[SteveRB]

Hello,

i have been slowly trying gear over the past 10 years and have settled on a few great components that i truly enjoy and didn't involve massive credit to purchase. I would like to address a couple problems that have crept in over the years. I have out grown many of my friend's systems (and advice) and now i feel like i need a little help to get the details tuned-in

1. Recently i have noticed there are very harsh 's' sounds that seems to get worse as the cartridge tacks to the centre of the record.

2. I use the Hi-Fi News Test Lp for set-up but cannot get the anti-skate setting correct: buzzes on the right channel. the dial on my tonearm seems to have little effect. All other test grooves seem to be very good.

3. Weak points: obviously my phono-stage is the weak-link. I like the Denon 103 and may move to the 103R. Any suggestions for a good matched phono-stage?

My signal path:

Denon 103 cartridge (new).

Jelco SA-750E -- 10" s-shaped arm (new)
http://soundsciencecat.com/Jelco.html

VPI HW-19 MK3, pucks and cones instead of springs and feet with outboard motor and upgraded bearing (sitting on a Target wall mount shelf)

Denon AU-250, vintage stepup transformer -- http://www.audioinvest.no/denon/products/tr_250.htm

Eico HF-81, restored with stock phono stage
http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/606eico/

Speakers: Visaton 200b and 2x Eminence Alpha 15's on an open baffle

Cables: basic

Thanks for looking -- any help is appreciated.
Steve B

[orthobiz]

Is it the Mk IV setup? Inverted bearing?

Paul

[SteveRB]

yes, the VPI has the inverted bearing.

[orthobiz]

If you are using the same armboard that came with the TT and it had an AudioQuest arm mounted, that distance is 211 mm. The VPI arms have a Rega mounting distance, pivot to spindle of 222 mm. The Jelco arm you have is supposed to be at 214 mm. The overhang of the Linn setup is 18 mm, yours is 15. Guess I should just ask if you have a different tonearm mounting to accomodate this arm. I'm not so sure it's a dead ringer drop-in replacement for a Linn mounting...

Others here are WAY more knowledgeable about what differences this could make.

Paul

[SteveRB]

thanks Paul,

i made a new armboard for the Jelco when i got the deck. i remember using the Jelco mounting distance when i did the initial set-up. That said, I have not been able to get the cartridge alignment perfect (as per HiFi News protractor).

[orthobiz]

Then you need a consult with Wayner! I'm sure he'll weigh in soon...

The Jelco distance on vinylengine.com looks like it varies from 210 to 214 (yours) to 222 so I am skeptical when a tonearm is advertised as a "Linn" setup or a "Rega" setup.

Paul

[Wayner]

Well, I think you first need to find out something. If you have a ruler laying around, measure the distance from the center of the platter spindle to where you think the center of the tonearm pivot is. On a Jelco tonearm, the top cap should give it away as the there is definitely a center point.

Give me that distance and we can convert to millimeters and figure out where to go from here. If your arm is too far out, you will not be able to mount the cartridge correctly, as the slots will not be long enough to get it in the right spot.

But, first things first, need that dimension.

Wayner

[analognut]

I am curious about your bias problem and the HFNews test record. Are you saying you can't even track the first of the four bands successfully? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the correct way to use this test is to adjust anti-skate so that when the buzzing starts, it starts at the same time in both channels, rather than trying to adjust the buzzing so that it goes away. This is not made clear at all in the instructions, but I believe it is correct. Also, it says if you can track the 1st two tracks successfully, you should be fine. 

[SteveRB]

i am tracking the first two fine. The buzz is consistent in the right channel regardless whether the bias setting is at 0 or 3.

[blakep]

Mounting distance for the 750E (10") is 240 mm as spec'd by Jelco with a 15 mm overhang. The Jelco spec'd numbers provide a proprietary alignment (closest to but not the same as Stevenson, a long way off from Baerwald or Lofgren).

I own a 750D and have aligned to Baerwald as I prefer that alignment anyway, but it will result in a much longer overhang (about 18 mm in my setup as I recall) and a different offset angle with the cartridge angled in slightly toward the spindle.

Analognut is correct about the Hi-Fi News Record. You want to adjust so the buzzing is equal in both channels.

[SteveRB]

Thanks for all the input guys. i just spent 2 hours re-measuring and adjusting. Tracking force set at 2.5 grams

Wayner, the measured pivot to spindle distance is 240mm (+/- 0.5mm). The spec for the 10" Jelco is 240mm.

I am able to set up the alignment to Baerwald using null points 66 and 121 on the HiFi News protractor. this puts the overhang around 17-18mm.

