Ok just because I live in B.C. does not mean I am talking about those other kind of scales. I mean TT / vinyl scales They can be vintage, basic,or even digital.
Lets see what you have, and how well they work etc.
This one dates from around 1976 or so, and is a balanced beam type, and is said to have an accuracy of better than 1/50th of a gram.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z196/totem02/IMG_9895.jpg

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z196/totem02/IMG_9876.jpg

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z196/totem02/IMG_9893.jpg

Ok just because I live in B.C. does not mean I am talking about those other kind of scales

guess mine wont be of any help then:D

Looks pretty cool! Just don't lose those weights.

I use three methods. First, the tone arm has a calibration on the counterpoise end for a rough guess. Second, a Shure scale - it works fine. Third, my ears. After setting everything up using methods 1 and 2, I'll twist the counterpoise (its threaded) to make small adjustments to that it sound right.

HI,
I use the Shure scales. Been using them longer than I care to talk about. They work OK but newer cartridges seem to have a narrower VTF sweet spot than older cartridges. Once the VTF is fine tweaked by ear it would be really nice if the force could be repeated to within very close tolerances. I don't think the Shure is good enough for that. I know the tone arm weights are not good enough.

I also think the Shure is awkward to use use and subjects the stylus to danger. I have never damaged a stylus but I always feel like I'm a slipped finger away from disaster.

I am in the market for a good electronic scale which will replace the venerable Shure.

Sparky

The electronic versions seem to be dropping in price. They look to be the way to go for ease of use and accuracy. Perhaps someone can post a pic of one they have been using.

I use a small digital scale I got on Audiogon. Its very accurate and simple to use.

I use a B&O scale (also seen as an Ortofon).

I've got an electronic one made for independent non-regulated pharmacists, but I don't have anything to calibrate it with, so I still use the B&O teeter-totter.

pmsummer I looked at the cost of calibration weights, Wow are them big $.
Perhaps there is some one local that has one you could use for a brief time.

a fish..?

I use the Shure scale. Its so simple that even I can use it.

A digital one here as they are cheap and accurate enough for me.

I use the Shure, But I've though about buying something like this.
http://www.wholesale-scales.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=83&zenid=bc6a187aaee33e0dbdec85c3770e38e9

Holst I was just looking at that one also. Seems a lot less money than a
"audio" category scale. If it works well, that is a steal of a deal.

I recently purchased an Acoustech digital stylus scale ~$175
It's accurate to 0.002g but what I've learned from it is that the Michell Technoweight adjuster in AMAZINGLY accurate. So I probably won't keep it now that my mind's at ease. LOL
WOT

I used a Shure for quite some time, currently use a digital.

One thing you need to look at with the digitals- those not made for audio may be hard to place. Placing one on your platter (even this thin one) means your arm won't be in the same verticle plane as when you play a record. Find one that will fit comfortably beside the platter and use spacers to get it close to the same height as your record would be. Take this as first hand info- no way I was spending the big bucks:no:

An aside- the tracking force reading on my Technics 1700MkII is quite accurate. Can't say the same about the Rega and Kuzma.

Ray

Totem, the beam scale looks very slick. :) Beautiful little piece of work.

Holst, thanks for the link. Some very intriguing stuff there for relatively cheap - especially the ones that can be calibrated.

Add me to the vast herd of Shure SFG users. I bought mine in 1973 and have used it a lot. It's always worked.

I used to have a precision calibrated lab-grade beam scale so I did a comparison test and found that the Shure was accurate to within .05 gram (X1 scale). That's more than good enough for the MM and MI carts I use.

I have and use these two: A Garrard SPG3 (with original box and intructions) like the one in the pic, and a digital scale similar to the one in the pic below. The Garrard is super easy to use and weighs the arm close to the platter height. I had a Shure SFG, but gave it away.

I use digital--cheap, works good.

But that Garrard is cool!

HI All,
I have a bitch.

Since most of us have not used digital scales and have little or no experience with them and don't know the good ones from the bad ones and don't know the going prices and don't know where to buy them, why don't you digital scale users post specific helpful, useful information? Are you holding a family secret?

I don't get it.

Sparky

Sorry about that, Sparky--I thought everyone knew about these. On ebay, just punch in "digital pocket scale." About a zillion entries will pop up and you will find just about every shape and size of digital scale. Mine is called the Triton T-2. When I searched further within the seller's "store" I found he offered them with a calibration weight. I remove the cover when using it for tracking force. I place it between the arm rest and the platter and use a shim underneath it to bring it to the level of the platter. When I originally purchased it I hadn't planned to use it for tracking force--had I known then, I think might have gotten a smaller (or at least narrower) one.

I second the Garrard, cool. Any idea what year it might be from?

another shure sfg-2 user here...pretty accurate for tracking ranges beginning above 1gm with unfussy MM budget cartridges...seems to match the settings on my arm too..
the final 1/10gm ..i tend to judge by ear using headphones and sometimes even ambient temperature...a bit less when its really warm...perhaps a 1/10 more in the winter months..

For tracking 78s, I like to use this scale.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31NJ5K92B8L._SS500_.jpg









Don't shoot. I'm just kidding. :D

For tracking 78s, I like to use this scale.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31NJ5K92B8L._SS500_.jpg









Don't shoot. I'm just kidding. :D



Scales for tonearms looked like that back in the late 50's, however, no digital read out.

I have a Shure SFG and this electronic one. My SFG is accurate to <0.01g, as measured by Grumpy's electronic scale, and my own.

I also use the Shure, I thought about getting a digital scale but I'm staying analog all the way. :D

That scale, pictured above, is marketed by many different names. You can find them for sale at prices varying from $59 to $129, that I have seen. I am sure that there are examples outside that range. They are available in all the usual places: eBay, A'gon, Canuck Audio Mart, online gear sellers, online record sellers, Audio Advisor, and a bunch of places of which I have never heard, but that you might find.

Be sure to drop the stylus in the middle of the centre dot.

I have a Shure SFG and this electronic one. My SFG is accurate to <0.01g, as measured by Grumpy's electronic scale, and my own.


That gives me cause to ponder many things. :smoke:

I used a Shure for quite some time, currently use a digital.

One thing you need to look at with the digitals- those not made for audio may be hard to place. Placing one on your platter (even this thin one) means your arm won't be in the same verticle plane as when you play a record. Find one that will fit comfortably beside the platter and use spacers to get it close to the same height as your record would be. Take this as first hand info- no way I was spending the big bucks:no:

An aside- the tracking force reading on my Technics 1700MkII is quite accurate. Can't say the same about the Rega and Kuzma.

Ray

I found this to be true also. A little more fiddly to align, but I think I paid 12 bucks instead of 180 or so. The more expensive one has a little piece that comes out and bends so that it is much lower, whereas with the inexpensive one shown, (like mine) the needle must be set on top. I found the skinniest one I could find,1/2 inch. several were quite a bit thicker.

Russellc