Improving the VTA adjustment on a Technics SL12x0

[Sid and Coke]

OK folks,

Have any of you fiddlers, meddlers and bodgers got any useful ideas to improve the adjustability of the VTA adjustment on the stock Technics SL1200/1210.

I have found that the only way i can get my cartridge body to run parallel with the record surface, and therefore set the VTA to where the cart manufacturer designed it to be, is by adding lots of height to the platter with the additon of mats and also be adding a headshell spacer to my ... headshell.

Can anybody tell me whether they think it would be possible to raise the current armboard somhow, possily with a spacer ring of some type, or similar device.

I the ideal world i would want to find myself in a position where i could fit a DL103, straight onto my Sumiko HS-12 with a standard thickness of mat ( possibly a felt one), and the VTA adjustmet locked down on the '3' setting with the cartridge body parallel to the surface of a 180g record...

Suggestions .... ?

[Marco]

Oi, matey, where have you been hiding? ;)

How's the bike going? I'll come back to you later on the hi-fi stuff! :)

Marco.

[Mike]

Can anybody tell me whether they think it would be possible to raise the current armboard somhow, possily with a spacer ring of some type, or similar device.

Erm... wouldn't you need to lower the armboard? :scratch:

[Pete]

With a Zyx cart, a 5mm funk firm mat and Zupreme headshell I have my stock arm set to '0' to get a level VTA.

A thicker mat and headshell spacers seems like the only option unless you get a taller cart.

[Tony G]

The other possibility is to shim the back of the cartridge.
While this will not level the arm it will vary the VTA.
Pete Riggle gives some usable figures for various shim thicknesses on his VTAF site.
Or if you are really AR you could do the measurements and maths.
For myself I think I prefer headshell spacers and yes it is lowering the armboard that you want and I do not think that is doable.

[YNWaN]

Honestly, I wouldn't shim the back of the cartridge. It's a valid idea and would work, but it's bound to have an impact on the way the cartridge and headshell mate/interact. I know there are people who say the stock arm isn't that bad (and it's not bad in an ultimate sense) but it's not as free from structural resonance as a fixed headshell design with a greater design focus on rigidity. I would change the arm and construct a new armboard (I'm not very wowed by the OL option).

[Sid and Coke]

Oi, matey, where have you been hiding? ;)

How's the bike going? I'll come back to you later on the hi-fi stuff! :)

Marco.

Hi Marco,

Bike/Biking is fine, still building up confidence and experience, via trying to get a few miles under my belt. Don't enjoy going round wet corners in the dark, my little 600cc is still far for faster and capable than me :) .

Not done much Hi-Fi or music stuff for a while, just started to buy a few new CD's and play a few tunes on the Hi-Fi after getting a new Sony .mp3 player strangely enough. Funny how a bandwidth limited inherently hamstrung music playing medium can re-introduce one to the joys of listening to differnt tunes again... :D

[Sid and Coke]

Erm... wouldn't you need to lower the armboard? :scratch:

Yes Mike , silly me :doh: I posted quickly without actually looking at the deck.

I already use a headshell spacer and thicker mat option, guess i'm stuck with it, not ideal imho, it's probably the one thing that i'vealways felt uncomfortable with on the SL1200. My VTA setting is at zero also. Even with this i can see that my current in use Denon DL304/Sumiko HS-12 isn't exactly parallel to the record surface, these little attention to detail issues just bug me, the deck sounds fine , i just have this niggle that it 'could' sound a little better.

Whenever i am presented with something that has an adjustment, i nearly always set it to mid way to give scope for fine tuning either way..