The set up tracks the third bias track nearly perfectly -- with just a hint of buzz in the right channel near the end of the groove. Bias track four buzzes immediately on the right side only. i cannot get the bias setting to buzz at all on the left channel.

The harsh 's' sounds have diminished slightly but are still present. I'll be listening to more records later tonight.

thanks again for the help. i'm starting to hunt around for phono-stage upgrades to match. so suggestions are appreciated.

[Wayner]

At 240 spindle to tonearm pivot distance, the overhang should be at 14.329mm, for a Stevenson alignment (60.325, 117.417mm) null points.

The anti-skating buzz on the test record may indicate that the anti-skate feature on your tone arm is perhaps not working, or malfunctioning. Do you have a blank disc to see how the arm behaves?

Wayner

[blakep]

Thanks for all the input guys. i just spent 2 hours re-measuring and adjusting. Tracking force set at 2.5 grams

Wayner, the measured pivot to spindle distance is 240mm (+/- 0.5mm). The spec for the 10" Jelco is 240mm.

I am able to set up the alignment to Baerwald using null points 66 and 121 on the HiFi News protractor. this puts the overhang around 17-18mm.

The set up tracks the third bias track nearly perfectly -- with just a hint of buzz in the right channel near the end of the groove. Bias track four buzzes immediately on the right side only. i cannot get the bias setting to buzz at all on the left channel.

The harsh 's' sounds have diminished slightly but are still present. I'll be listening to more records later tonight.

thanks again for the help. i'm starting to hunt around for phono-stage upgrades to match. so suggestions are appreciated.

If you're aligning to Baerwald your overhang should be right around 16 mm (16.083 to be exact with a 240 mm Pivot to Spindle) and your cartridge if properly aligned should probably be angled very slightly toward the spindle. It will NOT be perfectly lined up in the headshell.

IMO, 2.5 grams is not enough tracking force for the 103 or the 103R (my current cartridge-I've used a couple now) and I would raise that to 2.6, possibly even 2.65 if the cartridge is new and then back off a bit once the cartridge has more than 50 hours on it.

Not sure about your anti-skate/buzzing issues, but I would set anti-skate at 2.6 using the Jelco anti-skate dial to match VTF and be done with it and see how that sounds.

The conical, by it's nature, is a bit more susceptible to inner groove distortion but you should not be experiencing much of it and only on the odd record.

[neobop]

I'm not sure, but I think the factory alignment for the arm is Baerwald. Maybe it says in the manual? This arm is supposed to be a modern (improved) version of the Sumiko MMT. Anyway, if the factory alignment is Baerwald, the cart will be virtually straight in the headshell, when using that alignment.

From what you measured, the mounting distance is within 1mm of the specified distance. That's simply not good enough to rely on arc specs for alignment. Distortion measurements @ 1mm out, look really bad. I just saw a plot of this on Asylum, made by John Ellison. My suggestion is to use a high quality protractor and make sure your distance and angle are perfect. It helps to have the TT at waist-high height, rather than chest high, when doing this. Don't forget to turn off the anti-skate. Align the cantilever rather than the cart body. You might want to use some magnification. It helps to vary the lighting and your angle of view. Magnification will help immensely.

Going back and forth from one grid to the other with a protractor, can be frustrating. If you start with the inner grid and cart squared in the shell and it's not angled perfectly, go to the outer grid and see if the error is about the same. Maybe correcting the angle is all you need. If not, look at the direction of the grid compared to the cart, on the inner grid. With the stylus on the target - if the grid looks like it's going toward the platter side you need to move the cart forward. Conversely, if going toward the outside, move it back. It's normal for this to take some time even if you're used to doing it. You could start with an arc protractor for 240 S to P and then check it with a protractor. But if your protractor check isn't exact, it's useless. So it helps to have an effective protractor technique.

BTW, the effective mass of your arm is 21g. That's near ideal for the 103. Some users say around 25g is perfect. I suspect the buzzing is from a loose cart screw, clip or possibly azimuth or angle misalignment. Cart screws should be nice and tight  without being muscled. Don't use nylon washers. Sometimes if the alignment angle is off or the azimuth (viewed from the front), that can happen. Don't go by test record settings for anti-skate. Everybody winds up with too much. Set a a value somewhat less than VTF, and adjust from there. There is no perfect anti-skate setting. Skating will vary at different parts of the record and for different recording velocities. The inner groove is the left ch and outer is the rt. If your VTF is too low, that could be the cause of the buzz.
neo

[blakep]

Jelco factory alignment is NOT Baerwald. It's also not Stevenson or Lofgren.

It's close to Baerwald if you're using a DIN spec'd Baerwald protractor as opposed to an IEC spec'd Baerwald protractor but I would venture that almost all of the commercially available Baerwald protractors are IEC.

