View Full Version : Anyone set & use anti-skate at zero?


meggy
03-07-2012, 02:35 PM
I've just started trying it, looking for any noticeable differences in sound.

I get the purpose of anti-skate. But for one thing I never really got the 1:1 rule of thumb for matching it to your VTF. Seems to me the only amount of anti-skate you want is the minimum required to prevent the arm from moving on it's own.

My thinking is that really any amount of anti-skate puts an imbalance of force on one wall of the groove vs the other which results in more wear and tear. Plus isn't one channel then over-emphasized?

I'm trying it out on a variety of albums especially with older ones with distinct channel separation. Problem is the LP's already have years of being played with anti-skate applied to one wall. Although I've never set any table above 1.5.

I'm not too worried about it. It just seems like you'd want as little as possible overall anti-skate.

Aerobat
03-07-2012, 03:01 PM
Ideally the anti-skating force matches the natural skating force of the pivoted tonearm. The best way I know of to set it is with a test record.

onepixel
03-07-2012, 03:13 PM
Anti-skate counters the tonearm from skating off to one side. In doing so the anti-skate balances the force to being neutral. I've had TTs that pulled like crazy and needed quite a bit of anti-skaing adjustment. That said, the Blackwidow I have on my Pioneer is set at zero. It's neutral all the way through.

UncleAng
03-07-2012, 03:25 PM
I have 2 test records but I find the best way is by ear... when both channels have the same amplitude.

markd51
03-07-2012, 03:29 PM
I'll try to keep this short and sweet, and here's some of my beliefs. I believe them to be true, some are a general concensus, and some of it is from the real gurus of the hobby.

Since anti-skate continually changes across a record, there will be no one correct setting. it will always be a compromise.

And essentially all anti-skate mechanisms are flawed in their design and implementation.

Often, setting anti-skate dials in coorespondence to prescribed VTF is usually way too much anti-skate.

Blank tracks offer a "visual" idea of anti-skate forces at play, but a stylus doesn't play blank tracks when in actual use. That when a stylus is tracking a groove, other forces come into play, acting upon the Stylus.

The gurus tell me that in all cases, application of too much anti-skate force will be a cause of a skewed-crooked Cantilever over time. And that the use of no anti-skate will never be a cause of a skewed-crooked Cantilever.

Many, with multi-thousand dollar MC Cartridges often use little, to no anti-skate. And as many know, these cartridges that cost as much as a kidney are usually extremely delicate. They certainly cannot withstand the abuse, and tossing around like an old Shure V-15 MM.

As I've been told, highly modulated test tracks are a better way, but still, these severe modulated tracks often exceed what's found on the average record. These tracks are specifically designed to make any and all cartridges mistrack. Their purpose was not to gauge a cartridge's worth, by whether they can track through all these tracks, or not. Often, most believe that that was their purpose, and then wrongly adjust their cartridge's anti-skate, and VTF to well beyond it's optimum range.

The key, is noting when break up, and distortion begins to occur, and if it is occuring in only one channel, or the other. The goal is to have both channels break up, and distort at the same time.

MY final opinion is to use as little AS as one possibly can get away with. Mark

JonL
03-07-2012, 04:01 PM
I pretty much agree with Mark, especially about anti-skating being a compromise. In reality, almost everything in life is a compromise, so that - by itself - is no reason to avoid anti-skating entirely.

That said, I'm running my Thorens with zero anti-skating. I found that even with the anti-skating set at the minimum possible, my tonearm had a propensity to skip, always towards the outside. With zero anti-skating, I get far less skipping from groove defects or the errant heavy footfall. Turntable is level, and the tonearm is of a dynamic balance design that should make leveling far less of a concern anyway.

My stylus is a hyper-elliptic type (Shure M75HE) and the hyper-elliptic form may have much less groove friction than a standard elliptic. I also use LAST on my stylus and that's purported to reduce friction. Groove friction is the driving force behind skating, perhaps the HE stylus and LAST combine to really reduce friction to the point where the skating force is trivial.

charles 1973
03-07-2012, 04:05 PM
I have no Anti-Skate on my Pioneer Rondo 2000 (think PL112d) and have tried listening for any indication of a problem. Even at 1.25 G under the normal VTF of 2. 0 G with my Nagoaka MP11 cartridge, it still tracks like a champ, and at the innermost song (where it would be most apparent I believe) the sound seams ballanced. I think the Ideal situation would see a light force pulling the arm out, with the greatest force on the inside track and a lesser forc on the outermost tract. My Tonearm is actually opposite with a little freefloating in on the innermost track, yet as I said it seem's fine.
If I had it I'd set it slightly under the VTF based on what I read, unless there's a problem, or by what the manual, or someone in the Know says .

