antiskate disc

@dynacohum  VTF

Knowledge about record wear and antiskate.

The discussion about record wear you posted reminded me of the general opinions in the earlier days of Hi-Fi and when it was evolving. Shure and Goldring were always trying to lower the tracking force of their cartridges. The old mono high fidelity players tracked much heavier than the 1.25 grams these brands tried to achieve.

Record care was the name of the game when Stereo records were the way forward with lower noise levels demanded. Lower VTF also meant less chance of damaging the stereo records with narrower grooves.

The problem was literally a balancing act, how light or how heavy should the stylus track the groove. The consensus in the 60s and 70s was that it was better to track on the heavier side of the individual cartridge manufacturers specifications. Too light and the stylus surfed the grooves, and was insecure increasing record damage. Tracking heavier was deemed to increase stylus wear, but with more groove contact would result in less record wear or damage.

So l agree with your own findings. If a cartridge was quoted as say .75 - 1.5 grams with a nominal 1.25 recommended l always found the nominal was the accepted trade off (low v high). l myself found that increasing to 1.3 or 1.35 was audibly better for the Shure V15 series and Goldring’s G900 series.

To sum it up, better to have a stylus accurately tracking a groove as it is less likely to increase record wear. The antiskate setting was another argument, but was accepted as a crucial thing to get right so that the stylus tracked the centre line of the groove.

Say what you may about the low recommended VTF of Shure, ADC, and several other vintage cartridges, but the fact is they had very high compliance and tracked LPs just fine at the factory recommended VTF. It’s not logical to condemn low VTF per se unless you’re setting VTF below the recommended range.

And when a cartridge tracks well at low VTF, you get the added benefit of less skating force. 

Come to think of it, when the original AR XA was marketed (late 60s or early 70s), most of us were using very light weight, very low VTF MM or MI cartridges (e.g., Shure and ADC).  Low cartridge weight and low VTF make for a low skating force, compared to the modern era of high effective mass tonearms and low compliance cartridges that require higher VTF. So maybe that is why or how Vilchur could justify the absence of an AS device on his tonearm, which probably was really left out to reduce cost. Then there is my experience with the underhung Viv tonearm, which trades skating force (not compensated for but lower than for any overhung tonearm) for tracking angle error (higher than for any overhung tonearm), and does it quite nicely.

The AR turntable was not my favorite.  From 1970 to 1980 I worked in high end hifi stores through college and when I was not at sea (I was in the Navy) and was a TT setup specialist.  The AR turntable wore out a lot of cartridges unevenly and the records it tortured.  I cannot say it was only because the thing did not have antiskate because the arm also had a lot of friction.  I owned one that I bought in 1969 before I understood it's limitations, but traded it for a Dual 1219 a year later, which actually had an excellent arm.  Then a couple of years later I traded it for a Thorens TD-125 MKII with a Rabco SL8E arm which I fought with for about 2 years before getting smart and switching the arm for an SME.  I still like that 3009 and have one on my VPI HW-19.  Some things are just right you know.  And some things are not.

Yeah, the AR XA tonearm had many more flaws than merely the absence of AS. But Vilchur was an articulate and erudite defender of it.