Are you "Shure" they're being truthful? Pun intended lol.
manual vs digital gauge
- Thread starter Jos Collin
- Start date
david1111
Barba non facit philosophum
@Jos Collin
Actually Jos, it's painfully obvious just with a quick look, that the Shure SFG-2 isn't even close to being able to produce an accurate weight. The number scale is a 1 1/2 cent, little piece of silver-coated tape. And the cheap markings printed on it are nowhere near properly scaled, regarding the thickness and positioning of the printed lines. And imagine how much the positioning of the piece of tape itself varies from unit to unit.
The 'cheap' (well, let's say inexpensive) digital scales are accurate, every time, to a tenth of a gram, without any guesswork involved; as proven by myself, and 90% of the posters on this thread. And the height, or angle from the pivot, doesn't change the weight at all. It's ridiculous that the height of the scale, varying by a quarter inch would even be mentioned. Sheesh ... that's what I mean by over-preciseness.
Do yourself a favor, and try not to let yourself be misdirected by the enthusiast, tinkerer types, unless, of course, you also enjoy tinkering with turntables etc.. This friendly advice covers pretty much any hobby.
And hopefully I haven't offended anyone that likes to fuss around with their gear, just cuz I don't like to. It is a hobby, after all.
But facts and opinions aside, have fun with whatever you use.
Cheers.
Dave
Actually Jos, it's painfully obvious just with a quick look, that the Shure SFG-2 isn't even close to being able to produce an accurate weight. The number scale is a 1 1/2 cent, little piece of silver-coated tape. And the cheap markings printed on it are nowhere near properly scaled, regarding the thickness and positioning of the printed lines. And imagine how much the positioning of the piece of tape itself varies from unit to unit.
The 'cheap' (well, let's say inexpensive) digital scales are accurate, every time, to a tenth of a gram, without any guesswork involved; as proven by myself, and 90% of the posters on this thread. And the height, or angle from the pivot, doesn't change the weight at all. It's ridiculous that the height of the scale, varying by a quarter inch would even be mentioned. Sheesh ... that's what I mean by over-preciseness.
Do yourself a favor, and try not to let yourself be misdirected by the enthusiast, tinkerer types, unless, of course, you also enjoy tinkering with turntables etc.. This friendly advice covers pretty much any hobby.
And hopefully I haven't offended anyone that likes to fuss around with their gear, just cuz I don't like to. It is a hobby, after all.
But facts and opinions aside, have fun with whatever you use.
Cheers.
Dave
Last edited:
polypetalous
Super Member
Totally agree here...
I was one that mentioned "height of scale" as a concern, but truly wasn't of "terrible concern" since I used the "higher than play surface" scale for quite a while.
I just figured with the plethora of "low cost" digital scales out there, easy enough to find one close to "play surface" height, plus then I didn't have to put any "geometric thought" into whether or not it even made a difference.
Certainly no offense here as I am one to never want to get into the minutiae of it all, as I have limited time allotted for my stereo and last thing I want to do is spend it futzing with stuff.
Will say that I am the king of forgetting to "zero the anti-skate" when balancing a tonearm and setting tracking force.
Ben
Jos Collin
Member
Got the delivery yesterday. It looks good, very simple mechanism. I have checked with a magnet, it is pure stainless steel. I will measure the tracking force on my TT today.
Regarding the digital weighing machines, I had tried measuring my own weight many times in my office. May be it improves the measurement with another gauge, but this one always shows random numbers. I could weigh myself 10 times and produce 10 different numbers. I think most of the digital weighing machines work that way. We need to "believe" what it shows is correct. There is no way to explain why it shows that particular number and it is correct.
Rather a manual gauge works based on our expectations. We need to set the expected weight first and it shows the result based on the counter weight we set on the gauge.
AudioFeline
Super Member
I think a digital scale made to measure your body weight is very different to a "jewelers" scale that we use for measuring tracking weight. The human scale is probably cheaply made with not a fine tolerance. The digital scales I've tested for turntable use have all been accurate and reliable with calibration weights on repeated testing.
Exactly
The OP is attempting to justify his purchase of the less accurate, more expensive analog scale over the easier to use, more accurate, less expensive digital scale.
Scales to measure body weight sold for home use whether digital or analog are ridiculously inaccurate, the digital scales just show the lack of tolerance more clearly, or accurately eh lol?