Catcher10
03-07-2012, 04:30 PM
That is something I just don't play with much at all.......I leave mine set at a tick or two behind the VTF. Ocassionally when I feel the urge, I will set it to zero and I generally do not notice any issues. If I set it to max, then I do hear a bit of difference, but then the next album seems fine.

I usually just listen for equal sound level from each channel.

meggy
03-07-2012, 05:05 PM
Good info, thanks for the replies. Sounds like a lot more people track at zero (or at least adjust to minimum), than I thought. My Benz Gold set at 2g seems to give me plenty of VTF to offset any desire by my Thorens TP16 arm to go on a joy ride.

You'd think than when you lift a cue lever (on any table) and the arm/stylus pulls itself back one groove (or more), that's just way too much anti-skate. That's gotta be carving up one side of the wall.

jimreeves
03-07-2012, 05:29 PM
You'd think than when you lift a cue lever (on any table) and the arm/stylus pulls itself back one groove (or more), that's just way too much anti-skate. That's gotta be carving up one side of the wall.

I don't personally think there's any groove carving going on as long as your tonearm bearings are in good shape and the cartridge will track properly at 2 grams or less.

If we're talking about vintage turntables particularly, I think the way the A-S is implemented makes a difference in how much I'd trust it. For example, the A-S is magnetic on my JVC table and a pivoting weight on my Luxman. I have more faith in either of these than the spring loaded versions in my PL-707 or HT-500.

Speaking of test records, the old Stereo Review SP-12 has a good anti-skate band. Good in that it doesn't present the stylus with a ridiculous modulation to determine the 'right' setting and is pretty easy to set by ear.

JonL
03-07-2012, 05:29 PM
You'd think than when you lift a cue lever (on any table) and the arm/stylus pulls itself back one groove (or more), that's just way too much anti-skate. That's gotta be carving up one side of the wall.

Not necessarily. If your tonearm and cuing device had absolutely no pivot friction, then even the slightest possible anti-skating force would move the arm all the way back to the rest (perhaps slowly) once the stylus was lifted from the groove. I don't think you can really judge based upon how many grooves back the arm wants to move.

JohnVF
03-07-2012, 05:36 PM
Well, my linear tracking table doesn't need it, so there's that one.

My VPI doesn't recommend using it, and I don't, due to the length of the arm making it not as much of an issue (and there is enough anti-skating force provided by a twist in the lead coming out of the arm).

jimreeves
03-07-2012, 05:45 PM
Yeah John, but you're cheating. :D

70WR
03-07-2012, 06:38 PM
Yeah I don't get it. On my Miracord, I can set the A/S to about the same as my VTF and it sounds okay. I can turn it down slowly all the way to "0" and I can't tell any difference in sound I think. If anything, seems maybe, maybe, a little better set at "0".
If I turn it up or down faster, I can get the stylus to skip a grove so I guess it's telling me it's working.
And as far as VTF, I can set it 1g - 2g and it sounds the same to me.
I guess my hearing is shot more than I thought.

I can tweak my JVC QL-Y7 A/S up/down during play and I can get it's stylus to skip also. I cringe when that happens. So on the JVC, I leave the A/S set the same as the VTF.

As said, I guess I don't get it - and/or my hearing gone down the drain more than I thought.

illini
03-07-2012, 06:41 PM
No..........

cgutz
03-07-2012, 06:57 PM
Does the cartridge compliance affect the amount of antiskate?

I have a stock KD550 with an Ortophon VMS15XE stylus. The stylus compliance is medium - high, and borderline on the medium mass tonearm. It sounds good, tracks well, but anything over .5 - 1g antiskate robs the left channel of a bit of output. My vtf is 2 grams.

kirk57
03-07-2012, 07:25 PM
Zero anti-skate being used here on my Rega RB-300. I set it using a blank disk, to where it drifts slowly outward.

That ended up being no antiskating at all.

I do need to get one of those test disks one of these days.

jimreeves
03-08-2012, 05:56 AM
Does the cartridge compliance affect the amount of antiskate?

