.

[TBone]

I've heard so many expensive vinyl rigs that weren't set up optimally....so much wasted money.

TBH, due to laws of diminishing returns and the frequency of bad set ups, I'd say a mid-level tt/arm/cart, with appropriately matching components, truly properly and carefully set up, will do better than a mediocre set up of a much more expensive rig.

Perhaps diminishing returns and bad setups are synonymous.

I don't happen to be a fan of the looks, but the new Technics 1200GR (~$1700), plus matched cartridge of choice in the $500-$1000 range, is probably the major inflection point for serious diminishing returns. Maybe an arm upgrade, too, if you want really want to gild the lilly or just be different. After that, it takes a lot more effort and money to do objectively better (different, yes, better, maybe not).

I like the look of the 1200, really luv the motor, the rest of the 'table, not so much. It certainly represents fine value for the money, but ...

For example, my previous Project Debut Carbon came with an Ortofon 2M Red and the fixed carbon tonearm is well optimized for this. But if you want to upgrade to a 2M Black, things may not work out so well, as the 2M Black has a much narrower stylus and sensitive to VTA/SRA....which isn't really easily adjustable on the Debut Carbon arm.

The VTA/SRA myth ...

Considering all the fluffy, out of date, potentially wrong or just plain wrong advice/data out there regarding stylus positioning ... perhaps this 2004 article is of interest.

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

Not dismissing the importance of stylus rake-angle per say; I'm mostly dismissing much posted VTA advice, and it's overall importance in the vast majority of systems ... which leads to the myth. Measurements, those done with a variety of carts (measuring IMD @increased VTA) consistently show that rake-angle accuracy is of less importance than is often stated.

http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/

All too often, even with the aggressive stylus on expensive carts ... stylus rake angle adjustment can prove insignificant.

My own measurements only confirm much the same.

Level 5 test (hardest test track), L/R channel, lateral modulation, 100hz tone. The number represents the tracking force (100=1 gram, 150=1.5grams).

(IMO, the most critical time to properly set a cartridge for life; is to measure during break-in. If set incorrectly at an early point, and used in that manner for a prolonged period, you've most likely negatively destined that cartridge's full potential.)

Below is the current set. Sets are recorded at different intervals during cartridge break-in, starting from about 5hrs play to the current ~25hrs. Sets can be compared to prior sets utilizing various VTA and anti-skate settings.

below graph ...
130DR = 1.3gr, non parallel arm +VTA.
1.12R = 1.12gr parallel arm.
(note: stylus rake angle is defined by VTF and VTA setting.)

While I can display graphs that show a little more measurable differences with VTA/VTF, especially over time, they all remain relatively consistent.

The 2M Black is a polarizing cartridge. People love it, people hate it. I'm not surprised.

The 2M uses the Replicant stylus, like the FG-S its an aggressive cut which requires azimuth be near-perfect at all times to maximize its potential. That happenstance occurs more in some systems, than others. The negative influences of improper azimuth rears its ugly-ness rather quickly, and becomes that much more subjectively critically.

Azimuth remains the most critical stylus orientation. Rake-angle(VTA/SRA) is of little concern when azimuth is not optimized, especially for carts like the Black.

 

[watchnerd]

Perhaps diminishing returns and bad setups are synonymous.



I like the look of the 1200, really luv the motor, the rest of the 'table, not so much. It certainly represents fine value for the money, but ...



The VTA/SRA myth ...

Considering all the fluffy, out of date, potentially wrong or just plain wrong advice/data out there regarding stylus positioning ... perhaps this 2004 article is of interest.

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

Not dismissing the importance of stylus rake-angle per say; I'm mostly dismissing much posted VTA advice, and it's overall importance in the vast majority of systems ... which leads to the myth. Measurements, those done with a variety of carts (measuring IMD @increased VTA) consistently show that rake-angle accuracy is of less importance than is often stated.

http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/

All too often, even with the aggressive stylus on expensive carts ... stylus rake angle adjustment can prove insignificant.

My own measurements only confirm much the same.

Level 5 test (hardest test track), L/R channel, lateral modulation, 100hz tone. The number represents the tracking force (100=1 gram, 150=1.5grams).

