Anti-skate setting question

[Coolhandjjl]

Years ago I read somewhere that when the arm is moving all so slightly towards the spindle, then you've got the AS just right.

Similar to the SoundSmith method. At the end dead wax, place the stylus in between some of the lead out grooves. If it moves slowly inwards, that’s just about right.

 

[UncleAng]

But don't you want the needle to follow the groove and not lead into the groove?

My reference was when using a test record that has a dead wax section in it to set AS

 

[krautmaster]

So I was thinking how the tracking weight and anti-skate adjustment being the same amount of 'force', how that came to be? Honestly, it seems like terrible advice as even Rega has issues with manufacturing based on your description of the numbers being off. And Rega, for the price, shouldn't have flaws like that IMO.

No manufacturing issue with the Rega, theirs is simply a magnet that you move closer or further away using the slider, the numbers are just sort of a guide (see pic). IMO it is a better /simpler system than springs, but it doesn't really matter which method the manufacturers use, it's on you to get it set properly.

 

[cafe latte]

Exactly! Here are a some examples from my TTs: Marantz 6200 with AT-VM95SH, tracking set to 1.9 grams, anti skate is at max of 3. Rega Planar 3 with Exact 2 cart, tracking set a 1.75 grams, anti skate set at 1ish (the Rega RB330 arm has a slider with inaccurate numbers). SRM-Tech Azure (Rega P3) with AT-OC9XML tracking was set at 2.0 grams, anti skate set to near zero.
The easiest way to set your anti skate is to purchase a thin smooth acrylic mat (mine is 2mm thick), place the arm down on the platter/mat while it is rotating and adjust the anti skate to where the arm doesn't swing in to the center or off the outer edge of the platter- be very careful- I killed my OC9XML while doing this (I slipped and fell to the side a bit and the tonearm went flying).
I bought the mat here:

Amazon.com

Nope, the blank groove method does not work. Stylus tip does not touch thr groove walls, thr blank disc method only sort of works with conical stylus. Elliptical, shibata micro ridge etc all have different contact area on thr sides of the tip and all will need different skate settings which cannot be determined with a blank disk. Also some tips like vdh are really sharp and dig into a blank disk giving a very false high antiskate needed to overcome.
Test record on thr middle modulation tracks is thr only way to set antiskate.
Chris

 

[cafe latte]

Years ago I read somewhere that when the arm is moving all so slightly towards the spindle, then you've got the AS just right.

Nope totally wrong

 

[twiiii]

Tracking weight is a function of gravity and the mass of the arm and bearing friction. If the record is warped and the tone arm is to heavy or has to much friction in the bearings then the weight will fluctuate vertically. Because the record turns and the velocity of the groove horizontally changes the the bias or anti skating force needs to change as the diameter of the groove becomes smaller increasing the horizontal acceleration as the diameter gets smaller. So what setting needed on the out side grooves is much less than the interior grooves and the amount you need for quieter passages is less than loud passages. So adjust anti skate bias is always a guessing process. Now if we all had linear arms with very small horizontal friction we would not need anti skating. Back in the 70's MC cartridges with elliptical stylus were not as sophisticated and as capable as the MM back then from Shure Stanton and Grace and todays MC cartridges with Fine line diamonds. So inorder to get them to have half a chance to compete with MM cartridges in tracing the grooves a lot of us went with linear arms, which gave the MC cartridges at the time half a chance. Pivoting arms have improved greatly over the years and that further narrows the need for a linear arm today. Though personnally, if I had the space and the coin I would have a Bergmann TT with a linear air suspended arm and a vacuum fed platter to pull warped records flat.

 

[cafe latte]

Tracking weight is a function of gravity and the mass of the arm and bearing friction. If the record is warped and the tone arm is to heavy or has to much friction in the bearings then the weight will fluctuate vertically. Because the record turns and the velocity of the groove horizontally changes the the bias or anti skating force needs to change as the diameter of the groove becomes smaller increasing the horizontal acceleration as the diameter gets smaller. So what setting needed on the out side grooves is much less than the interior grooves and the amount you need for quieter passages is less than loud passages. So adjust anti skate bias is always a guessing process. Now if we all had linear arms with very small horizontal friction we would not need anti skating. Back in the 70's MC cartridges with elliptical stylus were not as sophisticated and as capable as the MM back then from Shure Stanton and Grace and todays MC cartridges with Fine line diamonds. So inorder to get them to have half a chance to compete with MM cartridges in tracing the grooves a lot of us went with linear arms, which gave the MC cartridges at the time half a chance. Pivoting arms have improved greatly over the years and that further narrows the need for a linear arm today. Though personnally, if I had the space and the coin I would have a Bergmann TT with a linear air suspended arm and a vacuum fed platter to pull warped records flat.View attachment 3005475