I think it must, since skating originates at the stylus tip and works back through the cantilever, suspension and tonearm to the pivot. Anti-skate applies counter-force in the opposite direction, from the pivot back towards the stylus. The more solid or less compliant system should allow less bending, so I would think more force would be applied at the groove walls. OTOH I could be completely wrong. :scratch2:

I have a stock KD550 with an Ortophon VMS15XE stylus. The stylus compliance is medium - high, and borderline on the medium mass tonearm. It sounds good, tracks well, but anything over .5 - 1g antiskate robs the left channel of a bit of output. My vtf is 2 grams.

It sounds like you've found the sweet spot for your setup then! :thmbsp:

Didn't some of the older Dual's have different settings for conical and elliptical stylii?

70WR
03-08-2012, 07:57 AM
Just last night I cut the A/S setting on my JVC in half from where it was.
Running the VTF at about 1.7 and the A/S now about half that, and it was either the album at about that time or the change in A/S, that I think made it sound maybe a tab better. Could be just me, but I'm going to run the A/S for awhile where it's at now.

beej
03-08-2012, 09:23 AM
I've been playing with A/S a bit lately on both my Technics SL-1200, mk2 and Pioneer PL-9. With respect to the Tech irrespective of cart, A/S at or near 1 sounds best (balanced); with the PL-9 I've had it at 0 with a variety of Shure carts and it sounds pretty balanced to me.

JesusChrysler
03-08-2012, 09:33 AM
I have absolutely no clue what to set the anti-skate OR the vtf....

:-(


Matt

flavio81
03-08-2012, 11:13 AM
Antiskating's best contribution is to prolong stylus tip life by making the wear on both facets similar over time.

Some people rely on antiskate for improving tracking, i say this is not a great thing to do, in my view it's better to increase VTF till tracking is perfect (with zero antiskating) and then apply AS as per the manufacturer recommendation.

classic carl
03-08-2012, 11:30 AM
Didn't some of the older Dual's have different settings for conical and elliptical stylii?

Yes, my 1249 has different scales for conical elliptical and CD4.

jimreeves
03-08-2012, 11:38 AM
Yes, my 1249 has different scales for conical elliptical and CD4.

What does it suggest for CD4 relative to the other tip shapes? Presumably that's a Shibata tip?

flavio81
03-08-2012, 12:06 PM
What does it suggest for CD4 relative to the other tip shapes? Presumably that's a Shibata tip?

Yes, Shibata.

meggy
03-08-2012, 12:08 PM
Does the cartridge compliance affect the amount of antiskate?

I have a stock KD550 with an Ortophon VMS15XE stylus. The stylus compliance is medium - high, and borderline on the medium mass tonearm. It sounds good, tracks well, but anything over .5 - 1g antiskate robs the left channel of a bit of output. My vtf is 2 grams.

That's interesting. Elliptical is it? More surface contact. Makes sense, too on the weight. "Outer" groove (facing) right channel. Inner left, IIRC.

mayidunk
03-08-2012, 12:17 PM
My Debut III has a relatively short tonearm. The cart's recommended VTF is 1.75 - 1.8 Grams. I have it set to 1.8, and rather than set the AS to the second groove out on the lever (as recommended), I put the thread on the first, innermost groove, which is less force. I've actually run it without AS, and I can't tell any difference re: channel balance, and it tracks nicely.

Early on it had a weak channel. The first thing I checked was the AS setting, and that didn't make any difference. Once I adjusted the azimuth, everything pulled to the center nicely.

iLUVanalog
03-08-2012, 08:57 PM
I'll try to keep this short and sweet, and here's some of my beliefs. I believe them to be true, some are a general concensus, and some of it is from the real gurus of the hobby.

Since anti-skate continually changes across a record, there will be no one correct setting. it will always be a compromise.

And essentially all anti-skate mechanisms are flawed in their design and implementation.

Often, setting anti-skate dials in coorespondence to prescribed VTF is usually way too much anti-skate.

Blank tracks offer a "visual" idea of anti-skate forces at play, but a stylus doesn't play blank tracks when in actual use. That when a stylus is tracking a groove, other forces come into play, acting upon the Stylus.

The gurus tell me that in all cases, application of too much anti-skate force will be a cause of a skewed-crooked Cantilever over time. And that the use of no anti-skate will never be a cause of a skewed-crooked Cantilever.

