Table/Cart Set Up - By Ear or Test Record?


Been on Audiogon for years and love the interaction amongst members - its both entertaining and educational.

Several threads have discussed how to set up various aspects of a table - isolation, VTF, VTA/SRA, azimuth, anti-skate, etc.

I have all the bells ans whistles - two test records, Fozgometer, Mint protrator, Feickert protractor, etc.

Over the last week, I set up my table by both using standard measurements via Feickert (spindle to pivot distance) and Mint (overhang,arc). Then set up cart using test records and Fozgometer. I then waited a week and reset everything else up again after Feickert/Mint by ear alone. Here is what I found:

By test records / Fozgo: quicker, less hassle, good sound

By ear: slower, meticulous, learned more, great sound.

For learning analogholics, I would recommened, time permitting, that you try both set up strategies and learn from them. I'm glad I did, but after this exercice, I will definitely agree with Doug Deacon and others, setting up by ear is the most sastisfying, educational, and will give you the best sound.
philb7777
I use both. Pivot to spindle, overhang and offset require precision tools like the MintLP. VTF, VTA and azimuth are set by ear.
To me adjusting by ear means adjusting to suit your own personal and subjective tastes, nothing more. When you say you obtained "great sound" by setting up by ear, what does that really mean? Only that you found the sound preferable. But another person might find the sound obtained by setting up with a test record and other tools more preferable. Is there a sound that is "right" or "correct" regardless of listeners' tastes and preferences?

If you find the sound better by adjusting by ear, that's great, but all you're doing is tweaking the setup to suit your personal and subjective perception better, not that you actually improved anything in an objective sense. Doug Deacon would most likely come and re-tweak your setup differently yet. So all this discussion tells me nothing about superiority, accurateness, or correctness of either method in an absolute sense. It might be interesting as a discussion topic in an academic sense, but from the practical standpoint it has very little value.

It's better when the technical method correlates well with the ear. Less guesswork and time, and unanimous glowing testimonials.
I use the tools to set-up my tonearm geometry and the test record to set the anti-skating. But after all that, I tweak in the Horizontal Tracking Angle, vertical tracking force and anti-skate by ear. If the cartridge sounds too bright or dull, I adjust the VTA and start the entire process over. The final fine adjusting has to be done by ear. I cannot visually set everything perfectly. I listen for clarity out of both channels and typically hear mistracking in the right channel first which tells me I need to adjust the anti-skating. I also clean the stylus every play with a wetted stylus brush. Currently, I experience clean clear sound from beginning to end of a record. That takes some patience to get it all dialed in just right.
I agree that tuning by ear sets a system up to one's personal auditory preferences. It is YOUR system and one that you will be listening too independently probably 90% of the time.

That being said, I should have elaborated more on the congruence of test record vs ear. Of course, arc, overhang, and spindle to pivot distance were all completed the same for both. Here were the differences:

VTA/SRA: Fremer and others have stated that SRA should be at a desired 92 degrees mimiking the cutting of the record during pressing. I used a USB microscope and dialed in VTA to achieve an SRA of 92 degrees. I simply didn't like the sound. It was a little strident and bright sounding. Using my ear, I dialed in the SRA by adjusting VTA to around 90.5 degrees. This gave me the best harmonics, extended upper end without brightness. During this process I adjusted the overhang with the Mint and maintained the same VTF as constants.

Azimuth: Using the Fozgo and my eyes versus using my ears and eyes - my results were quite similar. The Fozgo is easy and quick - adjusting azimuth by eyes and ears is painstakingly long. However, I felt my lateral imaging and center imaging was more solid and airy using my ears, but again, the results were quite similar to the Fozgo.

Anti-Skate: Here is where there was a huge difference in results. Using a test record to achieve none or minimal distortion in the channels, I had to turn the anti-skating up signficantly. When I did this, it dramtically affected rhythm and pace and tactility of the bass. The pace was diminished and bass became ill defined and muddy. Conversely when setting anti-skate by ear, I used much less, almost none. Pace was great and bass was tactile and firm. I could hear no mistracking or distortion while playing music in either channel.

VTF: Using tracking challenges on test records I set VTF to just above where mistracking would occur. I found the VTF to be much higher with test record calibration than when I would set it by ear (For Dyna XV-1s: test record 2.125 grams; for ear 1.935 grams). By my ears, I had no mistracking at 1.935 grams and more air and three-dimensional sound compared to the higher VTF that test record results would suggest.

Again, at the end of the day I agree - the sound we get and the gear we purchase all comes down to personal preference. I simply wanted to post this as I found the results interesting as a slightly beyond neophyte analog guy. I was a great learning experience and helped me better understand turntable set up and what affects each factor has independently on sound and how each affects the other too. Bottom line though is trust your ears - they are a pretty good tool to use too.