(IMO, the most critical time to properly set a cartridge for life; is to measure during break-in. If set incorrectly at an early point, and used in that manner for a prolonged period, you've most likely negatively destined that cartridge's full potential.)

Below is the current set. Sets are recorded at different intervals during cartridge break-in, starting from about 5hrs play to the current ~25hrs. Sets can be compared to prior sets utilizing various VTA and anti-skate settings.

View attachment 14818


below graph ...
130DL = 1.3gr, non parallel arm +VTA.
1.12L = 1.12gr parallel arm.
(note: stylus rake angle is defined by VTF and VTA setting.)

View attachment 14820

While I can display graphs that show a little more measurable differences with VTA/VTF, especially over time, they all remain relatively consistent.

The 2M Black is a polarizing cartridge. People love it, people hate it. I'm not surprised.

The 2M uses the Replicant stylus, like the FG-2 its an aggressive cut which requires azimuth be near-perfect at all times to maximize its potential. That happenstance occurs more in some systems, than others. The negative influences of improper azimuth rears its ugly-ness rather quickly, and becomes that much more subjectively critically.

Azimuth remains the most critical stylus orientation. Rake-angle(VTA/SRA) is of little concern when azimuth is not optimized, especially for carts like the Black.

I've read the article and, while I agree with his conclusions that VTA worries are overblown, I do like having the option to adjust it for no other reason than differences in cartridge height; I don't muck with VTA to change the sound, but I do want to set it to be parallel. Not an issue if going from an Ortofon 2M Red -> Black, but certainly an issue if switching to other cart that is taller or shorter.

And, yes, azimuth is a PITA on the exotic carts and, in my experience, the visual methods aren't good enough with exotic styli. I use a test track and a digital oscilloscope.

The lack of azimuth adjustment is one reason why I wouldn't try to put a 2M Black on a Debut Carbon.

By the way, the 2M Black uses a Shibata stylus, not a Replicant.

 

[TBone]

Shibata stylus, I stand corrected.

Either way, I don't care what stylus/cartridge you use, the exact same physics apply ... stylus rake angle should never have to be set by moving the arm physically up or down. The arm should always be parallel to the platter/LP. If an arm is not parallel to the platter/LP, not only does azimuth become offset, VTF torsion per channel is offset, the internal generator becomes offset, cantilever deflection is offset, and all that offset/error (add that to the improper use of anti-skate) gets multiplied over the life of the cartridge.

If additional VTA becomes a requirement, I strongly urge people to send the cartridge back to the manufacturer, because no matter what you paid for it, no matter how good the fluffy reviews claim otherwise, and no matter how much you try and "fix" the problem by other means, that particular cartridge will never realize its full potential. Ironically, even with carts that don't achieve best-case SRA settings using a parallel setup, you are still best served, sonically, measurably, and especially long term stability, reverting back to a parallel setup.

 

[TBone]

I use a test track and a digital oscilloscope.

The most common way of measuring azimuth is to measure cross-talk and separation values per channel. Certain azimuth tools will attempt to minimize any variance between channel value by suggesting you twist the cartridge / head-shell in one direction or another to a certain degree.

This methodology is slightly misguided; and can potentially lead to cart/LP damage w/ the associated additional distortions. If the Azimuth Tool assumes each channel should measure equally; it's dismissing the fact that most, if not all, carts offer different xtalk & separation values per channel, inheritably. If you are lucky, some maybe off by only a dB or so, but many measure much higher variances.

So, you may in fact be twisting the cartridge further out of alignment, adding more offset, more drag and friction, to the mix - even though the tool claims you've achieved closer separation xtalk tolerances.

be careful out there ...

 

[watchnerd]

Shibata stylus, I stand corrected.

Either way, I don't care what stylus/cartridge you use, the exact same physics apply ... stylus rake angle should never have to be set by moving the arm physically up or down. The arm should always be parallel to the platter/LP. If an arm is not parallel to the platter/LP, not only does azimuth become offset, VTF torsion per channel is offset, the internal generator becomes offset, cantilever deflection is offset, and all that offset/error (add that to the improper use of anti-skate) gets multiplied over the life of the cartridge.

