compare antiskate mechanisms

cgutz

cgutz

AK Member
If this has been dealt with before on AK...I apologize. However, even using a google search I really couldn't find a discussion.

I've owned 3 different approaches to antiskate:
Dial with spring
Thread with weight
Trip lever with weight

There may be other methods.

Anyone interested in a discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of each?

It would seem to me, that depending on the exact setup, the trip lever/string and weight versions would achieve maximum anti skate when the weighted lever is exactly horizontal, the force vector would be straight down. If that occurs in the middle of the record, is that optimum?

The spring method might acheive maximum antiskate near the inside tracks - is that best? The spring method seems to me prone to be a bit more likely to stretch out of calibration, and perhaps transmit vibration?
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Lack of ice is the only surefire antiskate mechanism.

Other than that, I've only had springers to play with. Technics units have been set & ferget. My Audio-Technica unit, more problematic than some others of it's ilk. This could degenerate into something that depends on how well the systems were thought out and executed.

I will add that a system with near infinite adjustability between extremes has an advantage in my book.
 
Last edited:
The Garrard Zero 100 used opposing magnetic forces to set the anti-skating. Rather ingenious and no springs or grease to fail.
I worked on a Technics SL-3300 turntable a while ago which used a long, thin spring packed with grease to set the anti-skating. The grease had dried up which, of course, threw the anti-skating way off.
Rick
 
AR turntables and some others too can use twisting of the tonearm leads to produce a subtle antiskate force.
 
jegor said:
Мy choice:
тhread with weight
тrip lever with weight
Click to expand...
Both these methods will provide some lateral drag damping for the arm as will the cam and spring system in the Sony PUA-7. The magnetic system exhibits no lateral drag effect.
 
The Rega RB arms use a magnet... The only problem I have had (with the ones I have come across) is that there is no way to completely disable the antiskate).
I currently have a 'work in progress' R200 where the anti-skate belt has fallen apart...

Lets not forget the ingenious (and slightly oddball) Connoisseur arrangement:

Saubearing.jpg
 
I would think that an investigation into the exact application of the magnetic force over the length of the played record would be necessary to make a determination of the variation of this method.

Hanging weights can be a single mass attached at different points along the arm to vary the a/s force or the much more adjustable BBs in a bucket method.

I'm not going to do the math to figure out the trip lever. I'll just wait for others to comment.
 
I have a Clearudio Concept and I don't think it uses any of these methods though I'm not sure what it uses. I do know it's a PAIN to set though! Anybody know how the mechanism works?
 
alternative said:
The Rega RB arms use a magnet... The only problem I have had (with the ones I have come across) is that there is no way to completely disable the antiskate).
I currently have a 'work in progress' R200 where the anti-skate belt has fallen apart...

Lets not forget the ingenious (and slightly oddball) Connoisseur arrangement:

Saubearing.jpg
Click to expand...


HOW IN THEEE HEKKKK does that bearing arrangement work? the device on the arm looks to be a lateral balance weight, which can be set as a defacto bias weight.
 
I have read that AS shoukl be highest at the outer and inner grooves, less is needed in the middle. The outer groove has highest velocity and greatest skating force, the inner grooves most friction because of alignment and hence high skating force, or something like that.

If this is true, it doesn't seem any of the common methods would do this?
 
My vote to one of the most sophisticated antiskating implementations would go to Dual. Granted, the curve disc sometimes breaks on older units - but otherwise it's a pretty clever design, which also belongs to the variable (i.e. antiskating force non-constant over groove radius) variants. Dual even had their own measurement device for skating/antiskating, the "Skate-o-meter" and a corresponding test record type (with an unmodulated groove), which were also used for calibration purposes in production.

However, in my view skating force is enough of a moving target to justify even simpler implementations with constant antiskating force just as well, as long as these do the job reasonably well and can be adjusted to a sufficiently fine degree.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
marcmorin said:
HOW IN THEEE HEKKKK does that bearing arrangement work? the device on the arm looks to be a lateral balance weight, which can be set as a defacto bias weight.
Click to expand...

The gimbal bearings are offset at 45 degrees. What that means is that as the arm moves across the record the lever and weight rises.

The big problem with the bearings being offset by 45 degrees is that the azimuth changes as the arm moves...
 
Blue Shadow said:
I would think that an investigation into the exact application of the magnetic force over the length of the played record would be necessary to make a determination of the variation of this method.

Hanging weights can be a single mass attached at different points along the arm to vary the a/s force or the much more adjustable BBs in a bucket method.

I'm not going to do the math to figure out the trip lever. I'll just wait for others to comment.
Click to expand...

Some methods do approximate a compensation tho' it's useful to keep in mind that it can be, at best, only an approximation for the widely varying dynamics of skating force. A straight-line tracking arm arrangement as the ideal solution has been related previously.
 
The twisted tonearm wire method was invented by turntable designers who forgot to include real anti-skating in their design and then were called on it by enthusiasts.

:D

Doug
 
alternative said:
The gimbal bearings are offset at 45 degrees. What that means is that as the arm moves across the record the lever and weight rises.

The big problem with the bearings being offset by 45 degrees is that the azimuth changes as the arm moves...
Click to expand...


Yep, I bet it does. I'll take the ill effects of skating over constant changing azimuth. I'll just twist my wires some, add a heavier weight fluid in the arm well, and be done with it.
 
alternative said:
The gimbal bearings are offset at 45 degrees. What that means is that as the arm moves across the record the lever and weight rises.

The big problem with the bearings being offset by 45 degrees is that the azimuth changes as the arm moves...
Click to expand...
How would that be? The 45 degree offset produces the same 360 movement as a standard gimbal. The only difference is that instead of loading vertical/horizontal movement onto separate axes as is done with a standard gimbal, these have to move in unison, which would increase the overall friction, imo. The weight is attached to the inner gimbal only and because of the angle of the inner axis, this results in a force vector towards the outside of the record.

Intriguing to say the least, but I'm not sure what good it does. It seems to me that any change to the a/s weight would necessitate a change to the main c/w as well.

An a/s mech that does change azimuth is on the Transcriptors Vestigal arm, which sets the vertical axis off plumb, raising the rear of the pivoting headsell as it swings inward. Still wasn't a bad sounding arm, but with an effective mass not much greater than the cartridge itself, the cartridge needed to very high compliance.

Vestigal_complete.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom