Fun with vinyl measurements

[Thomas_A]

That is the worst record I have ever seen.

Yes it was bought like that. I think it is a no rescue for the 3150 Hz signal but I can use some of the others. Regarding adimuth test it is symmetric L and R but both give values of 42-43 degrees. What is your experience of those tracks in relation to VTF. Instruction says correct value is when it is symmetric L and R but the absolute values are cartridge specific. Is that perhaps also VTF specific? I will test it some day but just wonder if you’ve done it.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Not quite sure how to interpret the words in the printed guideline. I do consistently get best /even symmetric crosstalk at 46 degree track . Trying to get even at 45 is not possible. Did not try different VTF

Post in thread 'Fun with vinyl measurements'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...un-with-vinyl-measurements.20278/post-1949122

 

[Thomas_A]

Not quite sure how to interpret the words in the printed guideline. I do consistently get best /even symmetric crosstalk at 46 degree track . Trying to get even at 45 is not possible. Did not try different VTF

A symmetric value means azimuth L to R symmetry. But it does not mean a perfectly centered generator (could be affected by VTF and (very little) by skate/antiskate force).

 

[Balle Clorin]

Some Merolemez plots here @Thomas_A
Post in thread 'Why is reading crosstalk so inconsistent across the different tools?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...across-the-different-tools.38934/post-1029833

 

[ElectricWarrior]

I made an arc protractor image using the arc protractor generator on alignmentprotractor.com printed 1:1 to an image file.
I edited the image in Photoshop. The steps are in the images


After the work I put in, of course it sounds better! I think I need an intermodulation distortion test record to see if there is a measurable difference?

The protractor in your images was made with Conrad Hoffman's software. I believe the files can be printed to a PDF that contains a vector images, so you could edit it in Illustrator or Inkscape. Photoshop is not the best tool for this job – though it has some vector capabilities, too.


When using my site, you could simply enter a different offset angle while keeping the overhang the same. That way you wouldn't align on the exact null points, but the result would be identical.

Editing a protractor generated by my site is also possible. Instead of printing to PDF, I’d recommend saving the protractor site as a .svg and editing the file in a text editor to remove the html wrapper (just keep everything that is inside the <svg>-tags). That will allow you to open it in Illustrator. But you can change the angle of the grids in the text editor as well. They are grouped, so just search for the first two <g>-tags in the code and edit the value for "rotate".

Alternatively, here are the steps to edit the svg in illustrator: Select a grid, change to the the rotate tool, place a pivot point at the center of the grid, rotate the grid and you're done! Much quicker and cleaner than in PS

I a still looking for a reliable method to set Zenith. Maybe a IMD test with lateral modulation is the thing.. but IMD can vary a lot between records and cartridges..

Also I suspect cantilever alignment is more important than a misalignment of the diamond itself. It is the cantilever movement that generates signal… I have yet to see a figure and article describing the geometric effect of a misaligned diamond. It is kind of assumed that a misaligned diamond must the corrected by the same angle on the cantilever—- but I am not so sure..

Exactly. One would trade intermodulation distortion–caused by the misaligned stylus–for tracking distortion–caused by a misaligned cantilever. Which is the bigger problem? And if they’re both relevant, what would be the best compromise?

 

[Thomas_A]

Not quite sure how to interpret the words in the printed guideline. I do consistently get best /even symmetric crosstalk at 46 degree track . Trying to get even at 45 is not possible. Did not try different VTF

Post in thread 'Fun with vinyl measurements'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...un-with-vinyl-measurements.20278/post-1949122

The absolute value is a separate thing - if the curves overlap, being a dip at 46° or 43° or 45, does not really matter. Adjusting for the 45° I think can only be either cartridge specific or adjusted by VTF.

 

[Thomas_A]

Did a flattening of another record, and it worked out really fine. My worst warped one is baking at the moment. When enough records have been tested I will write it up.

 

[Thomas_A]

Some Merolemez plots here @Thomas_A
Post in thread 'Why is reading crosstalk so inconsistent across the different tools?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...across-the-different-tools.38934/post-1029833

Here is my at 1.45 g VTF. Close to 42° minimum both channels. So it is symmetric L and R.