Many, with multi-thousand dollar MC Cartridges often use little, to no anti-skate. And as many know, these cartridges that cost as much as a kidney are usually extremely delicate. They certainly cannot withstand the abuse, and tossing around like an old Shure V-15 MM.

As I've been told, highly modulated test tracks are a better way, but still, these severe modulated tracks often exceed what's found on the average record. These tracks are specifically designed to make any and all cartridges mistrack. Their purpose was not to gauge a cartridge's worth, by whether they can track through all these tracks, or not. Often, most believe that that was their purpose, and then wrongly adjust their cartridge's anti-skate, and VTF to well beyond it's optimum range.

The key, is noting when break up, and distortion begins to occur, and if it is occuring in only one channel, or the other. The goal is to have both channels break up, and distort at the same time.

MY final opinion is to use as little AS as one possibly can get away with. Mark




This is an excellent explanation of the mysterious force called antiskating. I generally set the antiskating 0.5 less than the tracking force, which works well for me. For example....for a VTF of 2 GM, I will set the antiskate at 1.5

pandaman
03-09-2012, 12:39 AM
after reading through this thread, i just removed the anti skate weight on my unipivot and it seems to track better now. was at .5g before. vtf at 1.2g on at155lc. so high compliance stylus = prefers less or no anti-skate?

before i removed it, even with anti skate on such low setting, when i lift the cue up, arm would want to slide back outward.

musichal
03-09-2012, 03:47 AM
Have the AS weight on my old Thorens at the second groove, using only the smaller weight (it came with two, designed such that the heavier weight sat atop the lighter one). I chose the second groove strictly on the basis of moderation; have never tried it without AS because I figure the designers knew what they were doing, and, even more importantly and scientifically, because I like the way it looks. :)

ehoove
03-09-2012, 05:21 AM
I tend to use about 50% of what is recommended on all my tables, other than the Magnapan which I use with the bucket to hold shot empty.
Regards,
Jim

charles 1973
03-09-2012, 09:26 AM
Consider this: If anti-skate is designed to counter the force created by a grove in the record, relitive to the horizontal tracking angle error, which changes as the Tonearm moves in, we need a light force oposing it. if I back off the VTF enough, because I haven't re-adjusted the A/S the sound should be unballanced, and Stylis might actually skip.

Also on my Pioneer Rondo 2000, Which has no A/S control, the horizonal tracking error ranges from -3 to +1 degree, Therefor there's a good part of the record that requires no Anti-Skate and miscalibrating one might do more harm than just leaving it off, or at least set at 1/2 the recomended force. Now I understand why many recomend setting it under the VTF.

Apparently the Stylis shape play's a role in A/S setting's too.

JonL
03-09-2012, 11:30 AM
Consider this: If anti-skate is designed to counter the force created by a grove in the record, relitive to the horizontal tracking angle error, which changes as the Tonearm moves in, we need a light force oposing it. if I back off the VTF enough, because I haven't re-adjusted the A/S the sound should be unballanced, and Stylis might actually skip.

Also on my Pioneer Rondo 2000, Which has no A/S control, the horizonal tracking error ranges from -3 to +1 degree, Therefor there's a good part of the record that requires no Anti-Skate and miscalibrating one might do more harm than just leaving it off, or at least set at 1/2 the recomended force. Now I understand why many recomend setting it under the VTF.

Apparently the Stylis shape play's a role in A/S setting's too.

The skating force is predominantly caused by the offset angle of the headshell, to which the tracking error only adds or subtracts. There was a long thread with vector analyses of a pivoting tonearm setup a while ago. If you can find it, there's detailed information about what causes skating force. The skating force with a pivoting tonearm is never zero, regardless of the tracking error of the particular arm and setup. (The only exception to this would be a pivoting arm that has not headshell offset angle, and those aren't very common in hi-fi use.)

charles 1973
03-09-2012, 12:40 PM
The skating force is predominantly caused by the offset angle of the headshell, to which the tracking error only adds or subtracts. There was a long thread with vector analyses of a pivoting tonearm setup a while ago. If you can find it, there's detailed information about what causes skating force. The skating force with a pivoting tonearm is never zero, regardless of the tracking error of the particular arm and setup. (The only exception to this would be a pivoting arm that has not headshell offset angle, and those aren't very common in hi-fi use.)

