Come on @rauliruegas you know darn well that I have read everything. Yes, it is true that any given frequency has a shorter wavelength as the groove speed declines, but the situation does not get serious until you are inside of 65 mm. I would guess that only 5% of the records I have go inside of 65 mm. Many do not get inside of 90mm where Lofgren B shines. If you really want low distortion at the last 10% of the record that hardly anyone uses go with UNI P2S. :-)
Feel Silly Asking This Question Alignment Parameters
I feel silly asking this question, but here it goes. Most of the arms I have owned over the years have came with proprietary protractors, and certain ones like the SME are really just overhang gauges. For other ones I have bought custom generated arc protractors for the specific arm. I will probably do so again with this Origin Live arm. However in the mean time i decided to set up using their provided protractor.
When I went to install a cartridge on the table, I found I was not wild about using their protractor, so I decided to generate a Conrad H arc protractor till I made an order for an Accutrak one. What I found odd is that Lofgren A had the longest overhang at 16.8 mm and Lofgren B at 16.3mm. The Origin Live shows 17.5 mm. Is the Rega type alignment that much different than Lofgren or Stevenson? I also noticed with the OL alignment that cartridge offset in the headshell was noticeably greater.
What is also noticeable is the sonics of each alignment is different. To be honest, I like the overall sound of the OL alignment, but I also have this nagging feeling that it does not track as well.
I always felt at this stage of my audio journey I knew how to align a cartridge. I have been doing it since I was in my 20's! Now I have a large degree of uncertainty of which alignment to choose, and what the implications are if i choose wrong. This arm is a long term keeper for me, so its a matter of wanting to get this set up optimized.
Any insights you might pass along is greatly appreciated. Do have a good chuckle at my expense as it seems that I get into these moments of self doubt, and trying to find the way out of the forest of audio can be quite comical.
- ...
- 80 posts total
I am struggling with ..."any given frequency has a shorter wavelength as the groove speed declines,...." That is from Mijo's post but he was only reiterating a quote from Raul. Frequency and wave length are inversely and constantly related, regardless of groove speed. For example, a 1000Hz tone always has a wave length in air of 0.32 meters. And the declining groove speed on an LP, as the stylus approaches the label, is presumably accounted for in the recording process. I am sure the text is trying to tell us something, but what? I think it's semantics. I think it means there is less groove length per second available to encode a given frequency to the point where the stylus has difficulty tracing the groove accurately. And this does not even take into account TAE. |
This is poor advice. The OP expressed the desire to use an Arc Protractor. Anyone who professes to be an expert in tonearm set up would know that an arc protractor is designed for a given mounting distance and you’re not supposed to use an arc protractor designed for a given mounting distance with another mounting distance. If you are going to use an arc protractor, the mounting distance must be absolutely spot on.
|
Neither I nor Origin Live mentions 17.53 Please read my posts more carefully as I do not appreciate being misquoted. Apparently you think its fine to set up tonearms with an accuracy of +-0.3mm despite and wrong offset angles despite claiming in your other posts that unless the phono stage used is accurate to +-0.01db over the audible frequency that the phono stage is not up to par. I think you should rethink your priorities in how to get the best out of an analogue system.
|
Dear @mijostyn : That's not the issue. Again starting ( no matters what ) the second null point the cartridge tracking task goes harder to tracing as at the begening/medium distances in the LP grooved surface and for that reason Löfgren choosed that in the last third part of any LP the tracking distortion gone lower and that is why he named to the A solution the Optimal Optimization that's a better alignment that his side line solution B.
@lewm " to the point where the stylus has difficulty tracing the groove accurately. " Something like that, thank's.
R. |
- 80 posts total