Last edited:
Jos Collin
Member
No Sir. That's not true. I'm not trying to justify my purshase at all. Your reasoning that a Digital gauge shows accurate values doesn't sound logical to me. Mostly it shows a magic value to me. It may or may not be correct.
Wow, now you are definitely attempting to convince even yourself lol. The digital scale comes with a weight to test for accuracy as has been stated several times by several members in this thread. No mystery about the accuracy of its readings eh?
The Shure scale comes with no such device to check it's accuracy eh? Now the accuracy of which scales readings are in question eh?
Done here as you seem to enjoy having your head in the sand.
david1111
Barba non facit philosophum
I can't imagine why the OP asked anyone's opinion here in the first place. Its so obvious that he/she had his/her mind made up before the first post, after ignoring 95% of the advice here for a lousy $10 item. What a complete frickin' waste of time.
I'm outta here!
I'll remember this name ...
I'm outta here!
I'll remember this name ...
cafe latte
Addicted Member
This post is verging on an attack.. Hmm..
Anyway the weight on cheap digital scales is needed to get the scale something like close as they drift so wildly. 1k is the cheapest digital scale that is even close to accurate.
're the test weight, few on the 10 dollar scales are even close to the weight they are supposed to be anyway. Certified test weights are very expensive. I just rested my Shure against my very expensive A&D scales and the Shure are spot on.
Chris
cafe latte
Addicted Member
10 dollar digital are not accurate at all.
Chris
AudioFeline
Super Member
Whatever out opinions, the OP is entitled to buy and use what he prefers.
And irrespective of whether we use an analogue or a digital scale, ultimately any reading the scale gives for tracking weight should be fine-tuned with our ears. It's not about the number, it's about the sound.
And irrespective of whether we use an analogue or a digital scale, ultimately any reading the scale gives for tracking weight should be fine-tuned with our ears. It's not about the number, it's about the sound.
sqlsavior
Lunatic Member
"At all" is relative, I suppose. Compared to a $1000 scale, probably true. Compared to the SFG-2, or many counterweights, laughable.
cafe latte
Addicted Member
I honestly would not weigh brass cases to get them similar with a 10 dollar digital scale they drift like crazy they can easily by 0.5g out measurement to measurement. Any beam scale will beat that accuracy 10 fold."At all" is relative, I suppose. Compared to a $1000 scale, probably true. Compared to the SFG-2, or many counterweights, laughable.
Chris
sqlsavior
Lunatic Member
Here are 3 sets of ten readings with mine, with the tare weight, a 5/16" nut, and a foam earplug:
tare weight:
4.994
4.995
4.993
4.993
4.994
4.993
4.995
4.996
4.993
4.995
max - min = 0.003
5/16” nut:
3.291
3.291
3.288
3.288
3.291
3.290
3.289
3.292
3.290
3.289
max - min = 0.004
foam earplug:
0.485
0.483
0.488
0.485
0.482
0.484
0.484
0.486
0.483
0.485
max - min = 0.006
I suppose someone who is both accurate and precise in remembering those definitions, and in remembering their statistics, may come along and quantify both, assuming the tare weight really is 5.000g.
Until then, it looks like my scale is about 100 times as precise as yours.
Either you bought a very, very, very crappy digital scale, or you are spreading FUD on the internet. Which is it?
Here are 3 sets of ten readings with mine, with the tare weight, a 5/16" nut, and a foam earplug:
tare weight:
4.994
4.995
4.993
4.993
4.994
4.993
4.995
4.996
4.993
4.995
max - min = 0.003
5/16” nut:
3.291
3.291
3.288
3.288
3.291
3.290
3.289
3.292
3.290
3.289
max - min = 0.004
foam earplug:
0.485
0.483
0.488
0.485
0.482
0.484
0.484
0.486
0.483
0.485
max - min = 0.006
I suppose someone who is both accurate and precise in remembering those definitions, and in remembering their statistics, may come along and quantify both, assuming the tare weight really is 5.000g.
Until then, it looks like my scale is about 100 times as precise as yours.
Either you bought a very, very, very crappy digital scale, or you are spreading FUD on the internet. Which is it?
I believe it's the latter eh?
sqlsavior
Lunatic Member
Either that, or $4 more buys a LOT of improvement...
I use the tracking force adjustment on my turntables and then check for accuracy with a digital scale. I've found that the tracking force on my tables are usually pretty close. I've never found them to be off by more than a tenth or two of a gram. All of my carts are set to 1.2 to 1.6 grams depending on the cart.