Have you compared the 95en to the 95e?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Printable View
Have you compared the 95en to the 95e?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
The e is the standard one right? If so, no, I have just bought the EL, £50 more, so it better deliver! I got it all ready hooked up to a headshell, just not gotten around to placing it on the tonearm yet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Honestly I think cartridge alignment is one of the most overrated setup things. For one thing it's always a compromise on a pivoted arm, you're just moving the null points around, but with any of the 3 popular alignment geometries, even on a perfect setup the error in stylus angle will be about 2° - 2.5° at it's worst, depending on arm length and which record standard the alignment is optimized for. The worst error happens at the outermost grooves and another 'bad spot' is right in between the nullpoints, where the error will typically be 1 to 1.5°. In a perfect world that is - in practice it will likely be more because that precise alignment is very difficult to achieve. Yet people never seem to complain the first track sounds bad, or that there's a point around the middle of the record where sound gets worse, or that there are precisely two points on a record, where the sound is better than anywhere else. In short, unless you get it very very wrong (and maybe even then), changes in alignment geometry seem to be mostly inaudible to people. I don't know at which point it would become audible, I've played around with it a lot and in general I'd say it's way more important towards the center of the record and at the outside you can get away with a lot.
To achieve a geometry with two null points, you need overhang and offset angle, but that creates skating force and the greater the offset angle, the greater the force. Then a need for antiskating arises, which is just another compromise and never perfect, because the force your trying to counteract is not constant. There have been some tonearms which have prioritized other things than geometry, like at least some if not most SAEC arms have "weird" geometries that go against the face of accepted wisdom. They prioritized other design parameters at the cost of more tracking angle error for most part of the record.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do as good a job as you can with alignment, just that it's never "perfect" - you're always compromising on something, even if you accept the commonly accepted geometries as the best ones. With any alignment you have (at best) two points on the record with 0 tracking angle error. The diamond being mounted just the slightest bit angled might mean you have no null points, or just one, even with the cantilever perfectly aligned. Some people argue the skating force is actually more detrimental to playback than tracking angle error, for that reason DJ arms for scratching are straight with no offset and thus no skating force, meaning less chance of jumping with scratching etc. But there are arms like that for hifi use as well, I remember a recent "high end" one (the name escapes me, it also had a very short arm wand and was "mounted" just standing on a pod). Yamaha also made one for GT-2000. YSA-1 I think it was called.
IME azimuth is the most important adjustment, but even there things are not perfect because the diamond might not be perfectly aligned with the coils. So you're sacrificing either channel balance/separation or stylus angle against the grooves. IMO always better to set the azimuth according to stylus for best tracking. VTA/SRA seems to matter to me as well, I'm not sure how much, I never went through the trouble of setting it precisely with a microscope, but going by ear it does seem to matter, but can't say I ever heard the need for more precise than "close enough" even with advanced stylus shapes. Maybe it's just a lack of trying on my part.
YMMV and all that :)
EDIT: fixed typos, of course meant degrees instead of % when talking about tracking angle
Interesting post!
Given the overall distortion of Vinyl playback (approaching 15% in some cases), excessive attention to setup might seem to be largely impotent. Yet given the limitations of Vinyl playback it is worth spending time to setup the arm and cartridge as best as one can without becoming obsessive.
Regarding tonearm alignment, it is best to follow the directions provided by the manufacturer (that is use the alignment protractor provided). Most Japanese arms are designed to follow the Stevenson prescription, which was formulated through listening to both 7" 45rpm records as well as 12" 33rpm records. It places one of the null points at the innermost radius, and was followed by early SME arms, as well as some other British tonearms.
Baerwaldt and Löfgren prescriptions are derived purely from geometrical considerations. In the first case this equalises the tracking error across the record. In the second, it is harmonic distortion that is minimised. Recently yet a fourth prescription has been published, (called UNI-DIN, developed by Dietrich Brakenmeter), yet no criteria has been given for its formulation. It places the two null radii at 63.3 and 112.5mm.
Regarding VTA/SRA most assume the cartridge manufacturer has got it right, so the arm is set up to be exactly parallel to the record surface, when the cartridge is tracking at the recommended tracking force and used at the correct temperature. Some like to adjust the VTA depending on the weight (and therefore thickness) for each record but IMO that way madness lies.
Azimuth is easily set up using a mirror, or by playing a mono record with the preamp switched to 'mono'.
I agree anti-skating bias is a compromise at best. It needs to be greatest at the start of the record, where the groove velocity is greatest and to fall off linearly with radius, yet all 'falling weight' devices the amount varies as the cosine of the angle between arm and thread.