As I have said on other threads Linear arms tend to have very large horizontal effective mass and much lighter vertical effective mass making them hard to match correctly to any cart. Basically removing one problem and replacing it with another.
The Technics arm on the sl1200 and the gr and G has a spring on a finger anti skate which increases its antiskate force as the arm gets closer to the spindle. Still not perfect but far better than a weight on a string type which is one value accross the record.
Chris

 

[lini]

Interestingly, if one checks Kogen's old paper on "The Skating-Force Phenomenon", they found hardly any dependence on linear speed, despite even applying a variation of factor 4 (quite a good bit more than between the outer and inner playback radius of an LP). And the published graph for playback radius dependency would look pretty much like how I would have expected it to look, namely pretty much like the tracking error angle curve for the specific alignment geometry with a positive offset contributed by the offset angle - for a typical radial-tracking arm with typical "hifi geometry" like the SME 3009, that is. However, both of these (possible) influence factors were tested with blank/unmodulated groove only.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[mr_petit]

Unfortunately, however, yet another among the significant influence factors is the groove modulation, which of course varies with signal level and frequency (and in terms of length along the groove also with playback radius), which turns the skating force into a "moving target", so that a fixed antiskating setting will always be a compromise.

Interestingly, if one checks Kogen's old paper on "The Skating-Force Phenomenon", they found hardly any dependence on linear speed, despite even applying a variation of factor 4 (quite a good bit more than between the outer and inner playback radius of an LP)

I have a set of orsonic side force checkers, and I can confirm that the modulation aspect is, by far, the aspect that has the biggest influence on the resulting skating force.
Different stylus profiles give a little bit of variation, but it's very little compared to variance in modulation of music on different records.
Signal strenght is the dominant factor, combined with tracking force.
In that regard those side force checkers have been an eye opener. Stylus profile makes less than 10% difference (where one stylus might require 2,0 AS setting, a different profile might require 1,9 AS setting (maybe 1,8 max)), whereas (example) a 70's pop record might require 25% less antiskating than an 80's DMM pop record (say 1,5 AS setting for the 70's pop record and 2,0AS setting for the 80's DMM pop record).
This also automatically means that setting your antiskate with a modulation track will always result in the wrong antiskating setting, in the sense that it's gonna be way to high. The better your cartridge tracks, the more you're off. Most cartridges will require a modulation of >70µm to give an audible distortion to set antiskating, and by then you're already 50% too high.
My experience (measurements) is that the grooveless section method will give a more accurate estimate of antiskating setting (less deviation to the correct setting) compared to the modulation track method, albeit too low.
My experience is, that the scale on the dial of a quality tonearm is usually the best setting. The dial on my Dual 721, an on my Pioneer PL-55x (both 70's turntables) were both pretty much spot on with the orsonic side force checkers for 80's DMM records (generally records with the highest level of modulation), and only marginally higher than what a modern pop record requires (post 2000 mix and pressing). However my CEC BD-7000 (magnetic antiskating, same as rega RB200), was way off.
And speed indeed does virtually nothing, I've checked that with my side force checkers. This is why tonearms have no separate 33/45 AS scales.
The only thing speed does, in terms of outer grooves and inner grooves, is that tracks on inner grooves are ususally cut with lower modulated signal and therefore an inner track might require less antiskating. But that's a different thing.

When talking in absolute numbers, an 80's DMM pop music record needs between 14,5% and 15,5% of the VTF as antiskating force (this is something you could measure with a wallyskater), 14,5% for lower VTF (like 1-1,25gr) and 15,5% for higher VTF (2,75gr) and about 15% for the 1,5-2,25gr range. I measured this on my dual 721 (9"tonearm) with the record seeds of love by tears for fears.
A modern pop record (for this I used RAM from Daft Punk, a fairly dynamic record) the required antiskating force was about 13-14,5% of the VTF. 13% for the lower VTF (<1,5gr) and 14,5% for 2,75gr VTF and above. For 1,5-2.25gr range it was roughly 13-13,5%.