 

[sqrl]

The protractor in your images was made with Conrad Hoffman's software. I believe the files can be printed to a PDF that contains a vector images, so you could edit it in Illustrator or Inkscape. Photoshop is not the best tool for this job – though it has some vector capabilities, too.


When using my site, you could simply enter a different offset angle while keeping the overhang the same. That way you wouldn't align on the exact null points, but the result would be identical.

Editing a protractor generated by my site is also possible. Instead of printing to PDF, I’d recommend saving the protractor site as a .svg and editing the file in a text editor to remove the html wrapper (just keep everything that is inside the <svg>-tags). That will allow you to open it in Illustrator. But you can change the angle of the grids in the text editor as well. They are grouped, so just search for the first two <g>-tags in the code and edit the value for "rotate".

Alternatively, here are the steps to edit the svg in illustrator: Select a grid, change to the the rotate tool, place a pivot point at the center of the grid, rotate the grid and you're done! Much quicker and cleaner than in PS



Exactly. One would trade intermodulation distortion–caused by the misaligned stylus–for tracking distortion–caused by a misaligned cantilever. Which is the bigger problem? And if they’re both relevant, what would be the best compromise?

The protractor in your images was made with Conrad Hoffman's software.

I'm sorry, my bad. I started with the .pdf file and should have checked back which tool it came from. Thanks for coming on here to correct me.

My other big mistake was in editing the offset angle, but not calculating adjusted null points, which is easy to do in alignmentprotractor.com. And to generate a custom protractor.

Exactly. One would trade intermodulation distortion–caused by the misaligned stylus–for tracking distortion–caused by a misaligned cantilever. Which is the bigger problem? And if they’re both relevant, what would be the best compromise?

I agree.

 

[ElectricWarrior]

My other big mistake was in editing the offset angle, but not calculating adjusted null points, which is easy to do in alignmentprotractor.com.

That's not a mistake at all. Just a different approach that will lead to the same result.

 

[Thomas_A]

So a bit more play with the Merolemez azimuth test. Below in order is 1.0 VTF, 1.5 VTF and 1.5 VTF with a center weight on record. Basically very small differences, the weight did shifted the symmetry minimum from ≈43/42° to ≈42/43°. (bands are from left->right 50° to 40° steps for L channel for the other channel 40° to 50°, Minima can be seen around ≈43° and ≈42° for the first two plots)

Conclusion: no effect on VTF on these tracks. Some symmetry shift using a weight, which is expected since the record was pushed down a bit. The absolute values are cartridge/stylus and/or record specific and may explain why there are sometimes odd differences between the Ortofon and CA-TRS1007 record when looking at crosstalk.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Did you clean/ filter the spectrum? It look less noisy than my raw files

 

[Thomas_A]

Did you clean/ filter the spectrum? It look less noisy than my raw files

400 Hz LP. The Amadeus software has a visualization that looks a bit cleaner when zoomed out compared to Audacity.

 

[Thomas_A]

So some antiskate measurements with the reverse deflection method. Meaning that while playing a groove, cueing up will cause a lateral signal when the stylus leave the groove, if there is a lateral force going from groove to resting state. I made a few tests with the lateral /mono/ pink noise test of the Analogue productions test LP. I did cue up 5-6 times and looked at the wave form at the end of the track. VTF is 1.48 g.

First the measured force of my minimum antiskate which is 0.10 gram, as measured by a scale (which is 6.7% of the VTF). Spike is higher in the right channel.

Looking at maximum antiskate, which is 0.32g (22% of VTF). Spike is higher in the left channel:

Between those (medium antiskate, 0.21g or 14%). Results start to look a bit confusing; three of the cue-ups are vertical motion (out of phase), one is about equal L-R and two are higher i L channel.

So the conclusion is, cue-up method probably works to check and dial in antiskate force based on a real track. Ideally one should set it where you get as much anti phase results as possible, since this this means lateral movement is minimum when cueing up.

 

[Jimi Floyd]

Some more on antiskating. You do not need Wally svarer to measure antiskate force. Balance the arm to float horizontal and place a VTF device on the side and let the arm tip/side act on the measuring plate.

