Here is a test plot of a Audio Technica AT440MLa..............

mikeyvsmichael · « **Reply #20 on:** 8 Jun 2009, 03:02 am »

Nice.. that's some great customer service too. I've got an AT-120E right now, thinking about upgrading either to the AT-440MLa or a AT-150MLX. I find the AT-120E a touch on the bright side, the above chart looks very promising for the 440.

mikeyvsmichael · « **Reply #21 on:** 8 Jun 2009, 05:57 am »

Quote from: mikeyvsmichael on 8 Jun 2009, 03:02 am

Nice.. that's some great customer service too. I've got an AT-120E right now, thinking about upgrading either to the AT-440MLa or a AT-150MLX. I find the AT-120E a touch on the bright side, the above chart looks very promising for the 440.

Strike that statement from the record. Set the VTF to the recommend 1.4 grams (from 1.6ish).. and whaddya know.. brightness issue fixed. These carts are very finicky creatures.. spent last 2 days tweaking the VTA and VTF, finally think I got.

Wayner · « **Reply #22 on:** 8 Jun 2009, 12:18 pm »

mikeyvsmichael,

What table are you using this cart on?

Wayner

mikeyvsmichael · « **Reply #23 on:** 8 Jun 2009, 03:22 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 8 Jun 2009, 12:18 pm

mikeyvsmichael,

What table are you using this cart on?

Wayner

Technics SL-1200mk2 + Cambridge Azur 640p

The one thing lacking with with my current setup is some slight detail. When I did a direct comparison of Brubeck's Timeout LP to SACD, I couldn't help but notice the SACD had better detail and sound stage.. but I found it sort of lifeless and not very engaging, as compared to the vinyl.

analognut · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 07:40 pm »

Wayner's test plot shows a slightly tipped up response in the lower freq's, which'd likely sound good to me. It also shows an approx +2db peak at 7k. That's probably what the objection was all about, no? My AT-OC9ML/II, although MC, also suffers from the same affliction. Personally, at the high end, I like a perfectly flat response.

Wayner · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 08:56 pm »

I'm tracking at 1.5 grams with this cartridge on all of my turntables. I think 1.4 might be a hair too low. I also have my anti-skate set at about 2.5 on the Technics SL-1200MKII. I have a blank disc and that is the number that makes the arm stand still. Try that once and come on back.

Wayner

royphil345 · « **Reply #26 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 05:50 am »

Quote from: Wayner on 14 Jun 2009, 08:56 pm

I'm tracking at 1.5 grams with this cartridge on all of my turntables. I think 1.4 might be a hair too low. I also have my anti-skate set at about 2.5 on the Technics SL-1200MKII. I have a blank disc and that is the number that makes the arm stand still. Try that once and come on back.

Wayner

I'm guessing you have way too much anti-skate (left channel bias) applied and that's why you're getting weakness or tracking distortion in the right channel. The blank vinyl method of setting anti-skate really doesn't work. The tip of the stylus doesn't even make contact with anything when it's in a groove. It's totally different. I've found the accuracy of the anti-skate on my Technics to be within about .1 gram at 1.5 grams and just slightly more off at higher tracking forces. The spring anti-skate on a very old Sony I had was still accurate to within about .3 grams.

Wayner · « **Reply #27 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 12:06 pm »

The blank disc is an excellent way and the only way to acurately set anti-skating. The skating forces on a tonearm are generated by 3 factors. First is the offset angle of the cartridge, second is the VTF and 3rd is the RPM. Yes the very tip of the stylus does not actually touch the record groove walls but the forces acting on it are the same. You can also see and hear the differences.

Wayner

royphil345 · « **Reply #28 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 05:51 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 15 Jun 2009, 12:06 pm

The blank disc is an excellent way and the only way to acurately set anti-skating. The skating forces on a tonearm are generated by 3 factors. First is the offset angle of the cartridge, second is the VTF and 3rd is the RPM. Yes the very tip of the stylus does not actually touch the record groove walls but the forces acting on it are the same. You can also see and hear the differences.

Wayner

OK then...

I guess if the cartridge tests fine and there's no fault with the setup... it's probably just the work of the devil or a witch that lives nearby. These things happen...

I'm still a little puzzled by how the tonearm reacts the exact same way when the tip of the stylus is placed on flat vinyl as it does when both sides of the stylus contact groove walls and the tip of the stylus touches nothing... Although, you did clearly explain that it just does... sounds to me like the forces in play would be quite different.

I believe when the stylus is in a groove, rake angle has a much less dramatic effect and the grooves setting the mass of the arm in motion towards the center (end) of the record is the main cause of skating force. That's what I've been taught...

Seriously... I was just trying to help. I've never seen the anti-skate calibration off by over a gram on any table. The reason for the problem you're having looked pretty obvious to me. I know from experience the flat vinyl method of setting anti-skate doesn't work. If you experiment a little, I'd bet money your problem would be solved and you'd know too.