This is different (higher) on what Wally engineering for their wallyskater advices, they advise 11% for a 9" tonearm. But maybe they base their findings on classical music and 60's-70s pop music. the 70's pop music I tested needed around 12% (Paul Simon -still crazy)

To give a comparison what a modulated test track does:
50µm already requires 18% antiskating of the VTF, and 70µm requires 20%, so using that method will result in an antiskating setting that is way off.

I hope this helps people to get an idea to what kind of values are needed.
So my advice is, if you have an expensive tonearm with antiskating setting but no values on the setting dial (like Clearaudio, Reed etc), don't set the antiskating with a modulated test track on a test record, but buy a wallyskater (or make one yourself, it's pretty easy (dutch link)) and use the above percentages, according to what you listen to mostly.

 

[ripblade]

I have a set of orsonic side force checkers, and I can confirm that the modulation aspect is, by far, the aspect that has the biggest influence on the resulting skating force.
Different stylus profiles give a little bit of variation, but it's very little compared to variance in modulation of music on different records.
Signal strenght is the dominant factor, combined with tracking force.
In that regard those side force checkers have been an eye opener. Stylus profile makes less than 10% difference (where one stylus might require 2,0 AS setting, a different profile might require 1,9 AS setting (maybe 1,8 max)), whereas (example) a 70's pop record might require 25% less antiskating than an 80's DMM pop record (say 1,5 AS setting for the 70's pop record and 2,0AS setting for the 80's DMM pop record).
This also automatically means that setting your antiskate with a modulation track will always result in the wrong antiskating setting, in the sense that it's gonna be way to high. The better your cartridge tracks, the more you're off. Most cartridges will require a modulation of >70µm to give an audible distortion to set antiskating, and by then you're already 50% too high.
My experience (measurements) is that the grooveless section method will give a more accurate estimate of antiskating setting (less deviation to the correct setting) compared to the modulation track method, albeit too low.
My experience is, that the scale on the dial of a quality tonearm is usually the best setting. The dial on my Dual 721, an on my Pioneer PL-55x (both 70's turntables) were both pretty much spot on with the orsonic side force checkers for 80's DMM records (generally records with the highest level of modulation), and only marginally higher than what a modern pop record requires (post 2000 mix and pressing). However my CEC BD-7000 (magnetic antiskating, same as rega RB200), was way off.
And speed indeed does virtually nothing, I've checked that with my side force checkers. This is why tonearms have no separate 33/45 AS scales.
The only thing speed does, in terms of outer grooves and inner grooves, is that tracks on inner grooves are ususally cut with lower modulated signal and therefore an inner track might require less antiskating. But that's a different thing.

When talking in absolute numbers, an 80's DMM pop music record needs between 14,5% and 15,5% of the VTF as antiskating force (this is something you could measure with a wallyskater), 14,5% for lower VTF (like 1-1,25gr) and 15,5% for higher VTF (2,75gr) and about 15% for the 1,5-2,25gr range. I measured this on my dual 721 (9"tonearm) with the record seeds of love by tears for fears.
A modern pop record (for this I used RAM from Daft Punk, a fairly dynamic record) the required antiskating force was about 13-14,5% of the VTF. 13% for the lower VTF (<1,5gr) and 14,5% for 2,75gr VTF and above. For 1,5-2.25gr range it was roughly 13-13,5%.

This is different (higher) on what Wally engineering for their wallyskater advices, they advise 11% for a 9" tonearm. But maybe they base their findings on classical music and 60's-70s pop music. the 70's pop music I tested needed around 12% (Paul Simon -still crazy)

To give a comparison what a modulated test track does:
50µm already requires 18% antiskating of the VTF, and 70µm requires 20%, so using that method will result in an antiskating setting that is way off.

I hope this helps people to get an idea to what kind of values are needed.
So my advice is, if you have an expensive tonearm with antiskating setting but no values on the setting dial (like Clearaudio, Reed etc), don't set the antiskating with a modulated test track on a test record, but buy a wallyskater (or make one yourself, it's pretty easy (dutch link)) and use the above percentages, according to what you listen to mostly.

Much appreciated, thank-you!

 

[Squirrel!]

Thanks for everyone's explanation. This group never falters when I ask a question and I am appreciative of the assistance. There seems to certainly be ALOT more information on anti-skating than I was expecting! I thought it just made sense for the needle to ride the grove and to follow where the groove takes it. I didn't realize so much more would be involved.

 

[loudnoises]

Thanks for everyone's explanation. This group never falters when I ask a question and I am appreciative of the assistance. There seems to certainly be ALOT more information on anti-skating than I was expecting! I thought it just made sense for the needle to ride the grove and to follow where the groove takes it. I didn't realize so much more would be involved.