I personally would not under-estimate the importance of cartridge setup.
I have several cartridges, 3 x MC and 2 x MM and I have found that if care is taken setting up each then the best can be got from each, in some cases better results than I originally would have thought possible based on my previous listening experience with them.
I have an Ortofon OM5 series MM cartridge that I have upgraded to an Ortofon 40 stylus from a Dual DN105E stylus, when set up correctly it actually produces some rather fine sounds. I think this particular cartridge/stylus range is often overlooked by many but it is well worth trying out. Even the original DN105E is rather good but not quite as detailed.
As I originally posted I was also rather stunned by the results I obtained with the Goldring 2500M when I took my time in getting the it set up well.
Today I decided to try out the Ortofon Rondo Blue which I have had sitting in a draw for the past 6 years, it historically came with a Pro-Ject Xperience II turntable, I kept the cartridge when I sold the TT. I have since tried the Rondo on several previous occasions on different TTs/Arms, SME IV, JELCO TK850M , and Pro-Ject Signature 10 with varying success, and each time have never been quite happy with it, I always thought is sounded not quite right.
Today I carefully examined the cartridge using a digital microscope capable of up 1600x magnification, what I could was that the stylus looks perfect, it has only around 200 hours of use, however it is actually mounted slightly off of perpendicular with respect to Azimuth. That is to say if you mount it on a head shell which is absolutely parallel to the surface of a record when looking at it from the front then the stylus is actually canted in the groove to the right, by my estimation about 3-4 degrees. Not much but when I did so and checked the dB level out of each channel using a 300hz signal test track on the HiFi New test record, the right channel measured 82dB and the left 76dB, this is a significant difference due to the azimuth being wrong. When playing a record bass a drums sounded odd and detail in places seemed missing. I took time to adjust the head shell measuring after each change the right and left dB levels and when the were stable and both within 0.25dB of each other I was happy. I played my favourite test listening tracks as before, Ravi Shankar - 'Tala Rasa Ranga' on Portrait of Genius and Eva Cassidy - 'Fields of Gold' on Nightbird, and guess what it sounded great, lots of detail and depth, perfectly balanced, bass and drums now great, vocals crystal clear.
I can now happily listen to the Rondo Blue and enjoy it, and this is without playing around with VTA/SRA, I did quickly check the headshell from front to rear and it is actually parallel to the record surface. From what I have read and my understanding you have to raise or lower a standard 9" tone arm by 4mm to gain +-1 degree of VTA/SRA, and as it sounds very good as is I have not tried adjusting it.
So I still think that paying carefully attention to cartridge set up is important if you want to get the best from what you have. I would agree that VTA/SRA is not as critical with a standard 20 degree tracking angle cartridge as long as the head sell is parallel to the record surface it should be pretty good. However her is one caveat, a micro-ridge(micro-line) stylus as I understand and have experience can be quite sensitive to VTA/SRA setting, I found this out with my Benz-Micro LP-S, I now know where it sounds best using a simple tool to check the level of the head shell, to ensure it is slightly raised at the rear.
I do not use any fancy or expensive tools to set up my cartridges, just a simple ProJect but accurate digital tracking gauge, a cartridge alignment tool like this https://www.amazon.co.uk/UKCOCO-Acce...%2C127&sr=8-34, a simple paper Bearwald protractor as recommend by Project, a Hifi-news test record, a dB meter App on my iPhone to check azimuth and finally my ears.
It has taken me time to get to grips with setting up cartridges/tonearm but IMHO the time and effort is well worth it to get the best results.
My advise is:-
Firstly if the pivot arm position is not fixed and is adjustable then check it is in the recommended position for your turntable and arm, this is the measurement from the turntable spindle to the centre of the pivot point of the arm, once this is correct move to cartridge set up below.
1. Get the cartridge perfectly aligned in the head shell, first ensuring it is mounted down the centre line of the head shell and the body is equally parallel to each side of the head shell, and that the stylus is in the correct position for the required offset, if possible (I know the distance from the back of the head shell mount to the stylus tips which helps, but be careful if you do this), you will check the set up in 4 anyway. If the head shell is not a rectangular type the try and get it the cartridge centred.
