Well Tempered Classic - Alignment Protractor
- Thread starter glangley
- Start date
neobop
Well-Known Member
I don't dispute what you said about distortion on the inner part, it's the beginning that's ridiculous. What good does it do to have reduced alignment error on the second 1/2, when the beginning is worse? If Firebaugh's theory about outer groove distortion is true, they why do many people dislike Stevenson because of outer groove performance?
Glangley,
I believe the newer WT arms are considerably longer than the Classic, which is less than 9", if I remember correctly. That length makes alignment error effectively worse. I guess you don't have a lot of options anyway, with no slots in the headshell. Sorry I said anything.
melofelo
Addicted Member
the radius of the groove decreases as it nears the centre..and the groove spacing becomes denser leading to a restriction in the width of the modulated grooves and some pinching effect... hence this is where distortion from misalignment and channel imbalance is most audible..so generally when aligning to a two null point system...you want that stylus aligned correctly at both null points.. but in practice, limited movement in the headshell or using a geometry that the tonearm mounting distance doesn't allow for,with the given movement available in the headshell... the best compromise is to align to the inner null point as accurately as possible because mistracking near the outer grooves is less audible than the inner groove if the cartridge alignment is slightly out..
Last edited:
Okay, then we are on the same page. Since I have neither read the details of the "theory" nor tried this alignment, I do not have an opinion on how well it does or doesn't work. It just sounds plausible to me because I like Stevenson just fine, but often still don't like the inner groove tracking, especially with budget carts.
hakaplan
Needs professional help
I think folks are missing the point. Firebaugh specifically states on his website under Resources->Technical Measurements that he discovered that tracking angle errors produce 2nd harmonics which are interpreted by the ear as sweet sounding. His whole intention is to introduce tracking error. I don't know if he's actually stumbled on to something that no audio engineer had ever realized, or it's just a cop out, but in essence he's saying that tracking error produces better sound and that his customers confirm this. The protractor varies the offset angle and therefore the effective arm length slightly and keeps them in the same relationship more or less. With a hole in the headshell rather than slots there is no way to use a conventional protractor.
I'm wondering if/how it physically affects the vinyl groove with styli other than conicals.
I'm wondering if/how it physically affects the vinyl groove with styli other than conicals.
Last edited:
That's not how I read it, and that doesn't really make sense with his alignment because he only induces tracking error on the outer portion of the LP... he just says that "many people" like a little tracking error, that under 5% tracking error is negligible. His intention seems to be making setup easier. "I used these cartridges to determine a statistically valid fixed tonearm geometry so the user is relieved of a complex set-up."
hakaplan
Needs professional help
How do you know that, without knowing the effective arm length (or at least a starting value) and mounting distance? And I can't seem to find those values. And just because he uses a protractor for the inner point, how do you know he's not purposely adding tracking error--just using the protractor to keep it at a relatively constant 15%? I think if you could find the specs you'd discover that that was the case.
What does this sentence mean to you: "I introduced a tracking angle error of 15% and was surprised to find that the musical result was better!!"
Whether or not you buy his reasoning, his entire goal is to create distortion because he claims it makes it sound better. He specifically says that.
Last edited:
In response to hakaplan's good questions:
I was using the only references I found for effective length of the Classic V, which were not official at all. Two people said 9.5" and one said 239mm (close to the same). I used the overhang of 0.5" from the user manual, and the null points posted above. IF all of this is correct, then you know how much tracking error he is or isn't putting in.
However, if the 9.5" is wrong, and the effective length is actually 10.5" like the Amadeus, then you just get a slightly higher distortion version of Stevenson using these numbers... which is now sounding very possible to me.
I was using the only references I found for effective length of the Classic V, which were not official at all. Two people said 9.5" and one said 239mm (close to the same). I used the overhang of 0.5" from the user manual, and the null points posted above. IF all of this is correct, then you know how much tracking error he is or isn't putting in.
However, if the 9.5" is wrong, and the effective length is actually 10.5" like the Amadeus, then you just get a slightly higher distortion version of Stevenson using these numbers... which is now sounding very possible to me.
Well then I may not have to retract a whole bunch of my previous posts
.
melofelo
Addicted Member
to me it means its unlikely he will ever be satisfied with a linear tracking turntable...
..just to lighten the discussion a tad... then again...an 'exact' tracking angle error of 15 % was only attained for a fraction of a second across the whole record... so i guess he'll never be happy with a radial arm either...
dnewma04
The Healer
And since distortion has no correlation to perceived sound quality, maybe his method does, in fact, sound best.
melofelo
Addicted Member
the op could simply plug his current tonearm's mounting distance into the calculator over at vinyl engine...and it will give the correct effective length for 3 sets of null points... he can then chose which ever pairs of null points works with the available movement of his cartridge in his tonearm's headshell and see which null points work in his arm ...
neobop
Well-Known Member
This seems so bizarre it's hard to believe. We like our colorations but 15% tracking angle error? How would you calculate that as a percentage- would 90 degrees off = 100% ? If so, then 15% = 13.5 degrees. Now it's even more bizarre. I guess it depends on the stylus profile, but with that kind of tracking angle error info would be missing and there would be a phase difference between channels.
If 58.8 and 117.4 are the nulls, there just isn't that kind of error. Maybe Firebaugh said that to justify his methods. I remember reading something about the amount of information per unit of groove on the outside vs the inner parts. BTW, my comments were based on the original arm. I have no idea what's going on now. It looks like there are 3 different arms.
hakaplan
Needs professional help
I have no idea what he means. Seems hard to believe that someone would go to the effort to produce what appears to be a technologically complex arm and then use geometry that purposely introduces error or distortion. And if the turntable or arm is so good, then why cripple those who would gladly tweak it to death to try to achieve the ultimate in sound quality? Something is fishy.
Could all this just be a marketing ploy? You sell to people who can easily be convinced that spending more money + seemingly high technical complexity = good sound. So they'll accept anything you say as truth. You simplify the mounting because these consumers tend to be too busy to want to bother messing with alignment. So you end up with happy customers. I get the feeling that might be some of what's behind it.