Gotta love this place.

And nobody even mentioned the arms that have no antiskate capabilities and work just fine.

 

[Sgt Shultz]

Gotta love this place.

And nobody even mentioned the arms that have no antiskate capabilities and work just fine.

See post #10 where the AR XA was mentioned

 

[loudnoises]

See post #10 where the AR XA was mentioned

Ahhh dammit. I should have checked twice.

 

[cafe latte]

I have a set of orsonic side force checkers, and I can confirm that the modulation aspect is, by far, the aspect that has the biggest influence on the resulting skating force.
Different stylus profiles give a little bit of variation, but it's very little compared to variance in modulation of music on different records.
Signal strenght is the dominant factor, combined with tracking force.
In that regard those side force checkers have been an eye opener. Stylus profile makes less than 10% difference (where one stylus might require 2,0 AS setting, a different profile might require 1,9 AS setting (maybe 1,8 max)), whereas (example) a 70's pop record might require 25% less antiskating than an 80's DMM pop record (say 1,5 AS setting for the 70's pop record and 2,0AS setting for the 80's DMM pop record).
This also automatically means that setting your antiskate with a modulation track will always result in the wrong antiskating setting, in the sense that it's gonna be way to high. The better your cartridge tracks, the more you're off. Most cartridges will require a modulation of >70µm to give an audible distortion to set antiskating, and by then you're already 50% too high.
My experience (measurements) is that the grooveless section method will give a more accurate estimate of antiskating setting (less deviation to the correct setting) compared to the modulation track method, albeit too low.
My experience is, that the scale on the dial of a quality tonearm is usually the best setting. The dial on my Dual 721, an on my Pioneer PL-55x (both 70's turntables) were both pretty much spot on with the orsonic side force checkers for 80's DMM records (generally records with the highest level of modulation), and only marginally higher than what a modern pop record requires (post 2000 mix and pressing). However my CEC BD-7000 (magnetic antiskating, same as rega RB200), was way off.
And speed indeed does virtually nothing, I've checked that with my side force checkers. This is why tonearms have no separate 33/45 AS scales.
The only thing speed does, in terms of outer grooves and inner grooves, is that tracks on inner grooves are ususally cut with lower modulated signal and therefore an inner track might require less antiskating. But that's a different thing.

When talking in absolute numbers, an 80's DMM pop music record needs between 14,5% and 15,5% of the VTF as antiskating force (this is something you could measure with a wallyskater), 14,5% for lower VTF (like 1-1,25gr) and 15,5% for higher VTF (2,75gr) and about 15% for the 1,5-2,25gr range. I measured this on my dual 721 (9"tonearm) with the record seeds of love by tears for fears.
A modern pop record (for this I used RAM from Daft Punk, a fairly dynamic record) the required antiskating force was about 13-14,5% of the VTF. 13% for the lower VTF (<1,5gr) and 14,5% for 2,75gr VTF and above. For 1,5-2.25gr range it was roughly 13-13,5%.

This is different (higher) on what Wally engineering for their wallyskater advices, they advise 11% for a 9" tonearm. But maybe they base their findings on classical music and 60's-70s pop music. the 70's pop music I tested needed around 12% (Paul Simon -still crazy)

To give a comparison what a modulated test track does:
50µm already requires 18% antiskating of the VTF, and 70µm requires 20%, so using that method will result in an antiskating setting that is way off.

I hope this helps people to get an idea to what kind of values are needed.
So my advice is, if you have an expensive tonearm with antiskating setting but no values on the setting dial (like Clearaudio, Reed etc), don't set the antiskating with a modulated test track on a test record, but buy a wallyskater (or make one yourself, it's pretty easy (dutch link)) and use the above percentages, according to what you listen to mostly.

Different stylus profiles need much different antiskate as larger contact patch areas like micro ridge will need much different antiskate than a small area contact patch like an elliptical. Modulations equals more friction and larger stylus patch area will affect this.
I agree though using a test record don't use the most Modulated track, set for thr middle of the test. Blank disc test has nothing to do with real needed antiskate apart no Modulations the tip of thr stylus does not touch a record.
Chris

 

[mr_petit]

Different stylus profiles need much different antiskate as larger contact patch areas like micro ridge will need much different antiskate than a small area contact patch like an elliptical. Modulations equals more friction and larger stylus patch area will affect this.

