2. analog
  3. 1062046662

Harry Weisfeld Was Right All Along

I'll admit that I was skeptical when I heard Harry Weisfeld of VPI say that his JMW tonearm sounded better without any antiskating device a few years ago. All the arguments for antiskating compensation seemed plausible if not undeniable.

But today, I've seen the light. I own a Michell Orbe SE with a Wilson Benesch Act 0.5 arm and a Shelter 501 II cartridge. I dialed everything in, but still had the compunction to fiddle around with something so I removed the funky anti-skate weight from the WB. Not only does the arm behave much better (no annoying, backswing when indexing), but it actually sounds better to my ears. Smoother, more dynamic, less etched/more natural are the changes I hear. I wonder how many other arm/cartridge combinations would benefit from eschewing their anti-skate mechanisms.

While I originally thought that Harry Weisfeld was simply making excuses, in reality, he was probably just being honest. I'm sure the twisty-wire approach he now uses is a good way to implement anti-skating for those who must have it.
plato
jackcob
37 posts
 
I have the a TNT MKV/JMW12.5/Van den hul, Black beauty combo. I used the HiFiNews test record to set the
"anti-skate" I found that twisting the wires does have an effect on tracking in that the mistracking buzz will start in one channel or the depending on how the wire is twisted.

By the way, this combo is an incredible tracker. It goes through the first three bands of the torture test with no problem, whatsoever, and can almost track the last bank. And it sounds as good as it tracks.
quincy
356 posts
 
Hi Plato,
This is Quincy. No, nothing else changed in the system at that time. Only the table and arm were new. The five clicks on volume were on my Conrad-Johnson Premier 17 LS which utilizes a sealed relay type system for each .5 (or so) dB of volume setting. It just makes me wonder a bit about antiskate and the theory behind it. For the time being, I think I will let things be.
Regards,
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Quincy, I think your problem may be azimuth not anti-skating. I am not sure whether you can change this in the SME.
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
Great thead. My old HK/Rabco ST-8 (linear) tracked all four HFN antiskating tracks, although track 4 was pretty tough. The slight buzz on track 3 and very loud buzz on track 4 switched from L to R. Obviously it was mistracking generally without regard to (nonexistent) skating forces.

My new Teres 265/OL Silver/Shelter 901 handles track 4 better than the old linear arm, even using the same cartridge! It tracks all four test tracks easily, though there's fairly loud buzzing on the R channel during track 4.

On track 3, buzzing in the R channel can be minimized (not quite eliminated) by setting antiskate at the max, which is labelled for a VTF of 2g. Our actual VTF is 1.75g, so this is theoretically too much antiskate, particularly as OL's literature says the best antiskate setting should be LOWER than VTF. OTOH, when I put the stylus down in dead space in the runout area, it moves fairly quickly OUTWARD. This suggests I have too much antiskating force, but if I reduce it the test track buzz gets worse. Are these results as inconsistent as they seem to me? Any suggestions?
twl
3,251 posts
 
You must remember that the need for anti-skating changes with the stylus position on the record. It needs more at the area close to the label than at the outside. This is why most anti-skate systems are a compromise at best, anyway. There have been some arms that attempted to solve this progressive change problem, but I don't know if any were perfectly successful.
More to discover