Digital Stylus Tracking Force Gauge

[Audio Al]

Wow! Some strong juice ya sippin tonight Al

i have run out now

[farflungstar]

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/in_balance_e.html

[alphaGT]

I have one like the first two. I had one before, that worked well at first but went south on me. I shopped around and bought a second one, nearly exactly like it, and this time I could not be happier. The scale pan is low enough to be about the height of a 180g record, and results are easily repeatable. Sure beats those old Shure fulcrum scales!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Audio Al]

Just won one of these with a lower weighing platform and a bigger batterie

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/100g-0-005...0AAOSwX61ZCYRe

[Barry]

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/in_balance_e.html

I'm aware of that article, however there is insufficient detail of the various arm geometries for me to place confidence in his computer model. This applies especially to the unipivot design. Interesting nonetheless.

All of my arms follow his 'generic' geometry, and I'm not bothered about an overestimate of the VTF of 0.01 - 0.02g.

Calibrating the electronic scales with weights used with the Mitchell balance (themselves measured using a chemical balance against weights checked by the National Physical Laboratory), I find the electronic scales generally under-read by 2 - 3% (or about 0.04g at 2g).

[Barry]

Just won one of these with a lower weighing platform and a bigger batterie

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/100g-0-005...0AAOSwX61ZCYRe

Looks good - but I doubt if it is accurate to 0.005g.

[farflungstar]

I'm aware of that article, however there is insufficient detail of the various arm geometries for me to place confidence in his computer model. This applies especially to the unipivot design. Interesting nonetheless.

All of my arms follow his 'generic' geometry, and I'm not bothered about an overestimate of the VTF of 0.01 - 0.02g.

Calibrating the electronic scales with weights used with the Mitchell balance (themselves measured using a chemical balance against weights checked by the National Physical Laboratory), I find the electronic scales generally under-read by 2 - 3% (or about 0.04g at 2g).

Yeah I have the Mitchell weights and use them to check accuracy.

[walpurgis]

Looks good - but I doubt if it is accurate to 0.005g.

Why would anybody want that degree of accuracy though? Cartridges of the same model each vary slightly in compliance, so tracking force recommendations are a little arbitrary.

[Arkless Electronics]

I have an ancient Colton "Variscale" analogue one which is very nice and works great. I wouldn't trust a digital one.

[Barry]

Why would anybody want that degree of accuracy though? Cartridges of the same model each vary slightly in compliance, so tracking force recommendations are a little arbitrary.

Agreed - but the way scales are advertised, they (deliberately?) confuse 'resolution' with 'accuracy', or at least make it ambigious.

All I require are scales that have a resolution to 0.01g, and an accuracy of +/-2% (or +/-0.04g at 2g).

Not only do cartridges vary slightly in compliance sample-to-sample, the compliance also varies with temperature, to the effect that many cartridges operate best when the ambient temperature in the vicinity of the cartridge is ~ 23 degC.