Wayner · « **Reply #29 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 08:07 pm »

I'm not having a problem. The reason I started this thread was that one of my 6 AT440MLas started to sound less than in one channel. I changed out the cartridge for another brand new one and the problem went away. I then sent the suspected cartridge into AT for their evaluation. They sent me back the chart, proving that the problem was on my end. The real problem was probably a bad contact somewhere or another that I just didn't discover.

Now, back to the test disc. On 2 of my turntables, the anti-skate is not working so I have designed a great deadman weight for those. On my other 4 decks, the anti-skating is kind of all over the board. All tables are set at 1.5 grams VTF. My Rega RB300 anti-skating is actually right on 1.5. My Technics SL-1200mkII is on 2.5, my Technics SL-Q2 is on 2 and my VPI HW-19 with AudioQuest PT-6 tonearm is at 2. The lesson here is that the dial guages of some of these decks may vary and if you don't have a test disc, you have to rely on your eyes and ears. Extremely incorrect anti-skating or lack there of may even cause record skipping. Visually, you may see the cantilever skewed abit and audiably, you may hear a week channel or even distortion coming from one channel as the cartridge is not tracking the groove correctly.

The grooves in the record do not cause the skating effect. It is the offset angle of the cartridge and the speed. It's also the fact that the rotating record has less resistance on the inside as opposed to the outside of the stylus. There is just less material on the inside as compared to the outside. Maybe more like how an airplane wing works. less resistance on top makes lift. I'm also thinking now that when I change my speed to 45, I should check the antiskating cause I think it changes tho I haven't looked for that.

Using the blank disc is really cool. You can learn alot about arm behavior as you change the anti-skating settings. With zero anti-skating, the tonearm zooms to the spindle. Your logic makes you think that the arm should fly off the record the other way, cause if you would put a penny on it, it would fly off. With too much anti-skating, the tonearm does want to go to the outside and fall off the record. With the right amount, the tonearm will actually just sit in one place, no matter where you place the stylus.

All this said, the table will tell you when it's happy. Suface noise will be low, the music should be centered between the speakers and it should be surround sound like. As people get better at fine tuning there machines, the music will just get better and better sounding.

There are just so many settings on a table to get straight and this forum is a great place to share ideas or thoughts and experiences. Hopefully others may start to understand things better and start tweaking their machines in the right direction.

Wayner

WGH · « **Reply #30 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 10:04 pm »

There seems to be two schools of thought regarding how to set anti-skating, for now I just use the little dial next to the tone arm until I learn better.

Regarding school of thought #2 - Michael Fremmer includes a pdf file with instructions in his 21st Century Vinyl DVD, I hope he doesn't mind, here is an excerpt from the anti-skating section:

SKATING AND ANTI-SKATING

"As I demonstrated on the video, "skating", the tendency of a pivoted arm to want to move toward the center of the record, thereby causing the stylus to be biased toward the inner groove, is a real problem, that most tonearm designers feel should be addressed, even if it can't be with complete accuracy. It's the result of a "vector force" caused by the drag force between the stylus and the groove and the tonearm's offset angle, but beyond that, not being a physicist, I won't attempt a scientific explanation. However, I will say it's not the result of "centrifugal" force as the arm's travel accelerates across the surface due to the tighter groove spirals.

"As I reiterated on the video, the amount of skating that occurs varies across the surface of the record, varies with groove modulations, varies with VTF, and varies with the vinyl formula. That makes solving the problem a "moving target", but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. Better to get it approximately right across the surface of the record than ignore it!

"Because skating is a dynamic force, do not attempt to set anti-skating using the flat, non-grooved "plateaus" found on some test records. That is wrong. As we showed on the video, I got surprisingly accurate results following the manufacturer's instructions included with the Pro-Ject and Rega turntables and tonearms. Following the manufacturer's instructions is a great place to start when it comes to setting anti-skating, though as I found out "live" on camera, VPI's new anti-skating device (highly recommended), provides too much anti-skating force, even with the provided weight at the minimum setting. Fortunately, removing the weight and allowing the pivot arm alone to provide the force, proved to be ideal for a 1.75 gram tracking force. That should prove to be ideal upwards of 2 grams as well. Perhaps by the time you read this, VPI will offer a lighter pivot and weight system.

"I have found WAM Engineering's anti-skating device to be very accurate, but not everyone will want to invest in it. Do not use "maximum trackability" test tones on some test records to set anti-skating or you?ll be setting it way too high."

This is me again - I guess I have to watch the video again to see how anti-skating is set, Michael's text above certainly does not give any clues.

Wayne

Wayner · « **Reply #31 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 10:54 pm »

Well, for someone......(edited).

If you look at the cross-section of an LP, the surface is not flat. By RIAA design (a) specifications, it is concaved, thicker at the rim and label and slightly radiused between, design (b) is flat. Yes, we know the anti-skate changes thru the record surface, but we do not have a PLC connected to our tonearm, constantly measuring forces, then reacting to them with counter measures. The anti-skating is usually just a spring. IMO, the blank disc is a great tool to get you right in the ballpark. Unlike a blank record (if made to RIAA specifications) it does not have a dip between rim and label. It's flat all the way across. And while the stylus is not tracking in a groove, the stylus is making a groove in the acrylic. Since there is more material on the outside circumference then the inside, the effect of groove simulation is accomplished.

