Anti skate and tonearm damping query


I have read a number of threads relating to both antiskating and tonearm damping on the JMW 9" Sig.arm and find myself a bit confused.......I have been experimenting a little and have reached the conclusion that I must be deaf. I have not used the additional antiskating system, I have tried twisting and not twisting the leno wire and can hear no difference. If the Leno wire is not twisted therefore no antiskate, will this damage the stylus or the album??
I have also filled the damping well above the taper to the base of the point and still cannot hear 'the music being sucked out' or indeed, an improvement. Do I fill the well up to the point!! and then work backwards. Those that finetune using the damping seem to have some sort of epiphany when the 'sweet' spot is reached.

Can someone please shed light on how I should be going about setting the AS and finetuning the damping on the arm. The table is a scoutmaster with super platter and sds, the cartridge is the dynavector Te Kaitora Rua

Thanks
wes4390
Dear Stan, you are of course right. We have seen - and still have... - MCs with VTF around 1.2 to 1.5 (v.d. Hul among others). MC do NOT have ad decretum lower compliance than MMs. The skating force is - among others - a result of VTF, offset of the stylus towards the groove wall and total contact area of the stylus. Its becomes less with increased effective length and resulting decrease of tangential error. It is null at any zero error point and becomes more and less with increasing tangential error and decreasing to wards the next zero point.
Simple model.
The force is never constant - and should therefor be addressed by an inverse force which is itself variable in conjunction with the tangential curve of the given tonearm.
Not really complex - it just needs more than a plain stupid constant anti-force.
But nothing in our days is so clear as not to be neglected and denied by some.
I am positive that maybe Raul in his new upcoming tonearm-design will address this issue.
Of course we can always simplify things and we see a strong movement in this direction ever since the last 2 generations.
Why ?
Because it makes things cheaper to produce.
More profit made - less brain needed.
Simple story indeed.
Stan, the Supex cartridge(s) you specifically refer to, have elliptical styli. In fact, Supex makes cartridges with either spherical or elliptical styli - no line contact styli! AND they all have medium compliance suspensions, and some even have high compliance suspensions, just like most MM cartridges. Add to the elliptical stylus, a recommended VTF of 1.8 gm and you have a recipe for high skating torque. So from an anti-skating adjustment point-of-view, those Supex are indeed more like MM cartridges. So I think you need to do your homework before making general assumptions like you did.

I also think it's a bad idea to assume, as some others here do, that there is such a level of complexity at work in this situation, that all efforts at resolution are hopelessly doomed. If one understands the basic forces at work, and especially their overwhelming magnitude compared to the little molehills some want to make into mountains, (to prove how smart they are?) it's really a simple matter to cancel 90% of them out. If you want better than that, as I said, get a straight line tracking tonearm.

As for implementation, would you rather have a 'simple' German car or a 'complex' British car? Hmmmm . . . . . ?
.
Dertonearm,

I do not understand why you assert that skating force is "null at any zero error point". If you're saying that skating force is null at points of zero tracking angle error (e.g., at the Baerwald or Loefgren points), that is simply untrue.

Skating force exists ANY time the axis of the cantilever is not aimed directly at the pivot point of the tonearm. Therefore, EVERY tonearm with a fixed pivot point and an offset cartridge mounting angle encounters skating force at all points that the stylus is riding on a spinning record.

Don't take my word for it, and let's not argue theory. Just try this simple experiment: find a record that's ungrooved (flat) at the null points of your particular alignment scheme. Set A/S to zero, spin up the record (the faster the better) and drop the stylus at one of the null points.

Unless you're using a linear tracker or a pivoting arm with no offset angle I guarantee it will "skate" inward.

Once you've performed this simple experiment you will revise your theory, because it doesn't meet observed phenomena.

If I've misunderstood your assertion, please explain in other words if you can. I fear your current assertion is potentially misleading for the less experienced.
Hi,
anti-skate force is a ~99% function of the OVERHANG!... have I been missing something?!

Without overhang, no vector force, no skating force.
If you had "underhang" you'd create a vector force once again, but it is not of practical interest other then in the consideration of the vector forces.

Axel
Dougdeacon...you're correct, but anti-skate decreases with velocity so that it becomes less and for all practical purposes, pretty much zero at the end of the LP. That being said, Highly modulated sections of the groove will create more skate than quiet sections all through the record. ...just clarification...I'm sure you know that.