I did a quick search myself on Anti skate. Apparantly the headshell offset angle is a large part of the equation; in the example I looked at it account's for the bulk of it, but it said all piviting tonearms produce this effect. This makes more sense now. The number they got in an example using 2 G VTF is .1G of Anti-skate. It mentioned the friction between the record and the stylis as part of the equation too which suggest's the shape of the stylis may play a role, albiet a small one.

JonL
03-09-2012, 01:02 PM
A skating "force" of .1g seems plausible for a VTF of 2g, and that would be the actual force experienced by the stylus. So a stylus running with a VTF of 2g has a 0.1g "force" acting to push it towards the center of the groove. (I've put "force" in quotes because technically speaking, grams are not a unit of force, but a unit of mass.) The numbers on the anti-skate dial of a turntable probably don't refer to the actual anti-skating force measured in grams, but are rather intended to provide the proper anti-skating force when the dial is set to match the VTF being used. In other words, a setting of "2" on the anti-skating dial might provide an actual anti-skating force of 0.1g if that's what the turntable maker has deemed to be a reasonable estimate of the required force. As many posts in this thread have pointed out, it's only an estimate and isn't likely to be perfect for many setups.

persil
03-09-2012, 01:48 PM
I think that the main problem when setting AS is that many forget the aboulute importance of all the other more critical settings. I found this out when I had my SME tt and arm installed in my home last year. Because of a medical condition and the shear weight of the SME tt. I had to have it installed and set up by the supplier, it was a revelation! It took him 4 hours to get it perfect! he explained everything as he went along.

1. Assembling the TT and arm, making sure that they were both on exactly the same plane (harder than you would think!). His take was that if the TT/arm is not absolutely level the stylus will be either be trying to constantly climb a hill/ decend a hill, making the latter settings (including AS)pointless.

2. Mounting a cartridge in the headshell, onto the arm tube and then basic rough mechanical settings of VTA, azimuth, VTF.

3. fine tuning the level of the TT/Arm.

4. Fine tuning the cartridge by test records and then by ear using his reference records.

5. Once again fine tuning the TT/arm.

Most surprisingly to me was the fact that AS was set to zero for all that time! He finally set the AS by ear. The final AS setting was almost zero on the scale. He explained to me that AS is an ACTIVE setting and no scale he had ever seen was accurate? nor was any test record? as I was using a precision 12 inch arm and a so called "super cartridge he would expect AS to be set to very near to absolute minimum?

The only problem I find now is that little things effect the quality of playback in a big way! like a not so clean record or stylus, or a small change in the absolute perfect level of the TT have very noticeable effects!

As for test records? His take on them is that they do have thier uses, but NOT for absolute setting up of your system! Set it all up using a test record and your TT/arm/cart will get the most out of playing that test record, but probably no other record in your collection! He condemned the use of so called "obstacle courses" and stupidly highly modulated tracks that will probably eventually cause damage! A little like trying to play the Telarc 1812 overture and then wondering why the stylus fell off the cantilever?

JohnMichael
03-09-2012, 02:54 PM
Here is a link to how I set anti skating.


http://www.vacuumstate.com/fileupload/GuruSetUp.pdf


Anti Skating
This is new and vital information, never before seen in print from other sources, and totally creditable to the Guru (Rowan
McCombe), who taught it to me back in the mid/late 70’s. (And I in turn taught it to Dice 45 circa 2000).
a/ Select a premium stereo recording with a wide even spread of texture across the whole stereo picture. A live well spread out choral
recording is perhaps the best for this, particularly if recorded in a large naturally reverberant space, but a.studio recording with a
huge background reverberation can also be used if nothing else is available (I have used Al Stewart’s 70’s “Year of the Cat”).
b/ With the antiskating force at zero, listen to the dynamics & microdynamics of the stereo picture. Not the tonality or anything else,
just the macro/microdynamics, but more specifically, what we call the Downward Dynamic Range (DDR), which is “What
microdynamics can you hear in the presence of macrodynamics?” A live recording of a large choir is a perfect disc for this purpose.
With no antiskating force dialed in, the left channel will show more DDR than the right channel, it will seem more alive than the
numb flat sounding right channel, which may almost sound as if it’s been switched off.
c/ Now increase the antiskating force step by step by small step. Maybe nothing happens for quite a while (you are still down on the
“flat” region of the Pix 1 red curve) but sooner or later you will sense the right channel (Pix 3 blue line) slowly coming to life more
and more, but the left channel (Pix 3 green line) sounds pretty much OK and unchanged.
d/ Continue to increase the antiskating compensation by *very* small steps until you reach a point (Pix 3 Red arrow) where the right
channel has improved to the point it now matches the left, so they both sound equally dynamic and you have a wonderfully balanced
stereo picture. This point you should mark/document carefully, as you may need to come back to it if you get lost further on.
e/ Then you further increase in extremely small steps and both channels will grow more alive together. This shows that the diamond
is now almost perfectly “floating” in the groove, with identical pressure & response on each side of the diamond (= each channel).
But one step too far and both channels loose their dynamics dramatically and the magic just vanishes. This is because the curve (Pix
3) associated with antiskating is even more extreme than the red curve of Pix 1, and the sonics drop like a stone once past the peak!
Obviously you have gone too far, so sneak it back a fraction and verify BOTH channels are now dynamic and naturally singing
beyond what you have heard before..
Don’t expect this antiskating setting to be anything like that marked on the arm’s scale—it could be less or more— trust your ears!