Like this
View attachment 483527


View attachment 483529
View attachment 483535
View attachment 483531

My SME V has lower side force
View attachment 483532


View attachment 483533

View attachment 483534

My Denon Record notes states AS to be about 15% of the VTF.
My SME is close to 10%, my Fisher MT-6330 is 16.5%..
What are your numbers?

Spoiler: Denon Antiskate info

View attachment 483549

View attachment 483550

View attachment 483551
I think Denon formulas may be misunderstood…tan and Sin and tracking angle can be confused with offset angle. The plot of the skating force is simply the Sinus of the sum of offset angle+tracking error,
View attachment 483556
This is better understandable
View attachment 483703

More theory

https://www.jpthien.com/temp/antiskating.pdf

I found your measurement to be very interesting, and since I have an SME V too I decided to provide an independent data set. Setup for measurement is based on your experiment. I bought the arm new from SME in 2015

The raw results are:
VTF [grams] - Antiskate [mg]
0.5 - 60
1.0 - 100
1.5 - 140
2.0 - 190
2.5 - 240
3.0 - 290
Once plotted

The final result of the analysis is: Antiskating force = 9.5% of the vertical tracking force. Really not too different from your result.

Enjoy!

 

[Jimi Floyd]

And just because I was at it, I did the same measurement for an SME 3009/II improved

The raw results are:
VTF [grams] - Antiskate [mg]
0,25 - 50
0,50 - 90
0,75 - 140
1,0 - 200
1,25 - 250
1,50 - 290
Once plotted

The final result of the analysis is: Antiskating force = 20% of the vertical tracking force. This is 2x the ASF of the SME V, thus appears to really be too much.

Note 1) from independent tests based on mistracking I already discovered the 3009 improved anomaly and set the AS on this arm at 50% of its nominal value, now I have discovered that this 1/2 factor fits with the SME V standard

Note 2) this sets what has been a long standing puzzle in my mind. The SME 3009/II (not improved) and the SME 3009/II improved have exactly the same antiskating mechanism and the same AS counterweight BUT the not improved version manual says to use 1 AS notch every 0,5g of VTF, the improved version manual says to use 1 AS notch every 0,25g of VTF. One is twice the other, so they cannot possibly be both equivalent and one should be "right" while the other should be "off".
If I assume that the SME V scale is right then the 3009 non improved is OK and the 3009 improved applies too much (twice) the right AS (my preferred theory at the moment).
If I assume that the 15% of the VTF theory is right than the 3009 not improved and the SME V antiskating force is slightly low (both are 10%) and the 3009 improved applies a slightly high AS (20%).

 

[Balle Clorin]

I found your measurement to be very interesting, and since I have an SME V too I decided to provide an independent data set. Setup for measurement is based on your experiment. I bought the arm new from SME in 2015
View attachment 486233
The raw results are:
VTF [grams] - Antiskate [mg]
0.5 - 60
1.0 - 100
1.5 - 140
2.0 - 190
2.5 - 240
3.0 - 290
Once plotted
View attachment 486236
The final result of the analysis is: Antiskating force = 9.5% of the vertical tracking force. Really not too different from your result.

Enjoy!

Very nice thanks , my result are not as linear . 9% and 1 and 2 and 12% at 3. I now have repositioned the arm rest - missing the template- but with info from others used 175mm from spindle to 10mm past the rest . Giving slightly higher values. I will redo it and with your arm position- I did it more into the platter
SME V seem to have a target AS force of about 10% yes. Very good to know that my am is not far off that, and works as intended

 

[dougi]

My electronic stylus gauge does not work in the orientation required to measure the antiskate force. Can anyone recommend a cheap one that does, that is easily obtainable?

 

[Balle Clorin]

Se the photo, anything on Aliexpress does the job

Link here in post #1
'What is your'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-is-your.66743/

 

[dougi]

I have finally measured my anti skating force on my decks.. On the vintage Denon with da-50 arm I get 8-9% of TF. 1978 though! On my music Hall stealth, 10-13%, rising with the AS setting.