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
Setting by ear means you change(incrementally)settings until you hear what that(VTA, anti-skating, VTF, etc.) parameter does. It is at that point that you understand what you are doing. It is important that you don't use objective things(like channel balance, etc.)to determine the proper setting(an example of why the objective thing would be wrong is that each speaker is different. Would you use anti-skate, for instance, to balance your 2 speakers?).
Tonywinsc,
It does require gear at a certain level to hear SRA changes as affecting phase coherence. Lower resolution cartridges mounted on lower resolution rigs (like my old Shelter 901/OL Silver combo for instance) are too muddy to hear this clearly, at least for me. Still, even on such gear, my partner's better ears do hear proper SRA as maximizing the amplitude of lower frequency notes... a function of phase coherence. It wouldn't be wrong to describe inaccurate SRA as "bright" or "dark" on such gear. If waveforms are muddied what's heard earliest may leave the strongest impression.

With resolving gear however, like my own UNIverse/TriPlanar to pick one example of many, I have always heard the phase coherence differential I described... long before I developed the vocabulary to describe it in fact. Frank Schroeder hears this and described it before I was able to. It was a chat with him that gave me the conceptual language to describe what my ears already knew. This is why I can now walk up to an unfamiliar cartridge/arm (like a friend's A-90/Kuzma Airline for example) and dial in SRA in a few seconds. It's pretty easy when you know what to listen for.

I don't dispute that "brightness" is in some audio glossary. It just isn't a detailed enough term to describe what I hear. Appeals to authority carry no weight with me, I listen and draw my own conclusions. :-)

Try visualizing a knife re-tracing a modulated groove cut along a stick of butter. If the knife (stylus) is raked backwards (SRA too low) it will respond to lower frequencies before the narrower tip sees higher frequency harmonics. If the stylus is raked forwards (SRA too high) the opposite occurs. This is a good visual analogy for what I hear.
Actusreus,
There's no question that altering arm height on a straight vertical axis alters overhang at the stylus. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's proveable by the principles of geometry. It could only be otherwise if an arm height adjustment operated on a curved path to keep the stylus tip immobile on the record... a theoretical improvement that doesn't exist on any tonearm I've seen.

Do I adust overhang for each change in SRA? No. I actually do have a life. ;-)

FWIW, tracking angle distortions sound utterly unlike changes in SRA, so while the adjustments are interrelated their sonic effects are quite different.
Doug,
I'm not sure whether I agree with your assertion since you're actually adjusting the VTA tower, which might as well keep the stylus immobile and the back of the tonearm traveling along an arch, albeit a very small one. That said, I'm not a mathematician so I might be misinterpreting what actually occurs in the process. However, if it's true, I'm curious where this leaves the whole discussion about the importance of the precise alignment with protractors such as the Mint. You spend two hrs trying to get the overhang perfect with a magnifying glass only to have it altered at the first VTA adjustment. Yet it is that precise alignment that is behind the claim of the Mint's superiority over less accurate tools. I wonder then whether the obsessive focus on the accuracy of the Mint or similar instruments is misplaced. At least for those who have the ability to adjust the VTA and do take advantage if it.
Actusreus, Nice post. You make the point that I tried to make in my earlier thread on the VTA/HTA topic, only you articulate it much better than I did. I use a MINT protractor and now can adjust overhang in about 15 minutes when changing cartridges, but still, I do obsess over it and get it to match the arc exactly. I find the Zenith alignment at the null points most helpful on the Mint. It is obvious that VTA adjustments alter overhang. I suppose those who adjust VTA on a regular basis feel that the sonic benefits of proper SRA outweigh the penalty of a slightly off overhang.