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

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.

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.

Bingo. Note, excessive A/S sounds a lot like excessive VTF.

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.

Bingo again. Next challenge, try tweaking VTF for different LP's. Easier to track passages should be playable with lower VTFs than hard to track passages. You may find you get even more microdynamics, air and dimensionality with lower settings, until you go so low that bass solidity and dynamics suffer (or mistracking occurs). Borderline settings may not be useable on your tougher tracking records but they may bring additional life to the easy ones.

***
Actusreus has a point of course. OTOH, I'm acutely conscious of specific sonic parameters when making adjustments. I don't recall ever posting that VTF, SRA, anti-skating, etc. should be adjusted based on what I or anyone "likes". Nor have I ever posted that I adjust anything based on how "bright" or "dark" or (gack!) "musical" it sounds. Those terms don't begin to describe what I hear.

Example: some people describe SRA too high as sounding "too bright". Not I. I hear harmonics occuring too early relative to their fundamental. Paul hears a non-congruence of the various frequencies which make up a sound, causing temporal displacements and diminished dynamics - which is saying much the same thing. Frank Schroeder describes the same thing I do. None of us would use a wishy-washy, subjective term like "bright" to describe such a detailed sonic event.

I think it was Fremer, or one of those guys who suggest setting antiskate by watching what the needle does when you set it down on the album. You want no movement either way when it sets down. Works for me. Thanks for the write-up. Nothing like real experience.