VTA setting for 'parabolic' and 'elliptical' styli

Hi All,
Doug says:
>>> ... Yet we heard the difference when VTA happened to be just right and it began to annoy us when it was off. <<<

That is also exactly my experience, no argument at all, including the annoying thing when it is off.

There are some records were I would not know at this stage, if they are just too bright (Mercury, Electra..) or some just too dull.

I agree that after some time one gets a feeling for how much up/down would get you close, but in those cases it would be so much, 4-5mm, that the next record would have to be re-adjusted again by a similar margin.

What have our experts in store for tone arms other then: Graham, VPI, TriPlanar ? --- Go get one :-)...

And how about these so much discussed and so highly rated oldies like: Fidelity Research FR-66S, Audiocraft AC-4400, SAEC 506/30, Micro Seiki MAX-282, etc.
That makes $6 500 arm even more a 'collectors item' with VTA adjustments at least as 'wanting' as an SME...

Or is it, in getting back to the subject, that using 'parabolic' and/or 'elliptical' styli will take care of some of these VTA variations?

I think they aught to be more 'forgiving' as they are less resolving?

Raul takes up MMs, now we are getting back to elliptical? (I did NOT say spherical yet :-)

Axel

Dear Axel, given its ever increasing diameter armpipe (in conjunction with its "upper floor" cartridge mounting headshell) the SME V is most troublesome - to say the least... - to adjust to VTA settings required for older (read: most pre-1972 cut records) LPs. The SME V is a most modern "child of the early 80ies" which took all technical aspects of its day in consideration and assumed perfect angle styli, high body and slender cartridge body (Ortofon...) and modern (DMM cut) records to be played (only.....).
Sorry - the SME V is in fact the one prominent non-compliant tonearm when it comes to meet different cutting angles and the resulting demand to different VTA settings.

Cheers,
D.

Hi D.
thunder and lightning, there we have it, and I guess all works just the way you put it.

Like buying a new car and then wanting to fit old (white wall?) tyres.

Thank you for clarifing this matter.
Axel
PS: and then some time, if you try, you get what you need...

Regards, Alelwahl, greetings all: Gregm (I think) has the handle on this concern. To my simple understanding, lines in space can be either parallel or divergent. The angle of the cutter head varies from one producer to another, from one standard to the next and as Gregm says, styli too. What a mess!
Axel, it seems to me that the narrower the profile of the stylus in contact with the groove walls, (some) divergence becomes less critical and the less apparent (slight) VTA error becomes. The signal is not "smeared" to the same degree across the associated surfaces because of this diminished area of contact. Could one think of this as a time/space consideration? I don't want to even consider how this might apply to a conical stylus.
Such is my perception. I tend to optimise VTA and utilize the finest profile stylus available, adjusting VTA when recording or when the reproduction is unlistenable. This is not to say correct VTA is unimportant, or "one bullet for all game" (perfectionists, please leave me some wiggle room. If I try to fix it often enough, I'll break something).
Rual, consequently I share your philosophy of setup to an acceptable standard and then "enjoy the music": the standards of most A'gon contributors seem pretty high.

Hi Timeltel
you say:
>>> ... it seems to me that the narrower the profile of the stylus in contact with the groove walls, (some) divergence becomes less critical and the less apparent (slight) VTA error becomes <<<

If I read you correctly it would contradict my understanding diametrically, as you then say that: a conical, next a hemi-spherical, followed by elliptical, then parabolic and micro-ride would become less and less critical in terms of VTA error...?
Are we sure that's your position?

Well, wow, ok, hm... Right, let's see were we are in agreement... I'm thinking...

That would not even be with the 'smearing' part...
Huston we have a problem!

All those styli going back down the line (also in time) from a VERY narrow fine-line contact stylus to a conical stylus would be more and more unable to produce micro detail i.e. 'swallow' it if you wish, since they can NOT completely trace the last bit of groove detail.

So maybe we find some common ground with this. Since it is blatantly obvious when listening to a conical stylus and then a fine-line type stylus, there is less information detail.

So what does that mean? Less and lesser detail = less **perceivable** time smear = less noticeable VTA error, would you follow me on this one at all?

Some expert put it this way: If you change VTA (and most noticeable with micro/fine-line contact styli) you are changing the treble to mid/bass information retrieval IN TIME i.e. lift the arm (more positive SRA/VTA) and you start to 'advance' the higher frequencies or retard them by going down (all relative from the 'best' / most correct retrieval position or SRA).

If you are still with we, then this means that the higher the resolution, the more **noticeable** a VTA/SRA deviation from 'spot on'. And in turn, the less resolution, simply the more 'forgiving'.

So far may understanding --- but as always the facts never tell the hole truth, since there are so many of them :-)

>>> ..I share [Raul's] philosophy of setup to an acceptable standard and then "enjoy the music" <<<

I'm trying to work this out for myself, and still searching as it were. While sheer cost helps somewhat, to find it :-)

Greetings,
Axel