Not according to my measurements. Yes there is a difference but it's not much, it's a slight difference. I guess a larger contact patch evens out that the larger patch will have less pressure per µm².
Like I said, the difference is less than 10%. Thorens and Dual have separate scales on the dial for elliptical and round, but most other manufactuers havent. As the differences between records or songs are already way bigger, they probably think why bother. And in the overall picture of it, I can't really fault them.
Dual even has a CD4 dial, so for carts that follow shibata or other line contact, but if I compare measurements with the line contact version of my side force checkers with the cd4 dial and elliptical dial (these 2 should be furtherst apart, elliptical having the smallest contact patch and line contact having the largest), the difference in needed setting is either the same or within 10%.
Like for example with the tears for fears album (obviously the same part of the same track compared), with a vtf of 1,75gr, measuring with the line contact version of the side force checker, on the elliptical dial/scale it needs 1,8 and on the cd4 dial it needs 1,7.
It is thàt close. Only on 2,5gr and above the differences get larger. But I have a feeling that the stylus/cantilever assembly on the side force checkers aren't really designed for those high VTF's just as they decrease performance lower than 1gr VTF.
So they perform in a certain bandwith, just like normal carts do, and that bandwith is chosen so that it's in accordance with most cartridges.

Blank disc test has nothing to do with real needed antiskate apart no Modulations the tip of thr stylus does not touch a record.

I know, yet the outcome is closer to the real needed AS value than with a modulated test track on a test record.
Therefore the blank disc test is superior. Still not great, but better than the modulated test track because they're way way off.
Save a proper skating force measuring device, the best way to set antiskating is either follow the manufacturers directions on a quality turntable/tonearm, or use a wallyskater and use the percentages displayed above for the music type/pressing era/cutting method.
When I set the proper antiskate with my orsonics for friends, I usually do that on their favorite record.

 

[onwardjames]

Tell me again why I futz with vinyl?



Spinning "Luxury Liner" by Emmylou Harris, an album I've coveted for years, and just found this afternoon.

It had suffered a flood, and the ENTIRE record was coated in mold and unmentionable filth. A soak, then scrub, then shop vac, then ultrasonic, and she's good as new.

Gotta love how durable vinyl is (in one sense).

 

[Mr Boochie]

Mine is often at the lowest offered by the table short of removing the weight, this might or might not be 1/2 VTF depending on the arm/cart, but usually close. The AR XA has none other than the twist on the arm leads so no way to know. No scale on some like the Well Tempered Lab so again no way to know.

If throughout the cartridges life it's cantilever remains straight most likely it's anti-skate was close enough. If having a stylus re-tipped I'm thinking they could see the wear pattern and confirm one way or the other.

Yes, you want the least amount of anti-skate force which does the job. I like using the Tacet test record to dial-in the anti-skate.


For my Technics, this is the anti-skate settings for 2-gram tracking force, to get passage through the Tacet skating track with no distortion. Using an AT-33Sa cartridge.

 

[ripblade]

Save a proper skating force measuring device, the best way to set antiskating is either follow the manufacturers directions on a quality turntable/tonearm, or use a wallyskater and use the percentages displayed above for the music type/pressing era/cutting method.
When I set the proper antiskate with my orsonics for friends, I usually do that on their favorite record.

A simpler alternative is to use a digital scale tipped over on its side and tared, then letting the headshell bump into the platform. Only downside is that the VTF has to be zeroed to float the arm but for most people this is a minor issue.

 

[mr_petit]

A simpler alternative is to use a digital scale tipped over on its side and tared, then letting the headshell bump into the platform. Only downside is that the VTF has to be zeroed to float the arm but for most people this is a minor issue.

Yes I do that too.
I've butchered a normal scale (with mg resolution) to have a separate sensor vertical. The mg gram scales (non stylus vtf scales) have a larger/longer sensor that is more precise.
(having a separate sensor on the platter and a separate display makes reading the value also a lot easier )

I first wanted to make a horizontal platter to have the stylus rest on that, and then dial in the antiskate to see the value increase, but that doesn't seem to work well for some reason. The arm has to be floating and has to come to moving stop (against a vertical side) each time to get a good value.
I clocked out the antiskating force profile for my dual 721 in that manner, which yielded quite a straight line (which is how I also could calculate the percentage of VTF needed for proper antiskating)

But it's still a finnecky method with digital scale sensor. Having the tonearm come to a rest against the sensor over and over again give variations in value, and having the tonearm resting against the sensor and change the antiskating give different values.
I haven't build a wallyskater yet, but I'm keen to see if that also is a bit irratic in small changes in antiskating.