2. analog
  3. 1138757939

Setup Dynavector XV-1s on SME V help

I am having all sorts of issues getting it tuned in. I do have it sounding very good but my settings leave me confused. My tracking force is 2.4 in a dynamic balance. My antiskating is set at 2.5 or abouts & the damping dip stick is all the way down. When I cue in the tonearm it always jumps right into the 1st track, never setting smooth. ON the Hi-Fi News test disk it flys across the blank space & then jumps over the next track almost to the end of the track. Kind of crazy. My VTA is level. I am loading it at 1000 ohms to great effect now & I can track the 4th track of the HiFI News & Record Review bias test track but with a lot of buzzing. I have almost no buzzing on the 3rd track. The arm resonance is about 9 hz or so in horizontal but harder to detect in vertical, but seems about the same.

Now w. my VdH Condor I had no tracking issues & itbehaved perfectly in the SME V. The Dynavector on the Ikeda never had any problems on the lead in groove (no jumping our bouncing) but it just didn't sound good (might have been the break in or the Ebony headshell I was using. I am waiting for a Dynavector headshell to use as the stock Ikeda headshell won't accomodate the Dynavector.

Anyone with any experience please chime in as I am totally lost.
dgad
tobes's avatar
tobes
436 posts
 
It's years since I owned the SME-V, but when I looked at your pic it appears that the armtube may not be set correctly in the rest position. When positioned correctly with the supplied template, the arm is angled more towards the platter ie not straight ahead.
The armtube must be postioned within the two lines on the template for the antiskate to operate correctly. This is stressed in the SME manual.
Worth checking.
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
Tobes, how VERY observant of you -- I'm impressed! I don't know if that's Dgad's problem (his Condor seems to work OK) but it might be.
dgad OP
782 posts
 
Tobes,

You are correct about the antiskate depending on it. It has been set as per the template. In fact the closer to the turntable the arm rest, the less the antiskate. The tonearm is very near to the platter in the resting position (as per the template). The armboard is set at a slight angle which lines the tonearm straight along side of the turntable. My tonearm pivot to spindle difference was measured with all the SME tools providing an exact distance with very minimal error (1mm or so). I also confirmed all tonearm positioning w. a DB Systems protractor. What I am finding, (I need more time) is that as the cartridge breaks in the suspension is softening & allowing it to track much better. I am guessing the compliance is very high & causing most of the problems. Did anyone else w. a XV-1s find the suspension very stiff & bouncy for the 1st 100 hours?
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
I've already remarked about Tobes' powers of observation, and after checking Dgad's pics, I would have to agree with him. Nevertheless although it's true that:

"The armtube must be postioned within the two lines on the template for the antiskate to operate correctly,"

it only matters if you want the antiskate dial to read the actual antiskate force. If you set antiskate visually by watching the cantilever, as I do, it really won't matter what the actual dial reading says. I prefer to have my armrest as far away from the platter as possible (although it's closer than Dgad's). I just position it so the arm has enough horizontal travel to get the stylus about 1/8" over the edge of the label.

I noticed Dgad commented he'd added blu-tack to his tonearm. Think that might have altered the effective mass enough to screw something up? Just a thought. But it could very well be that the Dynavector just needs some suspension break-in as you suggest.
dgad OP
782 posts
 
Nsgarch,

Blue Tack was removed w. the Condor. I use an outer ring. The distance between the tonearm rest & outering is 1/8 an inch or so. Exactly between the 2 lines. Maybe it is out of adjustment. This would work very well, as I can pull the rest further out from the turntable and run w. no antiskate. The position of the arm rest would give me antiskate anyhow (I am not sure on this, but I think from the design principle, this would be correct, but it might be opposite as well.) You can test for this by placing the tonearm in neutral balance & seeing which way it will move once you lower the arm. The antiskate will pull the arm outwards from the spindle. It makes sense that you will need more antiskate the further in towards the center your stylus moves. The diameter of the circumfrence of play is getting smaller, changing the ange and creating a greater inward force on the tonearm/ cartridge. I wonder if the antiskake can be progressive as the tonearms moves throughout the record. Is it possible the tonearm has 2 different directional changes of antiskate as you play through the record due to the angle of the tonearm?? In a linear tracking this must be a continous change.
More to discover