Aligning to the traditional Baerwald null points (IEC) of 65.998 and 120.891 will result in the cartridge not being absolutely straight in the headshell and an overhang slightly longer than 16.

Go to DIN Baerwald and you get an overhang much closer to the 15 spec'd by Jelco (15.187) but you have null points of 63.103 and 119.173. So if you have a protractor that uses those null points the cartridge should be quite close to being straight in the headshell but, as I said earlier, I think you'll find most of the Baerwald protractors to use the other more common null points.

Hope this helps. I'm the owner of a 750D with a 103R so I've looked into alignment on the Jelco(s) fairly thoroughly.

[neobop]

This is a 750E, not D, but it doesn't matter. The point is, with mounting distance close, but uncertain if exact, alignment should be done with, or verified with a protractor. All commercial Baerwald protractors have nulls at 66 and 120.9mm. With factory nulls close to that it should also be easy to get a Loefgren alignment if OP desires. As Wayner has pointed out in previous threads, getting exact alignment using only a protractor can be tricky and easily botched. I was trying to help with techniques that help me. As I have pointed out in previous threads, any 2 null points between 60 and 121mm is a "legitimate" alignment, although it might not be the preferred alignment. If the cart mounting angle is too far off, actual nulls could easily be outside of those parameters.

Thinking about this for a minute, it's likely that the rt ch buzz could be from too little VTF, anti-skate setting, a combination of those, or the device itself. If VTF is too low, that could be the cause. Assuming all screws and clips are tight, start out at max recommended VTF, and work your way down.
neo

[blakep]

This is a 750E, not D, but it doesn't matter. The point is, with mounting distance close, but uncertain if exact, alignment should be done with, or verified with a protractor. All commercial Baerwald protractors have nulls at 66 and 120.9mm. With factory nulls close to that it should also be easy to get a Loefgren alignment if OP desires. As Wayner has pointed out in previous threads, getting exact alignment using only a protractor can be tricky and easily botched. I was trying to help with techniques that help me. As I have pointed out in previous threads, any 2 null points between 60 and 121mm is a "legitimate" alignment, although it might not be the preferred alignment. If the cart mounting angle is too far off, actual nulls could easily be outside of those parameters.

Thinking about this for a minute, it's likely that the rt ch buzz could be from too little VTF, anti-skate setting, a combination of those, or the device itself. If VTF is too low, that could be the cause. Assuming all screws and clips are tight, start out at max recommended VTF, and work your way down.
neo

Yes, I'm quite aware that the OP's arm is a 750E, and it seems to me that I'd already said much of what you just said in the above post in my earlier two posts.

I just wanted to make it very clear to the OP that if he is aligning to Baerwald using the traditional Baerwald null points (which is absolutely fine and, in fact what I have done on my 750D) that the cartridge body would not line up perfectly in the headshell. If it did, he would NOT be perfectly aligned. I think that's very valid information for him if he wants to be well aligned and not totally confused and start eliminating his problems.

[Letitroll98]

I would not stress in the least about not tracking all of the HFNRR anti-skating tracks.  The tracks are cut at a much higher level than is ever encountered in normal recording and will almost always result in too high of an antiskate bias setting.  As Neo noted, proper antiskate bias is a fluid thing differing across the record surface and at different stylus velocities.  You can only hope for an approximation of the average correct value, which will not be revealed in this test record.

Proper antiskate bias is a mystical art competently practiced only by vinyl shamans who use the relative height of orchestral presentation from left to right image or having low frequency sounds deep in the soundstage center behind forward images, etc.  (I can't wait until Wayne get a hold of that statement)  But seriously, there is no set value that is correct, but it's certainly not determined precisely by a test record or by using the same value as the tracking force.   

[Wayner]

I have no problem with your statement. The ears should be the final judge on any set-up. I recommend using a blank disc to set the anti-skate. It's not ideally perfect, but gets the arm really, really close, leaving the final tweak up the ears. In fact I would say that there are not many arms that the anti-skating calibration actually matches the VTF. My Sony PS-X5 and X7 are right on, the Technics SL1200MKII is off by .5 but my Jelco (AudioQuest) arm on my VPI is right on.

I thought that the Jelco 750 had the same mounting as my PT-6 (Audioquest), but mine is at 211 with a 18mm overhang which is just .18mm off from a perfect Baerwald alignment. I run out of slot room to get to a Lofgren B.

Wayner

[neobop]

Blakep,
I thought it important to point out that both overhang and angle will change, if mounting distance is even slightly off. That's why I posted, not to contradict what you said, which seemed correct.
neo