Tracking error distortion audibility

Hi Raul,
nice to be able to call you by name, unlike most folk that prefer to hide behind some alias.
All taken in good sprit, the point missed might be, that some folk might leave this here discourse with a major case of 'audiophila nervosa' because their spindle/pivot is out by 5 hundredth of a millimetre.
Figure that out in thousands of an inch if you will, and it might give more of the participant a better feel what tolerances we are talking. Recall it takes 25.4 millimetre to make 1 inch. So now we are talking about 3 or 5 hundredth of a millimetre!
AND we still take care by a good set-up to compensate for this, by making sure of the right amount of overhang at each null-point AND being dead-on 90 deg. It seems to get just a bit 'unreal' to pretend to pursue this hyper-tolerance notion.
Add 0.1 gram (usually 0.4 gram tolerance) variation in VTF, your suspension goes a bit down, your stylus-pivot distance has changed by 0.002 or0.003 at least. Now we 'pretend' get the arm post holes drilled so this is within such tolerance --- please, let's just accept the real world situation, I say.

One last point I want to share: the lateral Azimuth (twisting the cart left or right) when trying to get the CANTILEVER (never mind the cart body) as close to 90 deg. (0 deg to the groove) at the two null-points.
This is some issue with ALL fixed head shell hole arms e.g. SME V, IV, 300 series, Linn..., when a cart's cantilever is not quite in the 'perfect' place related to the mounting screw-(threaded)holes of that cart.
It is than because nigh impossible to get it to 90deg. due to the next to no play (~0.05mm) of the mounting screws in the head shell holes.
So, get a better cart, or file open the holes? Do not drill them open!! This would allow for too much lateral movement of the cart in the head shell. I discourage this of course, but to spend another 2-3k dollars may just make you change you mind on that also.

Greetings,
Axel

Dear Axel: Yes, I agree we have to accept the real world situation specially when things are out of our control or best effort.

What I mean ( sometimes I can't explain me in the precise way ) is that if we want to improve the quality perfomance of what we have we can do it ( right now ) and with out buying new audio items but only reexamine the set-up on each single ( big or tiny ) link in the audio chain, almost always ( when we do that ) we can find " land " to improve even with simple things like cleaning ( time to time ) the input/output connectors ( yes, IMHO these RCA/XLR connectors are a link in the audio chain. ) on the audio system. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that if we want to have better quality performance in our today audio system the best ( not the only ) way to go is try to put at minimum the whole audio system distortions ( any ).

The tonearm/cartridge set-up is a great example where we can put those distortions at minimum if we take care about and if don't here in this single link " things " could goes wrong and against to the " minimum distortion " target and against to be nearer to the recording.
But this is only an exampe and we have to put the same care/know-how in all the audio chain ( even that connectors cleaning exercise permit to lower distortions. ).

+++++ " Making any mistake here, will make it VERY hard - if not impossible - to fix that "bug" ever after. " +++++

well Dertonarm put the " finger where pained " ( IMHO he was a little " cheerful " when he say: very hard to fix after. ): IMHO and I agree with him anything we lost or add in an audio link we lost for ever and there is no way to recovery in the original status and with out adding other distortions/stages.

I posted several times that the free-will " compensation " whole/normal ( even a establisment. ) practice ( audiophiles, dealers, reviewers, etc, ) in audio to achieve a sound reproduction that we like through a selection of audio items to have " synergy " is one and incorrect form to be nearer to the recording ( well this is the target and if your target is different then this words are not for you. ), I say that " compensation " practice put us farest from the recording because trying to fix errors ( distortions ) adding other error/distortions can't IMHO give us the correct one.

We can read in any forum and commercial audio " pro " magazines things like this: " if your system is a little on the bright side then don't use this cartridge ", " if you want a warm sound then use this audio item instead the other ( any ) ".
This kind of attitude preclude ( in some ways ) the opportunity to improve in real manner the quality performance on our audio systems, let me to explain a little about trhough an example:

we buy or borrow a new audio item ( a very well regarded audio item almost a statement product. ) and then we connect/integrate in the audio system and hear it.
Normaly we will hear somethings that we like and somethings that we don't but almost never we try to make changes in the audio system ( everywhere ) to really integrate/set-up the new item where this new item ( statement product ) could really shine/show its overall quality.
We go to what we don't like it with out think that that new audio item quality performance maybe are showing the own audio system " anomalies " that have to fix it.