If additional VTA becomes a requirement, I strongly urge people to send the cartridge back to the manufacturer, because no matter what you paid for it, no matter how good the fluffy reviews claim otherwise, and no matter how much you try and "fix" the problem by other means, that particular cartridge will never realize its full potential. Ironically, even with carts that don't achieve best-case SRA settings using a parallel setup, you are still best served, sonically, measurably, and especially long term stability, reverting back to a parallel setup.

I'm in the arm should be parallel camp. I don't believe in farting around with tail up / tail down. I believe that cart makers design their carts to be run in arms that are parallel and I should use it that way.

That being said, I've had tall cartridges that wouldn't clear the platter when the arm is in the up position, bumping up against the side.. So I had to raise VTA to get enough vertical clearance so the arm would be parallel to the LP surface when the cartridge was down.

 

[watchnerd]

The most common way of measuring azimuth is to measure cross-talk and separation values per channel. Certain azimuth tools will attempt to minimize any variance between channel value by suggesting you twist the cartridge / head-shell in one direction or another to a certain degree.

This methodology is slightly misguided; and can potentially lead to cart/LP damage w/ the associated additional distortions. If the Azimuth Tool assumes each channel should measure equally; it's dismissing the fact that most, if not all, carts offer different xtalk & separation values per channel, inheritably. If you are lucky, some maybe off by only a dB or so, but many measure much higher variances.

So, you may in fact be twisting the cartridge further out of alignment, adding more offset, more drag and friction, to the mix - even though the tool claims you've achieved closer separation xtalk tolerances.

be careful out there ...

I'm not too worried about it, as the most I've had to twist a headshell (my headshells all have azimuth adjustment) is maybe in the range of 2-5 degrees.

I don't go for perfection -- if the signal mostly nulls when summed to mono I'm good (one of my test disks has a L/R difference null test test track). I've never tried to fiddle with it enough to make go completely silent.

 

[TBone]

I prefer non-removable headshell type arms ... past the fact it's impossible and quite fiddly to achieve consistent azimuth results with these arms if one is constantly removing the headshell ... one may otherwise claim that 1 advantage to arms w/removable headshells is the ease of azimuth adjustment. The problem is, that advantage also represents it's biggest disadvantage, since the vast majority of audiophiles simply plug the headshell into the arm, twist tight, and never check azimuth. I've seen this happen repeatedly, and on closer inspection it's often easy to view that offset by eye.

This is probably the #1 mistake most vinyl newbees (and sadly, many veterans) make when attaching the headshell to arm.

 

[watchnerd]

I prefer non-removable headshell type arms ... past the fact it's impossible and quite fiddly to achieve consistent azimuth results with these arms if one is constantly removing the headshell ... one may otherwise claim that 1 advantage to arms w/removable headshells is the ease of azimuth adjustment. The problem is, that advantage also represents it's biggest disadvantage, since the vast majority of audiophiles simply plug the headshell into the arm, twist tight, and never check azimuth. I've seen this happen repeatedly, and on closer inspection it's often easy to view that offset by eye.

This is probably the #1 mistake most vinyl newbees (and sadly, many veterans) make when attaching the headshell to arm.

I switch between mono and stereo carts according to the medium.

If I had to do that with a fixed headshell, I'd go nuts. Or I'd have to put a 2nd arm on my table....which I have considered.

 

[krabapple]

I'm pretty anal retentive about putting numbers in a spreadsheet and calculating all the numbers for any cart before making a purchase, but it seems that most internet forum posts on cart/arm combos I see are mostly like the 'I tried this on my system and it was amaze balls / total crap, I'm in heaven / please help.'

Yeah, those subjective impressions, without 'em an audio forum is worthless

 

[krabapple]

it is kinda amusing, though, to read about heroic diligence needed to get TT/cart systems to approach the objective performance of...digital

 

[watchnerd]

it is kinda amusing, though, to read about heroic diligence needed to get TT/cart systems to approach the objective performance of...digital

I'm starting to think lazy is the way to go with vinyl.

Trying to make it "high resolution", using advance stylus profiles, is a finnicky setup PITA.

Maybe better to just get a nice, but simple, conical or elliptical, that is easier to set up correctly, enjoy the lo-fi euphonia, and call it a day.

My conical AT33 mono sounds very pleasing on audiophile mono jazz reissues. It's not high resolution, but it's enjoyable. And arguably closer to being period authentic than post-Shibata advanced stylii.