Zero Antiskate vs Stylus Wear


This article, based on a long term study, was “plagiarised” from another Forum. It’s quite an old article so apologies to “older heads” for whom this may be old news.
It comes from an era when light VTF = good, but was not necessarily true, however the basic principle of long term wear looks sound.
Styli were tested to destruction over their full lifecycle.

http://www.audiomods.co.uk/papers/kogen_skatingforce.PDF

Viewers may have to cut & paste but in the event of difficulty with the link I will give a brief summary :

Of 14 cartridge samples tested without bias, 9 of them suffered excessive wear on the inner groove. One was neutral and the remaining 4 were “outer wall”.
When bias compensation was applied to a group of 6 samples, the wear pattern that resulted was symmetrical.

Given the strong and logical argument that skating damages styli asymmetrically – and gives a skewed reading of the LP over time, the “deviations” are a concern i.e. why 4 of them behaved oppositely.
Poor bearings? Arm cable too stiff? Wrong geometry?

IMO most turntable enthusiasts considered it self evident that unilateral force would cause this type of wear pattern so we didn’t need to be told but documented study, even one as old as this, is always interesting.
The photograph of the spherical stylus is poorly resolved on this copy but it makes the point quite graphically.

Based on long term experience that the simplest things can affect the sound of a turntable, I cannot deny that the idea of “de-stressing” the cantilever by removing a poorly directed/located AS force IS attractive and may produce a degree of audible benefit…at first...(?!?!?!!!)
The doubter in me always asks the question : can a mechanical assembly successfully zero out all mechanical influence and give a pure result? (If true zero AS is the goal even arm damping might be prohibited?)

The principle of using excessive VTF (up to 50% more) to achieve the same “trackability”, without bias, it was suggested, merely accelerates the unilateral wear & tear with (presumably) commensurate damage to the LP(?)
The proposed compensation of up to ”50% extra VTF” sounded a bit excessive to me.
(I’d balk at applying more than 0.1g over maximum.)

Old as it is, I found this study mildly unsettling.
Comments and opinions are invited from both Zero-antiskate adherents and those who always use AS.
moonglum
John, You are the first guy who has agreed with me on this. Last year, I decided to ignore the most common explanation for skating force (as related to headshell offset angle) and re-think it from scratch. What I posted above is what I came up with using the remnants of my understanding of Newtonian mechanics as taught to me at a very fine liberal arts college many decades ago. I purposely avoided reading other explanations. After having done the analysis in my head, I never did get around to adding in the effect of headshell offset angle. So I am in no position to argue one way or the other about the magnitude of the skating force that may or may not be generated by that mechanism; I thought it was quite possible that headshell offset angle would mitigate or exacerbate the effect of stylus overhang and most likely that the effect would be different at different points across the arc traced by the stylus. Thanks for the URL reference.
Nick and Lewm,
I should have checked my post, as I meant to say that the arm in Nick's straight arm example "has zero skating forces at one point, which coincides with it being a null..." (not overhang)

The arm has underhang as measured from the turntable centre, and so experiences positive and negative skating forces, as the orientation of the arm varies as it pivots. There is just one point where both the arm and cantilever are tangent to the groove (as in a linear tracking arm) and so there is neither skating force nor tracking angle error. However, everywhere else the error becomes extreme and difficult to compensate for.

To reduce the error there has to be overhang, and as this is increased until, at two points (which will later be the nulls) the errors are equalised either side of a particular value.

The reason for cartridge offset is to minimise the error angle with regard to the stylus, and set the cantilever and stylus in line with the groove, thus constituting a null at two points, but this does not alter the angle between groove tangent, stylus and arm pivot which still varies across the record and is never zero.

And it is this angle which generates the skating force i.e. that between the groove tangent and the arm effective length, and only at the nulls is it the same as the value of the equalised tracking error angle and the cartridge offset angle.
When you guys mention overhang (or underhang) what exactly is that. I guess I want to know what the overhang is in relation to.
Thanks Moonglum for the great information on AS. Between that and Raul's guidance to Graeme Dennes Geometry Analysis I have slept about 2 hours the last 2 days and didn't get a lick of work done. I never realised how interesting tonearm/stylus geometry and how such things shape what we hear. I'm fascinated guys, keep up the good work.
Zenblaster, if you go to vinyl engine you can check out there overhang calculator. Actually, don't. If you're not sleeping now you sleep even less once you discover the ve calculators.

On the same page as the calculator they provide a sketch that shows all the terms.
Thank you Moonglum for the very interesting article. Between this and Graemme Dennes article on Tonearm cartridge geometry analysis that Raul pointed me to, I've managed 2 hours sleep the past 2 days and zero work. I'm facinated and intrigued by this. My wife is ready to have me commited. Keep up the good work guys.