2. Initially adjust the tracking weight to the recommended for the stylus by the manufacturer.
3. With an old record place the VTA and Azimuth checking tool on the record(as in the link) and visually check the head shell alignment for both with it, so that the head shell is parallel to the record surface from front to rear and horizontally looking at the front, adjust as necessary. If the arm height can be raised lowered then this will adjust the VTA, and if the head shell can be turned you will be able to adjust the Azimuth. In some cases one or both are fixed, and can only be overcome with shims between the head shell and cartridge, not something I have ever tried, or under the arm mount if it is removable from the turntable plinth. Some arms have a collar around a pillar allowing the arm to be raised and lowered for VTA/SRA adjustment.
4. Using your chosen protractor for your turntable, check cartridge alignment(cartridge body is parallel to indicated lines at the specified nil points) and offset, if either are out it will mean mean loosening the cartridge retaining screws and carefully adjusting it and then re-checking as in 1. Repeat until the stylus accurately traces the arc on the protractor. I often re-check 3 as well after this.
5. Remove the record and check tracking weight and adjust is necessary, replace record and check VTA and Azimuth again using the block checking tool, adjust if necessary until happy. Set the bias weight as per your arm recommends. Some people check the tracking weight at the centre of the record with the bias set, I think this is as some arms bias device can alter the tracking weight by quite a bit.
6. Put test record on turntable select 300hz test tone track and measure the dB level out of each speaker, use a 1' ruler to ensure you keep the mobile phone with the dB App running at the same distance and position from the speakers. If there is more than 1dB of difference between the channels then adjust the Azimuth of the headshell/cartridge, it only needs slight movement to get this right, aim to have the channels within 0.5dB at least, I do this at around 80dB. Repeat until happy.
7. Recheck as in 5 and if all is good, put on some favourite music tracks and see if it sounds good, hopefully you will be pleased.
A couple of things to note, ifs changing cartridges do remember to alter Phono Stage to MM or MC and setting to match the cartridges recommend load impedance and impedence. If after all the above you find it sounds slightly bass heavy, if you are able, try raising the rear of the arm around 1-2 mm to start with, check the tracking weight and then have another listen, and raise a little more until you like what you hear. If it sounds bass light and you are possibly feel it sounds a bit top endy then do the opposite. Some cartridges are quite sensitive to the VTA/SRA set up, especially the once with micro-ridge stylus.
Hopefully I have not left anything out, I am sure others will advise or correct me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJSki2fly
That's an interesting way to check Azimuth. Not heard of that before. Will give that a go, cheers.
Do you think the mobile phone app is sufficiently accurate and reliable?
Absolutely, certainly on say an iPhone or equivalent Samsung produced in the last 5 years of so, or similar quality, the microphones are surprisingly good, certainly above 100hz, and from the few test measurements done give a reasonably flat response up to around 12Khz. They certainly are not up to the level of Brüel & Kjær decibel meter which is for lab measurements and costs thousands, but they will be accurate to with 025dB, they are probably as good if not better than a £15 to £30 dedicated dB better purchased off of Amazon. Remember what we want to establish is the relative decibel level of one channel to another using a single frequency, so how accurate it reports the level in relation to an extremely accurate piece of kit is not so important. As long as the software and hardware produce a stable result of measured level then it should be good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
A modern mobile device is an extremely powerful processing tool, basically getting its accuracy from sampling and as they can sample very quickly and in many times can achieve a good level of accuracy especially when measuring a single frequency such as 300hz, even doing spectrum analysis from 20hz to 20khz they are reasonably good I believe, although the accuracy will be dependent on the microphones frequency
It is the repeatability I question.
How far away from each speaker do you place the phone, and how do you ensure the precise orientation relative to the speaker?
I'm still doubtful the repeatability can be within 0.25dB.
Adrian does cover this in paragraph 6. But can a measured channel imbalance not just as easily be due to the amplifier's ouput or slight variations with individual speakers' sensitivity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
Can one hold a mobile phone at exactly the same height and in exactly the same orientation at each speaker?
Agree about the second point you make, though I would expect the two channels of the amplifier to be within 0.1dB of each other. Speaker sensitivity is a different matter.
For adjusting azimuth, I would think measuring at speaker level is not accurate enough beyond "in the ballpark". There's just so many possible variables at that point, exact positioning of microphone, difference in sensitivity between speakers, power amplifier channel balance (likely very good though), volume pot (will vary across the range of the pot if a regular pot is used) & phono stage accuracy come to mind.
All that ignores a big one which is alignment of various bits in the cartridge & alignment of stylus tip relative to coils (if talking MC cartridges) - there's good reason phono cartridges might only have a specified channel balance within 0.5dB or even worse, though I gotta say I'm not sure I've had any carts which were off by more than that.
