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
Actusreus, on any tonearm I know of the VTA tower is designed to move straight up and down, subject only to random variations in the threads. I'm unaware of any tonearm with a VTA tower designed to move on an arc with a radius matching the arm's eff. length. That would be technically correct and I presume it could be done using computer-controlled machine tools, but it would probably be very costly.

Nice summary Peter.

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.
They do for us.

That said, the sonic benefits of aligning zenith and overhang with the Mint are also very easy to hear.

I haven't checked visually with my Mint, but my suspicion is that the amount we alter arm height from one LP to another has only a trifling effect on overhang, possibly within the margin of setup error even when using a Mint. That would merely shift the null points slightly, which might actually be superior for some LP's, depending on the diameter of the innermost music groove.

Let's not forget that any chosen alignment scheme (Baerwald, Loefgren, whatever) is a compromise. Only a perfectly set up tangential tracking arm can achieve zero tracking error across the entire LP. On all pivoting arms we're simply choosing between compromises. Such is not the case with SRA. There is an absolute best for that parameter.
You all talk about what a compromise the pivot style tonearm is to playing records. I don't get it. My turntable, tonearm and cartridge set up sounds great from beginning to end. All I could ask for is less crackle and pop from my aging collection. Do you not think that the cartridge designers know that the pivoting tonearm has only two tangency points? Look at the stylus designs. The have curved faces to allow for the changing angle through the arc of the pivot. I don't see a pivoting tonearm as a compromise. The tonearm and cartridge are designed as a system working to each other's strengths and weaknesses. Besides, if it were such a compromise, engineers would have come up with a better music medium like CDs or downloadable files. (Tongue in cheek comment).

I haven't posted in ages, but I couldn't resist this one, especially since I'm in the process of setting up a new cartridge.

This cartridge calls for a tracking force of 1.5 grams; not 1.00 gram, not 2.00 grams, but 1.5 grams.

These people have been manufacturing cartridges longer than I've been buying them, they should at least know what tracking force works best for their cartridge.

There are many things I do by ear, but TT's is not one of them; there is far too much minutiae. I do everything by the book, as close to the book as I can manage, and forget about it.
Somebody in the other thread said that the ET-2 has a curved VTA adjustment. I found that interesting. This works well when you are adjusting for SRA on the same height record. If you are adjusting VTA for different height records then you need a straight VTA post to keep alignment steady. They also said that the ET-2 arm can do that as well but not as easily. I wonder how much distortion there is if your linear tracking arm is off a little bit? I suppose the zenith would be a little off all the way through the record.
Doug, When I did move my arm base up vertically 2 mm at the pivot, I checked my overhang alignment on the MINT. I have a 12" arm, but I'm surprised by how much my HTA moved - well beyond my margin of error in set-up. I'm sure you and Doug don't adjust VTA by that much with your 9" arm. It was especially off the arc at the outer (lead in groove) edge. I start by lining up the inner part of the arc near the spindle. Then I check the outer part near the edge of the platter. If it looks spot on at the inside, it can be off at the outside by as much as 2-3 mm. This, IMO, is what is frustrating and takes time with the MINT.

My point is that I wish a slight change in overhane were just a matter of the stylus being off the arc uniformly by a small amount, but in fact, it is off by a varying degree along the length of the arc, and much more at the outside edge. How this actually affects the null points, I'm not sure.

I do, however, know that in a highly resolving system, slight changes to any of these parameters are clearly audible. Some more so than others. I agree with you that proper SRA is critical and then I would list VTF, then Zenith, then anti-skate, and finally HTA. I can't really adjust for azimuth with my arm, but I find my cartridge to not be that sensitive to that, or the stylus/cantilever is pretty accurately mounted.

I use the manufacturer recommended settings as a good starting point, and then make all final adjustments by ear.