2. analog
  3. 142703-12450

Vinyl heresy-overhang induced distortion is not that important

I have learned and am of the opinion that the quality of the drive unit, the quality of the tonearm, the quality of the cartridge and phono stage and compatibility/setting of all these things (other than setting overhang) and the setting of proper VTF, VTA, SRA, and azimuth are far more important than worrying about how much arc-induced and overhang- induced (the two are related) distortion one has. I learned this the hard way. I will not go into details but please trust me-I am talking about my new ~15K of turntable components for the deck itself and excluding cartridge and phono stage. I have experimented with simply slamming a cartridge all the way forward in the headshell, placing the cartridge mid-way along the headshell slots, and slammed all the way back, each time re-setting VTF, VTA, SRA, and azimuth. I would defy anyone to pick out the differences. I have 30K of tube separates, a Manley Steelhead, and DeVore O/93's. I submit that any differences in distortion due to sub-optimum arcs and deviations from the two null points and where they are located (those peaks in distortion) are masked several times over by distortion imposed by my tubed gear and my loudspeakers. To believe that your electronics and loudspeakers have less distortion than arc-induced distortion is unrealistic. I have heard startling dynamics, soundstaging, and detail with all three set-ups. It is outright fun to listen to and far preferable to my very good digital rig with all three set-ups. 
My point is that getting perfect alignment is often, not always, like putting lipstick on a pig, I think back on my days on owning a VPI Classic and then a VPI Prime and my having Yip of Mint Protractors fashion custom-made protractors for each of these decks and my many hours of sitting all bent over with eye to jewelers loop staring down horizontal twist among parallax channels and getting overhang on the exact spots of two grids and yet never hearing anything close to the level of sound I get now. Same cartridges, same phono stage, only my turntable/arm combination has changed. I kept thinking the answer had to be in perfect alignment when it was clearly everything else but.
Thoughts? I am sure I will get all kinds of flack. But for those that do tell me I am nuts, try my experiment sometime with a top-tier deck/arm combination and report back. 
128x128fsonicsmith
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,101 posts
 
Dear @testpilot : Certainly you need the rigth tool to make the cartridge/tonearm alignment, no questions about.
What you don't need is to spend all that kind of money you posted to do it. You can buy from MINT LP a dedicated protractor for around 100.00 that's really accurated.

The issue in this thread is that as @lewm pointed out the OP posted something that's a wrong opinion ( I respect his opinion but that's all. ) because I think he does not understand why Mr. Löfgren created the tonearm/alignments calculations. In the other side the OP can't be aware because he said does not listen improvements, it's clear that he do not know what to look for with and with out Löfgren alignments calculations set up.

What the OP was doing is to " live "/return to 1937 year when Löfgren not developed yet his calculations about that he did it in 1938.

So if the OP is happy living in 1937 no problem about, he is satisfied with but do it your self a favor and make the rigth thing with the tonearm/cartridge alignment. Don't let at random as the OP.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
fsonicsmith's avatar
fsonicsmith OP
962 posts
 
This thread is a collection of anecdotal subjective impressions.
Then your reading comprehension is suspect. I explained in my OP how setting up cartridge alignment using the Mint Protractor on a VPI Classic and Prime resulted in lackluster sound. Do you need laboratory proof that I indeed used the Mint Protractor and used it correctly? On the one hand I may be posting anonymously and I may have no credibility to defend but how do you know that any measurement from say, John Atkinson, is valid and correct? And how many meaningful measurements are there that explain how a turntable/tonearm/cartridge sounds? To say "this thread is a collection of anecdotal subjective impressions" is like saying "zoos are full of captive animals". Yes, but what is your point?
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,101 posts
 
Dear @fsonicsmith : Using orthodox tonearm/cartridge alignment set ups every time the tonearm effective length change it changes too the off-set angle and P2S distance.

You said you changed at random your tonearm/cartridge efective length with out other changes but: " VTF, VTA, SRA, and azimuth. " and I understand that you can’t detected differences in the SQ and " defy " any one to pick out the differences.

Well, I did it (As I said several times I almost always make tests on a different opinion of mine to attest if I’m totally wrong or if I can achieve a better SQ with what other gentlemans explain. ) and compare it against Löfgren A orthodox alignment and in my system exist differences in between the four alignments where the common characteristics of the 3 at random overhang is a tonal unbalance where in the forward overhang high frequencies are more prominently and we can think better than the hf in the Löfgren alignment but after a few minutes we can aware that it’s only with more brigthness due to higher resonances/distortions. We have to remember that with cartridge at headshell forward position we are changing too the inertia moment ( effective mass and the tonearm cartridge resonance frequency value. ).. The back ward position is almost " unlistenable " in comparison and in both extremes the bass range is a little bloated in comparison with the Löfgren. There are other things that are more subttle in differences.

I did those tests using my self developed process that includes almost always the same parts on each same LPs tracks and I did it with that process because is the way I know what to look for on each of them The process is full tested in my system and other system and almost bullet proof.
As always I did it at near field seated position and at normal position too.

As you I re-set the other parameters but the off-set andgle and P2S.

Again I’m not questioning what you listened in your system and for me is very hard to think that we can’t detect SQ differences changing tonearm/cartridge effective length at random with out touch the other orthodx related parameters and that’s why I made those tests and confirm that at least Löfgren A alignment makes in my system a better " job ". So, I will stay with the orthodox kind of alignments.


R.




lewm
13,169 posts
 
Raul, Before now, I thought your favored alignment geometry is Baerwald.  And isn't Baerwald equivalent to Lofgren B, not A?  Surprised to read here that you strive for A.

I think one reason this topic is controversial relates to a point that Raul made earlier: the tracking angle error and therefore any audio signal distortion created by TAE, is changing every second, as the stylus traverses the playing surface, while we listen to music.  It may be very difficult for the brain to detect the audio distortions, because at any one moment in time, the distortion being generated by an erroneous alignment may be no worse than the distortion momentarily created by any one of the standard alignments, at a different distance from the spindle on the same LP.  This could pertain even if, on average, we are best off with one of the standard alignments (assuming here Lofgren or Baerwald, since Raul hates Stevenson as much as he hates tubes).  This business is not as simple as detecting and eliminating a distortion that is a constant.
sbank's avatar
sbank
3,379 posts
 
@lewm The null points for Löfgren "A" (identical to Baerwald) are at 66.0mm and 120.9mm.
You've got your A's mixed with your B's. Cheers,
Spencer

More to discover