So, IMO for azimuth adjustment it's best to do it visually and adjust according to the diamond to get most accurate tracking. Also not all cartridges seem to age gracefully, it would seem sometimes things can get out of whack a bit as the suspension components age.
I do think getting azimuth spot on is very important and here from tracking perspective there are no compromises, the better you do it, the better it gets, that simple. In a perfect world no arm would have azimuth adjustment, but would come out perfect from the factory, like all cartridges and we'd never have to worry about it. Sadly in the real world that is not the case. If the cartridge is not put together perfectly, then adjusting azimuth for the diamond you might end up sacrificing some channel separation at the generator. If that happens, it happens. If you have to twist the cartridge more than just the slightest bit for a very small fine tune, you might want to get in touch with either the seller of the cartridge or the manufacturer (assuming a new cart).
Quote:
Originally Posted by helma
OK if we are going to approach this on a purely scientific approach, then we could adopt measurement of output from with the phono stage or the Pre-amp using a reasonably accurate Meter, alternatively by a Fozgometer which essentially does the same thing.
I believe this is documented on several articles on the net. In simple terms it means paling the 300hz track and then with a suitable adapted cable plugged into one channel measuring the volt and then doing the same with the other and comparing then, then if different adjusting azimuth to get them the same. Then all should be good.
If you were going to argue about differences in voltage between channels due to different components on circuits, then first you would send a sine wave signal at a known voltage into one channel and measure the output, and then do the same for the other, if there was a difference you would apply this ratio to the voltage adjust when you did the azimuth with the cartridge.
Measuring differences on the cartridge engine are not so simple, although my Benz Micro LP-S came with such a measurement from the factory showing the response of each channel and that they are virtually identical from 20hz to 20Khz.
You claim the channel imblance with the Ortofon cartridge was 6dB, as measured by your phone app, yet the error in azimuth was around 4o. This does not make sense; the imbalance caused by a 4o error will be no more than 1.3dB.
I agree the two channels of any self-respecting amplifier will be within 0.2dB of one another, and for most quality speakers the unit-to-unit variation in frequency response will be within 2dB. I have the pen plots for my B&W DM2a speakers, with consecutive serial numbers. You can lay the two plots over one another, and only by looking carefully can you see the occasional deviation of 1 - 2dB.
I still maintain the best way to set up the azimuth is to either use a mirror (which will visually double any error) and/or play a mono record and check the image is narrow and centred midway between the two speakers.
How does 4o equate to 1.38dB.? I am only reporting what I see[emoji846]
Perhaps the cart has other issues, it is about 12 years old, but it sounds fine aligned as it is.
helma - I take your point but in a similar vain I do find using the mirror approach somewhat open to error, just as you say using a dB measurement.
Firstly there is the issue of getting the mirror surface at the same height as the record surface for accuracy. When I have tried this method I found it very critical to be personally perfectly aligned to the cartridge/stylus or you are at risk of not seeing the actual angle in the mirror. Moving your head and eye position will introduce perception issues. Also I find it very difficult to believe any one, even a young person can accurately determine a stylus is absolutely 90o perpendicular to the mirror, the stylus is just too damn small to see it properly.
Unfortunately it another one of these hifi issues for which there probably is not a definite answer, maybe taking several approaches together would give a better result to check more.
OK so to settle in my own mind what I was doing and saying I did this and took photos of the dB measurements so you can see I introduce as little room for euro as possible.
First I swapped my Rondo Blue over to the Benz Micro LP-S, this just meant switching head shells as they each were already mounted. I initially set up VTF, then I used as suggested the small mirror method for Azimuth, I adjusted the head shell alignment (it is one that has a grub screw and allow rotation). I carefully did so looking at the reflection in the mirror, I have to say that trying to evaluate the Stylus with normal eyesight is in my mind near impossible, and this was with it lit up with a light. I actual had to rely on the cartridge body image.
I then checked the cartridge alignment with the perspex lined gauge for Azimuth and VTA(head shell horizontal), this looked good.
As you can see from the photos below I next played the 300hz test track and measured to dB level for each speaker. Please not that I used a small table with the iPhone positioned in front of each speaker in exactly the same position, to minimise any discrepancies. As you can see both channels are spot on, which is what I would expect from this cartridge. The reason being is that I have checked the stylus using a digital microscope and the stylus looks to but as close to 90o to vertical from the cantilever as it can be.