Then we say: " that product is good but not good enough for my audio system. " with out thinking that that product is a way/tool that can help us.

I remember very clear the Monaco TT review where the reviewer take that incorrect attitude, where he don't go in deep to find how good was that TT ( against the one he own. ) and this I think is an obligation of any reviewer. There are several similar examples.

So we have to reexamine ( the people that whant it. ) what we have with a non-compensation attitude.
IMHO we can't grow-up if we continue with that " compensation " attitude that we take it like false " synergy ".

Speak to try putting distortions at minimum means ( between other things ) try to find neutrality/accuracy elsewhere ( not analytic or cold sound ). I can asure you that when we work in this direction the rewards are enormeous and the music enjoy through our audio systems is so high that you can't imagine till you have it.

Axel the Azymuth subject is a critical one due to our " real world ", not only because the cartridge cantilever many times come off-out of place but the stylus are not perfect centered and at the right angle.

You have to think that all what all the ones that already posted here on the tonearm/cartridge subject " collapse " if we can't make Azymut changes.

IMHO a tonearm that does not permit Azymuth control/changes is an unfinished product, period.

Now, other than put some side-spacers in the headshell what you can do with your SME is to set-up the tonearm main column/rod with a little inclination either side you need: yes, you can do it.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul,
you're the man! Couldn’t agree more with you.

Note: The Azimuth has to items to it: lateral and vertical Herr Tonearm explained...

Vertical is A OK with a cart like PW in an SME, it allows for some degree of tilting due to it's 3 point mounting plate (must have thought of SME here :-)

If the cantilever it too skew to the cart's body we are in BIG trouble with SME's non slotted design. BUT ONLY is since everyone asked for screw holes in the cart mounting plate!
This then has next to NO adjustment left to 'twist' the cart left or right. If the cart has just the good old lugs with the long bolts and nuts used at the bottom, there is enough play to come right usually, maybe not with the worst though.
It seems the price to pay for a more 'comfortable' cart adjustment...

This is actually was what I found out to be the source distortion. I got it pretty much fixed, but juuuust just with max. twisting to the left as so to align the CANTILEVER, never mind the cart body it mean NOTHING. Look at the cart body --- you can't even notice a difference.

Thank you for caring,
Axel

Dear friends: IMHO we have to see/take ( everyone ans specially the tonearm builders. ) the tonearm like a " tool " a very precise tool that ( between other important subjects ) can/must give the opportunity to have a near perfect cartridge ( like a whole. ) alignment through its " facilities/infraestructure " .

Some ( fortunately only one or two ) tonearm builders say that they don't compromise the tonearm " rigidity " ( or the like ) for some of that cartridge alignment " facilities ".
I respect their opinions but I disagree with because I think the " source " is the cartridge not the tonearm ( the tonearm is " only " a tool/medium, a very important and critical one no doubt about but the main " star " is the cartridge. ) and IMHO the main target has to be a " perfect " cartridge alignment and from here they and us can do anything they and us want it.

This is my approach: I don't like ( through my experiences ) trade-offs on cartridge alingnment due to tonearm limitations, I prefer a trade-off in the tonearm device, at the end of the day nothing is perfect and certainly not the cartridges ( that's why we need those tonearm facilities. ), but the " success " or not comes through which and where we all accept trade-offs: where a trade-off made/makes less harm.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul,
well said! BUT in order to understand this position you take, it needs some intimate knowledge of the subject matter --- and unfortunately this takes time, and more importantly interest AND motivation to acquire it.

A lot of folks don't want to know the details of their car's differential gear, but simply use it.

So, that said, it might make a case for Linn and SME's non-variable approach.

I'm also not really sure if a very 'funky' adjust-all approach is the last answer to all this.

As with all things, learn as you go --- THEN make a more informed decision, on what is best for your needs AND preferences, or?

Thanks for your ever present words of wisdom, it always makes for good reading.
Axel