Tranfiguration Orpheus description

Dan,

I think we were trying to say the same thing. By using a bubble level you can get the headshell to be in the same plane as the platter. I'm only looking in the x-direction of the level. Not the z-direction. This assumes everything else is level. If the platter and headshels are both level (or a better way of saying it is at the same bubble in the x-direction) ,shouldn't the headshell and platter be in the same plan. Of course as you mention this assumes one is able to duplicate the bubble level exaclty. The only way I can see this not physically true is if the headshell does not have the same thickness.

By the way, I think the strip that came with the Triplanar is not perfectly flat on it's edge becasue you can see light through the middle even though the edges may be flat up against the edges of the bottom of the headshell. I'm thinking of getting a machine shop to make a "perfectly" flat block to use instead. I would agree that that would then be a better method than the bubble level.

Andrew

I agree, Andrew, we are on the same page. One advantage with the bubble level is that you can get quite close with the cartridge still mounted. And this method is not susceptible to variations if the platter is dished. When I do use the level I pick a spot on the platter, take a reading, then try to match the headshell to the same reading while it is over the same spot on the platter. Hey, it's just a place to start.

Using the block may require one to not have the cartridge mounted. I think the little guage that comes with the arm is close enough but I can understand the desire for accuracy. You might have luck with an engineer's square. These are machined to very close tolerences and can usually be found for just a few bucks. I'd be careful with one around the cartridge magnets though.

In your experience, what range of azimuth changes resulted in optimization. 1/8 turn? 1/4 turn? Or less?

Much less. 1/12 or 1/24 of a turn. It is important to take up the backlash in the threads of the adusting screw BEFORE loosening the two set screws. Otherwise you'll have no idea where you started or how far you've actually rotated the armwand.

Also, did your setting through listening equal the setting you obtained using the Wally instrument?

Yes, pretty much. With the UNIverse I was able to get crosstalk below 0.5db. Subsequent settings by ear seemed to duplicate that quite well. As other components in the path get better, it becomes easier to hear and adjust accurately. Nick's components and the Valkyra wire really made it clear.

Finally, did you have to connect your speaker cables to the Wally device or can you just insert tonearm out puts or preamp outputs?

Speaker wire connections work much better. Low level signals like preamp or, especially, tonearm output would require much more sensitive measuring equipment. The Wally just uses a standard digital multimeter. No way is that sensitive enough to measure crosstalk accurately with low level signals. Channel imbalances in the amplification chain don't matter, so there's no reason not to use the more easily measured output from your amp(s).

Doug

P.S. I don't bother levelling the headshell. That would be useful if the cartridge were dead nuts on from top surface to stylus, but that's unlikely. I just start by making the stylus/cantilever look vertical (under normal VTF on a record). This seems like a logical and simple place to start, at least to me. I noticed Frank Schroeder doing it the same way. Diff'rent strokes?

Thanks Doug!

RE: M. Fremer Orpheus review in current StereoPile:

The man should get out of audio and go into politics. Just another limp-dicked please-everybody review. No mention of break-in time or load resistance values. And in a $100K TT/TA yet! Well, what did I expect . . . . . . . .
.