[isaacrivera]

I have owned a VPI Classic 3 for about 4 months now. The VPI folks kindly installed a Dynavector 20X2-L that I provided. Initially I followed the manual's setup instructions: VTF, VTA by making the arm parallel to the record, and azimuth by the rod method. Michael Fremer suggests this method leads to 80% precision. The table sounded better than out of the box and I was happy.

But who buys an $8,500.00 turntable setup to be lastingly happy with 80% setup precision?

So after reading enough and obtaining the tools I set out this weekend determined to extract another 15-17% out of this system. The "tools" are a 2-digit-precision digital VTF gauge, a 400X digital microscope, and a Fozgometer Azimuth Meter.

Confirming the VTF was within range for this cart (1.8 - 2.2g) I set out to correct the SRA via microscope pictures as described by Michael Fremer and this is where trouble began as I could only adjust SRA to ~91-92 degrees by raising the arm as far as the VTA tower will go without loosing thread. At this height, a second guiding post the tonearm base has located near the arm rest no longer reaches completely through the top platform of the tonearm and it can't be locked via the locking screw next to it.

This seems odd, but I re-measured several times being very careful when taking the images to be parallel to the cantilever. Playing music like this confirms the tonal balance sounds better.

I was able to adjust the azimuth and the rest. But it seems wrong that the arm be that high to achieve proper SRA.

Could it be the cartridge cantilever is angled wrong? Could the VTF affect the SRA enough to cause this if it was on the higher end of the range? Or is there a way to raise the whole tonearm not using the VTA tower to achieve a more appropriate base height that then can be fine tuned with the VTA tower?

I appreciate all insights.

[Wayner]

The real problem is assuming that the SRA should be at 92°. I used to think that, but after realizing the end results of such a set-up, went back to the parallel arm theory.

Some of the problem is by the nature of the beast, being in "micro" world where everything is really small and for the most part, we do not have the tools to do it correctly. The other part of the problem is that the SRA is actually the measurement angle of the stylus as it sits in the record groove, not the angle of the arm. IMO, most cartridge manufacturers build in a certain amount of SRA in the cantilever assembly, and so if you get the arm parallel to the record surface (with the stylus in the record groove), you are pretty much there.

[Devil Doc]

Wayner, do you have a system for getting a tapered arm parallel? I don't find it particularly easy to eyeball.

Doc

[Minn Mark]

Assuming:

1) as you assert, your 'table was delivered with a pretty good set-up (80%), and that
2) this sounded "OK" to you.

If you make adjustments toward a more optimal SRA (your 'ideal') but can't quite get there, I assume that any adjustments toward your 'ideal' should be improvements.

Given this, if you get to your maximum adjustment and listen there, what do you hear?  Is this better, worse or the same?

If better, you need to continue you quest. If worse, some re-evaluation is required. If you don't hear an improvement (or a difference for that matter) perhaps best to get back to the original settings (if possible) and forget about it.

I have a Classic I that my vendor set up with my Sumiko Blackbird. Apart from periodically checking the VTF with a digital scale, I haven't touched any other settings.  I'm happy with the sound, do not think I'm missing anything (certainly not 20%), and am grateful I can just sit back and enjoy the music.

You have fantastic set-up. Good luck with your endeavor !

Best,

Mark

[brooklyn]

Why not lower the VTA (Arm) down to where the locking screw can be locked.
Will the difference in sound be that great?

[Gzerro]

I have a Classic 1 and the same Dynavector cartridge.

My suggestion is to set it by ear, the difference is very audible with bit of practice. I focus mainly on the overall balance. Too high at the base of the tone arm will have thin bass and fatiguing highs, too low and the bass will be bloated and top end rolled off.

For me, the ideal setting of SRA ended up with the back of the tone arm very slightly higher than parallel.

Best of luck!

Tom

[isaacrivera]

Thank you all for your thoughts. I am aware that the appropriate SRA adjustment is subject of debate.