jusmee
03-09-2012, 07:37 PM
I'll try to keep this short and sweet, and here's some of my beliefs. I believe them to be true, some are a general concensus, and some of it is from the real gurus of the hobby.

Since anti-skate continually changes across a record, there will be no one correct setting. it will always be a compromise.

And essentially all anti-skate mechanisms are flawed in their design and implementation.


But many/most anti-skating mechanisms also change the force they apply as the arm moves across the record. On the SME3009 for example, the angle that the thread and weight pulls on the tonearm bracket, changes as the tone arm moves, and so the force from the constant weight, changes proportionally.

flavio81
03-10-2012, 11:37 AM
Again, the two posts above indirectly imply to use antiskating to increase the cartridge's tracking , and i would recommend against that.

That means the VTF you are using is not enough for reliable, solid tracking, and that you are relying on the AS force to improve it. As mentioned above, AS is never instantaneously right, so this, on the long term average, might either lead to over-compensarion or under-compensation with the consequent impact to stylus tip life. The best use for the AS is to prolong stylus tip life by applying averagely equal force on both vinyl groove walls. The benefits of this has been graphically shown in an AES paper by Alexandrovich of Stanton Inc.

What i do recommend is, dial antiskate to 0, then set the VTF to the value that gives you the best tracking (with lowest distortion). Afterwards, you can set the AS to what the manufacturer recommends, unless problems appear (cantilever is not straight or audio quality degrades), in which case it's OK to use a lower value.

In other words, "there is no substitute for VTF"... except higher compliance of course.

Also remember that as a rule of thumb, an elliptical will require more AS than a conical stylus. The narrower the eliptical (i.e. 0.2x0.7 mil versus 0.4x0.7 mil), the greater the AS required.

charles 1973
03-12-2012, 09:44 AM
I just read an a review in an older audio book on 12" Tonearms, one with a streight mounted headshell didn't even have an Anti-Skate device (one is avaliable) and they don't recemend it. These are Very expensive arm's. This just verifies JonL's post about the signifigance of an offset Headshell with respect to Anti-Skate. A streight headshell combined with the reduced Tracing error of the 12" arm the anti skate might be small enough that using one thats off by .02 G may do more harm than good.

As far as tracking force is concerned, I believe the cartridges with a wide advertized range are there for marketing purposes. While the lowest figure may not harm the record, they know that it should be tracking at much closer to it's max than say 1/2 way between. I'm guessing under 2.0 G is a reasonable upper limit. My Nagoaka MP11 for example suggest's 1.8 - 2.2 G. I've had it tracking fine at .75 G on an inside track. They could have advertized 1 G, but they choose to use the proper range and not use VTF as a Marketing tool.

gusten
03-12-2012, 10:37 AM
I just read an a review in an older audio book on 12" Tonearms, one with a streight mounted headshell didn't even have an Anti-Skate device (one is avaliable) and they don't recemend it. These are Very expensive arm's. This just verifies JonL's post about the signifigance of an offset Headshell with respect to Anti-Skate. A streight headshell combined with the reduced Tracing error of the 12" arm the anti skate might be small enough that using one thats off by .02 G may do more harm than good.

