: teres@aiko.com > Subject: [teres] Rega Shims > > > All, > > So far 3 folks (IIRC) have replied and none of them received shims with > their arms. Sometime tomorrow (after a few more responses). > > I'll e-mail Mark Baker at Origin to find out what the scoop is. > > Hey, Steve Z! Can you remember if you got shims when you purchased your > RB300? If not, did you get them through the US distributor? I > would think > that a non-standard (i.e. non-Rega) installation might call for more shims > than are supplied with the arm (assuming any are supplied in the first > place, of course). > > While the Rega is a killer deal even at a significantly higher price, I > still find it somewhat tacky to not furnish shims ... there you are at > midnight, mounting your arm, the corner Rega shim store is closed for the > day ... what's an audiomaniac to do ? > > Cheers, > Thom > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alex Mitaru > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 11:31 AM > Subject: Re: [teres] Motor Controller Assembly > > > [snip] > > Also, I owe you a reply, no I didn't get any shims with my Origin > Live arm, > the mounting instruction were practically non-existing...and packaging was > very poor, I'm surprised it made it in perfect condition...but it did... > > cheers, alex > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Alexandru Mitaru alexmi@omneon.com > System Architect (503) 533-0621 ext > 228 > Omneon Video Networks (503) 533-5811 FAX > > Subject: [teres] Re: rega Shims Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:58:11 -0700 From: Thom Mackris, Thom Mackris To: Teres_List; Stewart Ono Thanks, Stu - Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart Ono To: Thom Mackris Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 4:50 PM Subject: Re: rega Shims Thom: Bike headset spacers range in thickness from thin shimstock to 4 mm thickness. You may have hunt through the scrap bins at your local bike shop though. The thicker ones are usually chrome plated. Stu Subject: [teres] Tonearm Cable Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:42:24 -0700 From: Daus Studenberg, Daus Studenberg To: teres@aiko.com Schools out for a week, so I have a little more time to devote to this project now. I am in the process of doing an evaluation of a good tonearm to phono preamp cable. Here are my criteria: -low crosstalk -low capacitance -very low noise and hum -low cost...of course! I figure the best design that I have seen would be the Canare 2 channel star quad cable with copper braid (whew!). They are sending me a sample. Its basically two runs of a four conductor (two are used for a conductor and the other two are used for a shield) cable that is shielded. Then the two runs are shielded again with an outer foil shield. They claim its the best low noise microphone cable they have and even have a spectrum analysis to prove it. The capacitance is a reasonable 44 pF per foot between the conductors and conductor shield. The capacitance between the conductor to the outer shield is 52 pF. I have never like the idea of two coaxial cables with the tonearm ground spiraling around it. That is why I like the cable. I plan on hardwiring it to my Rega and then terminating the cable with a four conductor S-video connector..which I heard are great for tonearm applications. The other cable I have coming is Belden 8162 Low Capacitance computer cable. It has a similar construction with individually Shielded pairs and an overall braid. The capacitances are 12.5 pF and 22 pF for the scheme I mention on the Canare. How I will test these cables will be tested will depend on how much time that I have..but I hope to do some type of noise evaluation and frequency response. I will see if a fellow Electrical engineering friend can get that equipment to me. :) Until then, I was wondering if anybody in the group had a cable recommendation that they think I should evaluate. Daus BTW.. does anyone know how to calculate the total capacitance of these cables I mentioned? Do I take the two capacitance values and treat them as two capacitors in parallel that are then in series with the cable?? Subject: Re: [teres] Tonearm Cable Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:58:10 -0700 From: Pablo Roufogalis, Pablo Roufogalis To: teres@aiko.com At 10:50 PM 8/11/00, you wrote: >I figure the best design that I have seen would be the Canare 2 channel star >quad cable with copper braid (whew!). They are sending me a sample. Its >basically two runs of a four conductor (two are used for a conductor and the >other two are used for a shield) cable that is shielded. Then the two runs >are shielded again with an outer foil shield. Hello to all. After I switched to long line runs with mic cable (similar construction to yours above) and short speaker cables, I tested using the same mic cable as phono cable. The