If you read carefully, I did not say VPI set up the tonearm for me or that it did so with 80% precision. What I said is that VPI mounted the cart on the tonearm for me. I brought it to the factory and they put it on for me. No more adjustment than that. Out of the box the darn thing sounded pretty awful. I myself did the visual 80% adjustment because those were the tools I had at the moment, and that setting sounded much better than out of the box. However, if I wanted a table for coarse adjustment I could have gotten away with paying way less.

Parallel adjustment is not necessarily better or worse. It depends on your arm, your cart and your karma. However parallel adjustment is not SRA, but VTA. I said I used the Mr. Fremer microscope SRA adjustment methodology which takes into account the angle of the stylus relative to the record plane. I also said that "playing music like this confirms the tonal balance sounds better." It is not a slight difference either. Bass is fuller and tight without being too over-controlled. Highs are more nuanced and textured. I played some LPs I had thought challenged in these respects in the past and the sound was generally much better and in some cases surprisingly better. Generally there is more soundstage and better imaging. Also more resolution and, paradoxically longer decay as well. I played some records that I have where the aural and 3d qualities I know well from CD and I was disappointed at the LP rendition of those qualities. After the adjustments vinyl beats the cd hands down.

I realize that this is a starting point that may have to be fine-tuned over time. Yet, unless something is wrong with my cart, the VPI adjustment range should be enough to handle this. My question is whether someone else has run into a similar situation and there is a way to raise the arm without using the tower. I will call VPI on Monday, but this happened on a Friday evening and I thought I would ask here in the meantime.

[neobop]

This seems odd, but I re-measured several times being very careful when taking the images to be parallel to the cantilever. Playing music like this confirms the tonal balance sounds better.

Could it be the cartridge cantilever is angled wrong? Could the VTF affect the SRA enough to cause this if it was on the higher end of the range? Or is there a way to raise the whole tonearm not using the VTA tower to achieve a more appropriate base height that then can be fine tuned with the VTA tower?

I appreciate all insights.

Isn't the image supposed to be parallel to the record surface and the line of the needle goes forward of perpendicular  by 2° ? 

I think Fremer sends his pics to a lab to get the exact angle.  I use Tom's "by ear" method.  You might be surprised how easily SRA is heard once you do it a few times. 

You said you supplied the cart.  Is it new or already broken in?  If you previously used that cart was the tail up in the air?  If new, maybe you have to break it in?

Devil Doc,
If you have a tapered arm use the top of the cart or the bottom of the headshell as a frame of reference.   That should be parallel to the record surface when the arm is neutral.
neo

[Gzerro]

VTF could be an issue. You say you are in the range 1.8 to 2.2. VPI recommends .1g above the mfg recommendation or 2.3g for the Dyna 20X2. Also you need to make sure the scale is at the same level as the record surface. If the scale is even a few mm higher your reading will be .1 to .3 lower than what it would be at the record surface.

A higher VTF will result in the tail of the tone arm being lower to achieve a given SRA.

Tom

[isaacrivera]

Hey neobop, thanks for your comment. If I understand correctly you are saying maybe I got the extra 2 degrees in the wrong direction? That is an interesting suggestion, if that is what you meant. I am pretty sure I did it right, but I am going to go over the articles again.

He may or may not send the pics to a lab, I have not read that. I know he consults with Mr. Wally Malewicz. Regardless in his articles he shows how to measure and calculate the angle. No advice to send to a lab...

Isn't the image supposed to be parallel to the record surface and the line of the needle goes forward of perpendicular  by 2° ? 

I think Fremer sends his pics to a lab to get the exact angle.  I use Tom's "by ear" method.  You might be surprised how easily SRA is heard once you do it a few times. 

You said you supplied the cart.  Is it new or already broken in?  If you previously used that cart was the tail up in the air?  If new, maybe you have to break it in?

Devil Doc,
If you have a tapered arm use the top of the cart or the bottom of the headshell as a frame of reference.   That should be parallel to the record surface when the arm is neutral.
neo

[isaacrivera]

Yes, VPI does recommend setting the stylus .1 higher for better tracking. If I got it right, higher weight should put more pressure on the cantilever and decrease the SRA even more, requiring an even higher setting on the tonearm, no? My cart was not set at 2.3 when setting the SRA. It was lower, closer to 2.0.

