DaVinci tonearm and azymuth

Joel,

I believe it is the later being frequency specific which is to our benefit. In practical application, it allows us to go beyond the loose standard of 1KHz if we choose to.

I apologize but my time online is short this morning.

Dre

Dre, I am not discussing azimuth adjustment either.
As there is nothing to discuss in a simple geometrical issue like this.
And I clearly stated that the F. software does function in a way which gives a wrong result - at least regarding azimuth "adjustment".
Period. I know it - I have it (the Freickert software...) at hand.....
So my post was purely for clarification too.
D.

Dear Jtimothya, to determine the correct output for each channel you do not use a test record.

Maybe. The goal is merely to compensate for channel output differences prior to taking readings for the purpose of setting a decent azimuth. Whether you use a stylus cleaner or the stylus moving in a groove cut for a known frequency, the net result of what you're doing is basically the same. The cartridge doesn't know where its input comes from. If you have a point it seems to be about the specific frequency used to put the motor in motion.

From what I know the methods described in my post have yielded proven results. Thanks for your comment.
.

It reads "correct" and "each channel" and your cartridge (and - btw - me too...) do see some important difference between tracking a groove wall with most likely misaligned azimuth or being forced to generate output independent of stylus position ( one channel is always louder if azimuth is off....) ...... but if your method gives satisfying (or "proven") results for you - great!

Dertonarm,

I don't think there is much else to say about the functionality of the software. It's a transfer function that is, as I stated, independent of the difference of channel balance. Anyone with the software, or a spec an, or a true RMS meter can duplicate at least the transfer function to the limit of each measurement devices resolution. Of course the other options mentioned are more tedious. What one does with the repeatable information obtained from this exercise can be the subject of debate which I will not enter into since I'd much rather listen to music than engage in turf wars about subjective opinions.

I guess we will agree to disagree since I know I can (and have done so) duplicate the transfer function using several different tools to benchmark what my [b]ears[/b] tell me.

I appreciate your interest in this discussion and how you are sharing your understanding of how you think the software works.

In the end the software is a tool, a very nice one IMO for analog applications, to be used to help the listener find satisfaction and enjoyment in music reproduction. Does the software work as I stated? Yes. Is it the final judgment on satisfaction of music playback? No, that would be the individual music listeners contentment with the quality of music playback or at least is should be.

Dre