Do 45 RPM records need higher anti-skate setting?


I was playing one of my 45's today and heard Distinct mistracking on one channel only. I increased the skating setting and it was much better. This was only near he beginning of the LP. The LP was a Cannoball Adderly record. Do 45's require higher anti skate setting or is just a peculiarity of this record. The vinyl system is an LP12, Arkiv B and Ekos II, which invariably tracks very well.
zavato
Friction=skating, that's it. I remember back in the 70s some stereo shops had blank LPs for setting anti-skate. They would adjust the anti-skating on the tonearm until it would stay in the middle of the blank record.
45 rpm LPs can have a higher dynamic range, if the recording engineer chooses to apply it. The higher linear speed affords more velocity to be transmitted to the stylus. That means tracking ability of the stylus is further challenged and since the forces are or can be unbalanced a bit to the skating side of things, the first sign of mis-tracking is likely to be heard in the right channel. My 45 rpm direct to disc of the Apassionata can attest to that. My Benz can track it perfectly from beginning to end; but the stylus has to be squeaky clean.
Omsed: I am hoping that you do not become disenchanted with the students in the front of the room who are poking you during your teachings. I am the quiet student in the back who is soaking up as much as I can from you. Keep it up as long as you can bear it.
Hmm. So I used a pencil & fixed a plastic headed straight pin at each end. Let's call the "pivot" proximal, the other, the unconstrained end, "distal". Held the "pivot" pin and placed the other on a Boston Audio Mat2, the plastic pin heads depending from the beam. In a condition described as "overhang", the pencil "beam" was center seeking. As OH was diminished speed of travel also diminished. In a condition of "underhang", the end distal from the crude "pivot" came to rest further from the center of rotation, a state of "equilibrium" was observed. As "underhang" was increased, the distal end eventually ran entirely off the edge of the Mat2.

Running the "pivot" against a straight edge, it seemed to me that the beam remained parallel to its previous location and also seemed to maintain a 90* angle to the guiding straight edge. Movement at point "A" resulted in an equivalent movement at "B" in a most linear fashion.

It also appears these various movements occupied a smaller time-frame as speed of rotation was increased.

'Fraid I lack the background in Physics to prove these actions.

Peace,
Rtilden, you surmised correctly that I did not want to respond, it's not worth it. I have graded students that have been sure they have been right until I drew a free body diagram showing all the forces balance, in front of them, and verbally went through it. Then in real time when they offer up their view, I can in real time show the mistakes. This is not feasible in a thread on a forum where you cannot include drawings such as a free body diagram with a vector analysis.

I also realize that I was wrong in thinking everyone wants to learn. Some would just as soon remain ignorant, as long as they can convince some others they are right.

Thanks for your note!

So, over and out for me. Thanks much for your note though.
I have a device which can show the actual side-forces imposed on the cantilever. Although the instantaneous side-forces are affected by groove drag (and therefore groove modulation), it appears to me that the general side-forces experienced by the cantilever follow the tracking distortion curve.

hth