cable brand is Audio Technica and looks and feels high quality. I used the outer braid (100% coverage, lots of copper, no cheap foil) as the ground cable and the individual center and shield conductor to its corresponding signals. I had high hopes of getting a much better sound. The result was a very shrieky sound. I have no explanation for it except perhaps that the resulting capacitance was way off the one the cartridge required. I returned to my factory SME cable with the caps removed. >. I have never like the idea of two coaxial cables with the >tonearm ground spiraling around it. According to my experience above, you are quite correct. How do you plan to wire it? I suppose you would ground one end, right? Regards, Pablo Roufogalis L. proufo@cantv.net (se dice proufo atencion de cantevepuntonet) ¡Arrobas NO!. Visite http://www.aretecnica.com/fam/od.htm Visite http://www.aretecnica.com/fampg.htm Subject: Re: [teres] Tonearm Cable Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:06:17 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: teres@aiko.com In order to further my rep as being kind of out there: I went down the mic cable route moons ago, and discontinued use because of rash. Tried all the Beldens that even looked plausible, including (big disappointment) their little shielded 4 silver conductor 26 (28?) ga. Tried the Mogamis, all flavors. Didn't get to the Canare, 'cause none of the others showed enough promise to indicate that George might get it right when no one else could, certainly for the price. I had big success a couple of years ago doing up pos and neg inside a 100% braided shield, grounded, terminating it myself with RCAs. Used a variety of wire, one of the best being 30 ga. silver plated copper, kynar insulated. This is *very* good wire, BTW, grossly underrated. Alas, it's only readily available in a narrow range of sizes, I've seen 22, 24, 28 and 30 ga. Something else that sounded *great* was 28 ga. sterling silver in teflon inside 100% copper braid (grounded.) Unfortunately, I didn't find smaller gauge silver until recently, which I suspect will be superior. Gonna try it. I also tried some teflon insulated ~36 ga. silver in the same braid and it was fabulous, but so delicate and difficult to handle that I've deferred using the one set of cables I did make up until my analogue situation settled down some. Yeah, right. Gotcher 46 ga. copper magnet wire that I'm dying to try as soon as I can figure out how to handle it. Got a line on up to (down to?) 38 ga.. teflon insulated silver, at what I consider to be *cheap* @ ~$1.00/ft. I was going to use this stuff to rewire my Rega 250, then decided not to buy the arm, or at least yet. The Sumiko arm I'm presently in bed with doesn't show too much promise in the rewire dept., so I'm deferring that decision until I decide whether I even want to keep the arm. At least I'm not plagued with shims or lack thereof, the Sumiko has VTA. What I'm using presently for cable is a MIL-spec 24 ga. all silver co-ax in teflon, terminated with plastic fantastic Radio Shack RCAs, and none other. I basically use this stuff for any application that requires shielding. I do my own interconnects (proprietary process) for everything else. My $0.02. Peter C Subject: Re: [teres] Rega Shims Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:46:45 -0700 From: Steve Zettel, Steve Zettel To: teres@aiko.com on 8/9/00 14:12, Thom Mackris at thom_mackris@hotmail.com wrote: > All, > > So far 3 folks (IIRC) have replied and none of them received shims with > their arms. Sometime tomorrow (after a few more responses). > > I'll e-mail Mark Baker at Origin to find out what the scoop is. > > Hey, Steve Z! Can you remember if you got shims when you purchased your > RB300? If not, did you get them through the US distributor? I would think > that a non-standard (i.e. non-Rega) installation might call for more shims > than are supplied with the arm (assuming any are supplied in the first > place, of course). > > While the Rega is a killer deal even at a significantly higher price, I > still find it somewhat tacky to not furnish shims ... there you are at > midnight, mounting your arm, the corner Rega shim store is closed for the > day ... what's an audiomaniac to do ? > > Cheers, > Thom Thom and all, I bought my Rega RB-300's used, but there were no shims, only a stainless ring or washer that could be used above or below the armboard. All of the shimming I have done has been with the ring, or with homemade shims of plastic, brass, fender washers, aluminum pop cans, etc. It is MUCH less hassle to use split shims that can be slid into place from each side, rather than a washer which requires the fixing nut to be removed and the arm removed from the board. Steve Z near Libby, MT USA Subject: Re: [teres]Arm Height Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:46:47 -0700 From: Steve Zettel, Steve Zettel To: teres@aiko.com on 8/7/00 17:09, Thom Mackris at thom_mackris@hotmail.com wrote: > I think that Steve is the best Rega resource on our list as far as > dimensions & heights. (I have been away on active duty with the Navy for a while, sorry for not being able to answer or read e-mail during this time) Thanks, Thom. What little I know is as a result of buying several used RB-300's without any documentation at all, and having to dig to find usable info. I agree that the Rega "instructions" are of little use at all. Arm pivot to spindle distance is 222 mm. Overhang should be 17.8 mm; 18 mm is "close enough" as a first approximation before tuning, and gives an overall length of 240 mm, stylus to arm pivot. This was verified by other knowledgable Rega owners, the importer, and Wally Malewicz of Wallytractor fame. > It seems as if you have to get the height really > close if you're using any kind of beefy (thick) armboard. The reason for > this is that the thicker the armboard, the less thread you have available > (range of adjustment) for shim insertion. This shouldn't be a horrible > problem, but it is wholly unnecessary, IMHO. I currently use the Rega RB-300 on an Oracle Delphi armboard, typically 1/2" thick acrylic. The height of the turntable top with mat is approximately 1". However, my new cartridge is taller than my previous Clearaudio Sigma, which required approximately 1/16" shimming for proper VTA adjustment. So I am using a special Oracle armboard which is raised an additional 1/8" over flush. So far no spacers have been used, but I am still in the break-in phase. There is quite a substantial length of threads on the Rega armpost, but I can see how a very thick armboard, or one that restricts access to the fixing nut could present a problem. I personally have found that it works best to have the unshimmed height of the armboard fixed so that the arm is "low" in the back since it is impossible to lower the Rega, but very easy to shim it "up". I like to start all adjustments with the bottom of my cartridge parallel with the record surface unless the manufacturer gives directions otherwise. Too much forward tilt of the cartridge can be "adjusted" by using thin cork gasket material available at any parts store and many home improvement stores, under the turntable mat. After tweeking around with height adjustments I use a depth gauge to determine the optimum height and shim to that value. Of course, you can play to your heart's content with spacers and different thickness mats, etc. Shim material can be fender washers bored out slightly over 0.9", but by splitting the shim material into two halves, the shims can be slipped in from either side of the arm without having to totally remove the arm from the board; simply loosening the fixing nut enough to insert the shims. I have not been able to determine any repeatable sonic signature from shims made variously from plastic, fender washers, stainless steel, pop can aluminum, brass shim stock or acrylic. I have not tried resilient material since I am of the camp that thinks a rigid, non-moving relationship between arm and platter bearing is important. > No doubt that Rega will spew > forth the typical Brittish line about rigidity, etc. etc. Typical Brittish > hair shirt approach to a problem ... warm beer due to refrigerators being > made by Lucas Lucas, Prince of Darkness! Rega advises finger-tight, or at least cautions against overtightening the fixing nut. I use a wrench to make sure it is tight. Rega advises that VTA adjustment is unnecessary. I find it critical. Rega does NOT provide shims with their arms, they are extra cost from dealers. The stainless steel ring provided with the fixing nut can be used as a shim above the armboard, or as a washer below the armboard. Someone asked about replacing the arm wiring after the fact. I have done this with my RB-300's. It is most easily accomplished by removing the armwand from the bearing carriage (and the VTF spring can be removed at the same time). I have no experience with the RB-250, and on the Phonogram list, several very knowledgable people have stated that it is not possible for the user to easily remove the arm with that model (Kal?). I can dig up a useful URL which lays out a method of changing armwire without removing the armwand. I will also be happy to help with my experiences rewiring RB-300's if there is any interest. Hope this helps. Steve Z near Libby, MT USA Subject: Re: [teres] Hi-Fi - Hot Wired Rega Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:46:51 -0700 From: Steve Zettel, Steve Zettel To: teres@aiko.com on 8/7/00 16:31, phclark at phclark@uswest.net wrote: > > > http://www.hi-fi.com/diy/rega/ > This is the URL I referred to. There are some alternative ways to accomplish some of the same steps with less hassle. YMMV. Steve Z near Libby, MT USA