A good measure of success can be done visually, watching the tonearm desending when droppin the cueing lever and paying attention to the position of the stylus/cantilever assembly in relationship to the cartridge. When the cartridge engages the grooves, the cantilever should stay in the same position. If it appears to pull one way or another, further adjustment is necessary. I can tell real easy with my ARMod and it's RB300 tonearm, which has an extremely slow (and cool) cueing. Of course the ears are the final judge. Image should be centered, the reverbration of the recording should be huge (depending on recording) and there should be no distortion on one or another channel. That may be a clue that something is wrong.

While some may claim the disc technique doesn't work, I strongly disagree. It is not perfect, but is a great tool to get you into the ballpark. One of the tonearms (RB300) is right on the money. 2 other tonearms are off only a slight amount from their supposed A/S positions.

Wayner

royphil345 · « **Reply #32 on:** 16 Jun 2009, 07:32 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 15 Jun 2009, 10:54 pm

While some may claim the disc technique doesn't work, I strongly disagree. It is not perfect, but is a great tool to get you into the ballpark. One of the tonearms (RB300) is right on the money. 2 other tonearms are off only a slight amount from their supposed A/S positions.

Wayner

Well... It's your turntable. Obviously, you can do what you want and I'm not going to be upset about it... a little disappointed maybe... lol

Daverz · « **Reply #33 on:** 17 Jun 2009, 02:41 am »

I haven't heard the 440MLA, but I do have a 150MLX. Lots of great qualities, but 30-40 hours in I could not get the treble dialed in right on either an RB300 or an SME309 arm. It either sounded unsettled and spacey, or overdamped and papery, depending on the capacitive load, tonearm cable, or phono section used. I've been told I'm just hearing a quality of MMs in general (the Clearaudio Aurem Beta had the same papery quality on my old rig, but I never heard it on my new rig; 2 carts aren't much of a sample, and I have some hopes that other MMs don't sound this way).

If you are set up for MC and have the extra cash, I'd go for the wonderful AT33PTG. Overall, I like it more than the Dynavector DV20XL or the Benz Wood L2.

Wayner · « **Reply #34 on:** 17 Jun 2009, 02:52 pm »

I'm running the AT440MLa on a RB300. I love the combination.

Wayner

kenreau · « **Reply #35 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 08:49 pm »

Wayner,

I just purchased a AT440MLa from LP Gear for my son's vintage Kenwood KD tt. Upon close inspection, it appears the cantilever is out of alignment by several degrees, both in relation to being parallel with cartridge body and azimuth (looking from front). I just emailed LP Gear to ask about tolerances and a possible replacement.

My main question is, is there an acceptable tolerance range for something like this? Is it something that would impact the sonics, or it gets adjusted out as part of the cartridge set-up/alignment process?

I was also wondering if it may be something that settles in after 20~30 hours of use and breaking in?

Thanks,
Ken

Wayner · « **Reply #36 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 09:54 pm »

There isn't a flat surface on the AT's bottom, so I don't know how you could determine that it's out of alignment in that plain. As far as off from design center and you said azimuth, isn't the stylus right between the void in the assembly? It almost sounds like the cantilever is bent. Or are you seeing this stuff when you are playing a record and maybe some adjustments of your tonearm are out of wack? AT will back up any warranty issues, no problem.

Can we post pictures yet?

Wayner

kenreau · « **Reply #37 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 10:48 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 22 Jun 2009, 09:54 pm

There isn't a flat surface on the AT's bottom, so I don't know how you could determine that it's out of alignment in that plain. As far as off from design center and you said azimuth, isn't the stylus right between the void in the assembly? It almost sounds like the cantilever is bent. Or are you seeing this stuff when you are playing a record and maybe some adjustments of your tonearm are out of wack? AT will back up any warranty issues, no problem.

Can we post pictures yet?

Wayner

Looking at the underside of the cartridge, laying upside down, the cantilever appears to be mounted off center and a slight skew. I think this also causes the azimuth to be slight off as well. It is just beyond an alignment range I feel confortable with. I will attempt to post some photos this evening if my camera will get a close enough shot.

Thanks
Kenreau

The gallery is working again so here they are. Unfortunately I have an older dig. camera and this was as close and clear as I could get (culled from 20 different shots)

The cantilever skew isn't way off, but just enough that it was a concern. I have two other cartridges (Grado and Shelter) and they are both dead nuts straight and aligned. I went ahead and contacted LP Gear and they offered to swap it out without issue.

I am curious though if this degree of out-of-alignment is within an acceptable range or not? Sorry the photos are not better. What say ye?

kenreau · « **Reply #38 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 04:27 am »

bump for photos added.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #39 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 06:55 am »

I regret to inform you that technically speaking no misalignment is acceptable. The phono cartridge is a precision instrument and has to be in alignment in order to minimize record wear and retrieve the information in the record grooves accurately. You will need to take up LP GEAR on their offer to exchange your cartridge for a new one.
Scotty