As far as tracking force is concerned, I believe the cartridges with a wide advertized range are there for marketing purposes. While the lowest figure may not harm the record, they know that it should be tracking at much closer to it's max than say 1/2 way between. I'm guessing under 2.0 G is a reasonable upper limit. My Nagoaka MP11 for example suggest's 1.8 - 2.2 G. I've had it tracking fine at .75 G on an inside track. They could have advertized 1 G, but they choose to use the proper range and not use VTF as a Marketing tool.

The reason for not using AS with a headshell without offset angle is that the skating force is more undefinable.

Tracking force has a relation to compliance, for a certain compliance one should use a specific VTF. Even if it´s possible to use other VTFs than recommended it´s compromising.
gusten

charles 1973
03-12-2012, 11:10 AM
The reason for not using AS with a headshell without offset angle is that the skating force is more undefinable.

Tracking force has a relation to compliance, for a certain compliance one should use a specific VTF. Even if it´s possible to use other VTFs than recommended it´s compromising.
gusten

Thanks for the insight for the VTF, I never considered compliance as a factor. I always keep within the range recomended. I have a pretty good idea of the Anti-Skate now that I found the formula used to calculate it. I understand it varies as the tonearm moves across the record, and can see where it would be more undefinabe, as well as less with a Streight headshell.

I wonder why they don't use streight headshell mount's on the 9" arms.

JonL
03-12-2012, 11:44 AM
Thanks for the insight for the VTF, I never considered compliance as a factor. I always keep within the range recomended. I have a pretty good idea of the Anti-Skate now that I found the formula used to calculate it. I understand it varies as the tonearm moves across the record, and can see where it would be more undefinabe, as well as less with a Streight headshell.

I wonder why they don't use streight headshell mount's on the 9" arms.

Offset headshell angle tonearms have far less tracking angle error than do straight headshells. If the tonearm was infinitely long, a straight headshell angle would be fine. The shorter the arm, the worse it gets if using a straight headshell. That's likely why you don't see a straight headshell on a 9" arm.

Aside from the tracking angle error, a straight headshell tonearm would have zero skating force because the line of action of the groove friction force passes through the tonearm pivot, thus there is no moment arm to create a torque about the pivot. It is that torque about the pivot which is reacted by the stylus against the inner groove wall, and that reaction is the skating force. No moment arm at the pivot = no skating force. I don't know what the tracking angle error is for a straight tonearm of say 12" length, but I imagine the angle is still quite smaller than a typical headshell offset angle. The tracking angle error will cause the stylus to contact the groove some small angle away from a pure perpendicular contact. That small angular error will rotate the friction force vector such that its line of action no longer passes through the pivot... thus the creation of a (small) skating force.

Everything is a compromise. A straight headshell has virtually zero skating force, but it has high tracking angle error. An offset angle headshell has very little tracking angle error, but induces a skating force. A linear tracker has virtually no tracking angle error and has virtually no skating force, but it has much higher mechanical complexity. Pick your poison. It's telling (I think) that straight angle headshells on pivoting arms are rare. The tracking angle error is certainly a worse issue than the need to apply a small amount of anti-skating compensation to an offset angle arm.

gusten
03-12-2012, 12:10 PM
Offset headshell angle tonearms have far less tracking angle error than do straight headshells. If the tonearm was infinitely long, a straight headshell angle would be fine. The shorter the arm, the worse it gets if using a straight headshell. That's likely why you don't see a straight headshell on a 9" arm.

Aside from the tracking angle error, a straight headshell tonearm would have zero skating force because the line of action of the groove friction force passes through the tonearm pivot, thus there is no moment arm to create a torque about the pivot. It is that torque about the pivot which is reacted by the stylus against the inner groove wall, and that reaction is the skating force. No moment arm at the pivot = no skating force. I don't know what the tracking angle error is for a straight tonearm of say 12" length, but I imagine the angle is still quite smaller than a typical headshell offset angle. The tracking angle error will cause the stylus to contact the groove some small angle away from a pure perpendicular contact. That small angular error will rotate the friction force vector such that its line of action no longer passes through the pivot... thus the creation of a (small) skating force.

Everything is a compromise. A straight headshell has virtually zero skating force, but it has high tracking angle error. An offset angle headshell has very little tracking angle error, but induces a skating force. A linear tracker has virtually no tracking angle error and has virtually no skating force, but it has much higher mechanical complexity. Pick your poison. It's telling (I think) that straight angle headshells on pivoting arms are rare. The tracking angle error is certainly a worse issue than the need to apply a small amount of anti-skating compensation to an offset angle arm.

As I see it the skating force is created by groove angle, not the offset angle per se. So SF follows groove angle i.e. tracking angle error.
gusten

Littletoot
03-12-2012, 12:12 PM
As ever, the proof of the something is in the measuring. Get your hands on a Fozgometer or other device to measure output from each side of the stylus, fire up a good test record with a tone for each channel, set the azimuth for optimum (even) output from each channel, and then play with the anti-skate to see if it makes a difference to the output. My tests say - on a Sony PS-X70 and 75, using an Ortofon Black and a Sony MC10 - no difference. Your results may vary, depending on cartridge, table, arm, etc., but at least then you will know for sure.

jimreeves
03-12-2012, 12:15 PM
Of course if your 12" arm has a slight offset (S or J shape) within the arm tube itself then a straight headshell would make sense, if it wasn't already obvious to everyone.

gusten
03-12-2012, 12:23 PM
As ever, the proof of the something is in the measuring. Get your hands on a Fozgometer or other device to measure output from each side of the stylus, fire up a good test record with a tone for each channel, set the azimuth for optimum (even) output from each channel, and then play with the anti-skate to see if it makes a difference to the output. My tests say - on a Sony PS-X70 and 75, using an Ortofon Black and a Sony MC10 - no difference. Your results may vary, depending on cartridge, table, arm, etc., but at least then you will know for sure.

Yes I have done that, within normal variations of AS I find no difference between channels. Would be surprising IMO if there was.
gusten

JonL
03-12-2012, 03:11 PM
As I see it the skating force is created by groove angle, not the offset angle per se. So SF follows groove angle i.e. tracking angle error.
gusten

I disagree. The skating force is caused by the friction of the groove against the stylus. The friction is trying to pull the stylus right out of the cartridge, right along the axis of the cantilever plus or minus the small amount of tracking angle error (which depends upon which alignment method one uses). If you draw an imaginary line along the cantilever extending towards the tonearm pivot, you will see that the line of action of the friction force passes outboard of the tonearm pivot, except in the very rare case of a zero offset angle tonearm. Since the line of action of the friction force does not pass through the pivot, a torque is created about the pivot that tries to rotate the tonearm inwards. The torque causes the stylus to press more heavily against the inner groove wall. The anti-skating force is intended to counter that friction induced torque, and allow the stylus to apply equal force against both groove walls. Any tracking angle error will add or subtract to the effect caused by the offset angle, but the magnitude of that effect is considerably smaller than that caused by the offset angle.

A pivoting arm with an offset angle (the vast majority of arms) creates a skating force even at the null points where the tracking angle error is zero.

gusten
03-12-2012, 03:53 PM
I disagree. The skating force is caused by the friction of the groove against the stylus. The friction is trying to pull the stylus right out of the cartridge, right along the axis of the cantilever plus or minus the small amount of tracking angle error (which depends upon which alignment method one uses). If you draw an imaginary line along the cantilever extending towards the tonearm pivot, you will see that the line of action of the friction force passes outboard of the tonearm pivot, except in the very rare case of a zero offset angle tonearm. Since the line of action of the friction force does not pass through the pivot, a torque is created about the pivot that tries to rotate the tonearm inwards. The torque causes the stylus to press more heavily against the inner groove wall. The anti-skating force is intended to counter that friction induced torque, and allow the stylus to apply equal force against both groove walls. Any tracking angle error will add or subtract to the effect caused by the offset angle, but the magnitude of that effect is considerably smaller than that caused by the offset angle.

A pivoting arm with an offset angle (the vast majority of arms) creates a skating force even at the null points where the tracking angle error is zero.

I think You are agreeing, not disagreeing. It is the groove angle in relation to the pivot that is creating the skating force, depending on friction force. (Which is parallel to the grooves)
The offset angle is there for minimum tracking error.
gusten
gusten

JonL
03-12-2012, 06:19 PM
I think You are agreeing, not disagreeing. It is the groove angle in relation to the pivot that is creating the skating force, depending on friction force. (Which is parallel to the grooves)
The offset angle is there for minimum tracking error.
gusten
gusten

OK, I see how you're looking at it... same thing, I guess.