VTF could be an issue. You say you are in the range 1.8 to 2.2. VPI recommends .1g above the mfg recommendation or 2.3g for the Dyna 20X2. Also you need to make sure the scale is at the same level as the record surface. If the scale is even a few mm higher your reading will be .1 to .3 lower than what it would be at the record surface.

A higher VTF will result in the tail of the tone arm being lower to achieve a given SRA.

Tom

[Gzerro]

Yes, VPI does recommend setting the stylus .1 higher for better tracking. If I got it right, higher weight should put more pressure on the cantilever and decrease the SRA even more, requiring an even higher setting on the tonearm, no? My cart was not set at 2.3 when setting the SRA. It was lower, closer to 2.0.

Hmm. Penciling out the geometry I do seem to have it backwards.   

[YoungDave]

I have glanced at a couple of these posts and feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents.

I was never able to get a reliable measurement of SRA.  I tried using Mikey's suggested technique with a USB microscope - it is just too hard to get a good reference plane off the platter.  It is too hard to get an accurate sense of the stylus axis, especially with the various complex and non-symmetric shapes in use these days.  It is also too hard to get a safe, close, stable scope mount near the cartridge.  Trying to get in focus moves the whole miserable mess and you have to start over.  Meantime you're handling heavy (relatively) objects right next to a multi-thousand dollar cartridge.  Bad idea - in fact, a horribly bad idea.  Terrible judgment doing it, and Mikey used very poor judgment even recommending it.

As I recall, although it has been a while since I researched it, the primary product of bad SRA is increased intermodulation distortion (IM or IMD).  One of my test records has an IM test track and I used that track with a spectrum analyzer - never saw a big change in IM from one extreme of VTA to the other.

Bottom line: set the arm level and move on to other things.  Understand that I do not recommend this lightly - analog is very tweaky and some things are definitely worth tweaking. For example, I use Dr. Feicker's system to set azimuth because azimuth affects both voltage (magnitude) and phase angle and other tools (voltmeter, fozgometer, et all) do not measure phase angle - and a level azimuth (using the VPI bar) is almost never correct.  There are things to measure and things best left alone. 

But making up some klugey contraption to try and visualize, and measure, SRA is neither safe nor useful in my view.

Of course, YMMV.  I use a VPI HR-X with 3D 12.6 arm and a Dynavector XV-1s.

[Wayner]

BTW, a parallel arm with a tapered arm means thru the center-line of the arm. If you use a recipe card, look at the lines from the top and the bottom...they should be equal for a parallel arm. As I noted before, the parallel arm doesn't have anything to do with SRA, but there is a relationship, as every 1/4° of SRA translates to about 1mm of height adjustment to the arm. So what that means is that if you want to raise your SRA to 92° and you are at 90°, that would require an 8mm raise of the pivot base (or about .31 or 5/16 inches) for a 9" arm. Many TTs simply do not have that kind of adjustability.......

[isaacrivera]

Thanks for pitching in again Wayner. The 3D printed arm is tapered. But I am pretty sure by home measurements, though I have not read about it, that the top of the arm is flat and it tapers on the bottom only. With this arm, IMHO, parallel to the record translates to parallel to the top of the arm. However that does not mean SRA is at 90 degrees. That just means the arm is parallel to the record plane. Depending on your parts that may be right on SRA, but by just adjusting the VTA to make the arm parallel you get no idea what the SRA is. This is why the microscope method is use to actually measure the angle of the needle on the record plane. The 4mm / degree is for a 9inch arm. A 10.6inch arm requires a bigger shift. Somewhere I read closer to 5.3mm. The VPI VTA tower does adjust a good 20-30mm--just a visual guess. But many turntable manufacturers make extensions or spacers to lift the parts to accommodate for particular carts etc.

BTW, a parallel arm with a tapered arm means thru the center-line of the arm. If you use a recipe card, look at the lines from the top and the bottom...they should be equal for a parallel arm. As I noted before, the parallel arm doesn't have anything to do with SRA, but there is a relationship, as every 1/4° of SRA translates to about 1mm of height adjustment to the arm. So what that means is that if you want to raise your SRA to 92° and you are at 90°, that would require an 8mm raise of the pivot base (or about .31 or 5/16 inches) for a 9" arm. Many TTs simply do not have that kind of adjustability.......

[isaacrivera]

Thanks YoungDave. How do you like your setup?

I did find the microscope method a bit rickety at first, but with a little practice I realized some simple techniques minimize the variables a lot. For instance you must place the cds evenly around the area where the stylus is going to land and you must place the stylus on the very edge of them. That way they are in focus at the same time the stylus is in focus. Use the highest magnification you can achieve without touching the stylus with the apparatus, that way you are not including a lot of the horizontal field and avoiding perspective errors. Also be careful to approach the stylus on axis and this can be adjusted visually by starting with a perspective that shows a bit the front end of the cantilever and then slowly rotating and moving until that edge is no longer visible so you are perpendicular to it. Here is an image I get:



I have been able to reproduce results several times, so I know it is consistent. and the angle can be then measured several different ways--which pretty much coincide to about 1% variation.

This is a starting point though I know. Now small adjustments can be tried by ear to get to the sweet spot. However this was like 15mm off from parallel arm position. It would be very difficult to achieve that adjustment by ear because SRA changes drastically around the right spot, but then very little the farther away you are from it--that's what I read--so small changes would not be even noticeable. This is why I believe this method can help. It can put you 95% there and then small changes will be meaningful to the ear to be able to fine tune.

I have glanced at a couple of these posts and feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents.

I was never able to get a reliable measurement of SRA.  I tried using Mikey's suggested technique with a USB microscope - it is just too hard to get a good reference plane off the platter.  It is too hard to get an accurate sense of the stylus axis, especially with the various complex and non-symmetric shapes in use these days.  It is also too hard to get a safe, close, stable scope mount near the cartridge.  Trying to get in focus moves the whole miserable mess and you have to start over.  Meantime you're handling heavy (relatively) objects right next to a multi-thousand dollar cartridge.  Bad idea - in fact, a horribly bad idea.  Terrible judgment doing it, and Mikey used very poor judgment even recommending it.

As I recall, although it has been a while since I researched it, the primary product of bad SRA is increased intermodulation distortion (IM or IMD).  One of my test records has an IM test track and I used that track with a spectrum analyzer - never saw a big change in IM from one extreme of VTA to the other.

Bottom line: set the arm level and move on to other things.  Understand that I do not recommend this lightly - analog is very tweaky and some things are definitely worth tweaking. For example, I use Dr. Feicker's system to set azimuth because azimuth affects both voltage (magnitude) and phase angle and other tools (voltmeter, fozgometer, et all) do not measure phase angle - and a level azimuth (using the VPI bar) is almost never correct.  There are things to measure and things best left alone. 

But making up some klugey contraption to try and visualize, and measure, SRA is neither safe nor useful in my view.

Of course, YMMV.  I use a VPI HR-X with 3D 12.6 arm and a Dynavector XV-1s.

[neobop]

If you're convinced you need the tail up, why don't you use a wedge shaped spacer?  Hardwood is a good material to use and it would be easy enough to make. 

neo

[isaacrivera]

Hey neo, please explain? Do you mean on the cartridge?

[neobop]

Yes, a spacer between the cart and headshell, that's thicker in the front thereby angling the cart.   Ideally, it should reach to the back of the cart where it's thin.  I think it would be preferable to having your arm way up in the air. 

Back in the day I would occasionally see such items.  I still have a lead spacer that adds 3.3g weight.  Grado used to make a cartridge coupler that was a little plate with 3 dimples to mass couple the cart.  Hardwood is a preferred item for removable headshells.  It could even help the sound? 
I don't know where you could buy such a spacer, you might have to make it.  The cartridge mounting screws would be angled also, and I think there would be a limit with the wedge angle.
neo

[brooklyn]

VPI used to have a cartridge spacer but didn’t see it on the web.
Music Direct has these..

I never seen any spacer that was thicker from front to back.

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-2707-millennium-carbon-fiber-spacer-kit.aspx