So using the mirror method where it was effectively relying on the body to align it to be parallel to the surface was likely to work, and set the Azimuth correctly, one caveat is if the stylus engine is mis-aligned or as others have said there are suspension issues, in which case seeing mis-alignment of the stylus in the mirror would be somewhat difficult.
I will try and set up using an old cable and measure the voltages from each channel, to asses how close they are as well. I will them repeat the same with my other carts and see what I find.
https://i.postimg.cc/t4vp2YZ3/IMG-0573.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0yy9YpQ5/IMG-0581.jpg
Well actually, the imbalance caused by a 4o error in azimuth, whether due to the mis-mounting of the stylus on the cantilever, or in the orientation of the coils within the cartridge, is 1.22dB. I used a reasonable approximation to quickly derive the result I quoted (1.3dB); the correct result is 1.22dB.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJSki2fly
But to turn the question around - you claim the imbalance as measured by your phone was 6dB (that is the difference between the two readings). 6dB represents a voltage ratio of 2:1. I wouldn't have thought that would result from a mis-alignment of 4o; if it does there is something seriously wrong with the cartridge.
Regarding the use of a mirror to set up the azimuth, I use one that is 2.1mm thick, which is that of a typical LP. We are not looking for any error in the alignment of the stylus mounted on the cantilever, but with cantilever when viewed head-on compared with its image in the mirror. So if there is an error, the image and its reflection are not continuous, but appear as a shallow "V". This can be easily seen, especially if a magnifying lens is used (such as one might use to set up the arm with an alignment protractor). By the way, at this stage the side bias is disabled, otherwise the cartridge/arm might 'skate' on the mirror.
I see you have now corrected your post in showing both photos. However in the second photo, the phone appears to be normal to the speaker, whereas in the first the phone appears to be at an angle to the speaker. This probably doesn't matter, since at all audible frequencies, the internal microphone is largely omnidirectional. But it is something to consider.
But we are going around in circles here - you are content with the way you set up azimuth with your phone app, as I am with my mirror and the use a monophonic record. We both have doubts about the accuracy of each other's method and find arguments both pro and con unconvincing, so perhaps it is best if we leave it there.
Ever decreasing circles seems appropriate, smaller angles [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
I think it’s worthwhile getting others views, I try and be open minded, and may find a better method, after all hifi is not an exact science, far too many variables.
By the way forgot to mention before I took off the Rondo Blue I set it back to horizontal head shell position and re measured the dB difference between channels, I must have made a mistake previously it’s actually 3dB. So this makes a bit more sense.
I will have another look at the mirror method next time and also let you know about voltage measurements.
All the best, a vinyl idiot[emoji4]
My "argument" for adjusting azimuth visually was/is that it ensures you are actually adjusting to get the best possible physical contact/alignment where the stylus meets the record. If you are adjusting according to cartridge output, then you are adjusting to get the generator best aligned. If the cartridge is perfect those two would be the same thing but in practice that's not always the case.
I think when adjusting according to cartridge output, what you should be looking for would actually be channel separation, not channel balance, at least that's what I read somewhere and that's what a fozgometer seems to do. Trying to think about it seems to make sense for two reasons - I think a slight misalignment would first show up in channel separation before affecting the channel balance in a meaningful way and if the cantilever is slightly off-center, it would seem to me the azimuth could be perfect with best possible channel separation, yet channel balance could be slightly off because the coils are not centered. I might be wrong though, if I am hopefully someone will correct me :)
The diamond is a very small thing, so it's not that all that easy to adjust azimuth visually, but not overly hard either. Barry explained above how to do it, taking a picture can help because you can then zoom in which makes it easier to see. You just have to make sure you are observing the cartridge directly from the front. I think even if doing the adjustment according to cartridge output, it would make sense to double check visually, just to be sure the diamond is mounted straight and that the cantilever isn't twisted.
I think for majority of cartridges it doesn't really matter which way you do it, they are put together well enough any error is probably less than can be reliably observed visually but I have encountered a few where that was not the case.
i always did it by eye and ear. have tried some other methods like mirrors but i found setting it by eye, then listening and adjusting was as accurate to me ears and a damn sight quicker too
Quote:
Originally Posted by struth
That's my method too Grant. I use very well known tracks and set azimuth as close as I can by eye sometimes with a mirror but I also have a small metal rod that sits in a groove on top of my head shell I can use to judge level.
However it really is down to my own ear how well I have set up azimuth as I can hear channel separation and extremes of soundstage and detail in well known recordings that tell me all is good.
Neanderthal method - Yes but I can live with it.:)
I set up a laser level on platter to shine on the headshell. It was cheap and worked wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo