[analogsurviver]

 
Amen to that!  I've been through the available resources on cartridge setup.  Mint protractor, Hi Fi news LP, Analogue LP, several others of less worthiness, USB microscope, setup procedures from Michael Fremer, etc.  As an engineer, I find all of these to be less than conclusive.   The LP's, depending on who reviews them, are not considered to be the final verdict of zenith and azimuth. 
 
I'm trying to setup a Miyajima Kansui on a Moerch DP-8 arm.  I find the zenith setting to be really difficult as the protractors depend on visual alignment.  As the cartridge has no straight lines and the stylus is wider than the allowances of the Mint, setting the zenith perfectly is a best guess.  As for azimuth, finding the starting point is a bit of frustration.  Once the start point is determined, the HiFi New lp works well, though it would be really nice to have a solid, reliable method to dial it in without trial and error.  The Moerch requires removing the arm to make adjustments, so the fewer the better.

 
Any suggestions are welcome.

Test records and an oscilloscope. Anything else is guesswork.

 

[msiklvr]

Yes, you are right of course!  It would be oh so nice to find a means by which the rough setting could be dialed in visually with some degree of accuracy before finalizing with the scope and test record.

 

[analogsurviver]

  Yes, you are right of course!  It would be oh so nice to find a means by which the rough setting could be dialed in visually with some degree of accuracy before finalizing with the scope and test record.

No go.
 
Except in case of a perfect cartridge. What on earth is for example the very well thought out alignment gauge provided with the Shure V15V - ( or V-15VMR  - not with B suffix, basic packaging WITHOUT the  alignment gauge )
good for - at least for azimuth - if the cartridge(s) were almost all - off ?
 
For azimuth, you can use Fozgometer or Adjust + software from Dr. Feickert - but an oscilloscope will yield the same thing given the knowledge how to use it - AND will make certain your rig is actually working at its best - corrected for all anomalies that should never have been there in the first place - but usually are.
 
I am really interested how precisely is the Mijajima cartridge cartridge put together in practice. Never saw one in person, but its suspension should give it an edge in performance/sound

 

[msiklvr]

The challenge is certainly the anomalies in cartridge manufacture, combined with anomalies in test LP design.  I've read good and bad about Dr. Feickert Adjust+.  It's an expensive package so it is low on the list of options.
 
I have been using the HiFi News test lp, the Ultimate Analog Test LP and a software scope on the PC, as well as the Mint LP gauge.  Setting azimuth is relatively straight forward, but zenith is more of a challenge.  It is really difficult to clearly see the stylus with the Mint, so I use another mirror style gauge to get it close and then finalize with the Mint.  It's pretty close if not spot on, but I just don't feel completely satisfied I've got it 100%
 
The only cartridge I have to compare to the Miyajima is a Madrigal Carnegie One.  The midrange and lows are vastly superior on the Miyajima.  Symphonic music really comes alive.  It is still in the break in stage.  Can't add to the question of how the cartridge is put together.  I can say that whatever the've done works!

 

[analogsurviver]

  The challenge is certainly the anomalies in cartridge manufacture, combined with anomalies in test LP design.  I've read good and bad about Dr. Feickert Adjust+.  It's an expensive package so it is low on the list of options.
 
I have been using the HiFi News test lp, the Ultimate Analog Test LP and a software scope on the PC, as well as the Mint LP gauge.  Setting azimuth is relatively straight forward, but zenith is more of a challenge.  It is really difficult to clearly see the stylus with the Mint, so I use another mirror style gauge to get it close and then finalize with the Mint.  It's pretty close if not spot on, but I just don't feel completely satisfied I've got it 100%
 
The only cartridge I have to compare to the Miyajima is a Madrigal Carnegie One.  The midrange and lows are vastly superior on the Miyajima.  Symphonic music really comes alive.  It is still in the break in stage.  Can't add to the question of how the cartridge is put together.  I can say that whatever the've done works!

That sounds pretty good to me. You are likely within the tolerances of test records ( I have long ago stopped using them for nominally recorded signals, now I observe how accurately cartridges play their defects ...) - so it , for all practical purposes, does not get any better.
 
Nice to hear that Miyajima works so well ! It should on paper, but getting a first hand confirmation is always nice.
 
Enjoy spinnin'

.

 

[]eep]

Yes, you are right of course!  It would be oh so nice to find a means by which the rough setting could be dialed in visually with some degree of accuracy before finalizing with the scope and test record.

That is why I said attach a rod. You are right that there is play to either side but the truth is exactly in the middle. What I learned from lab-school and landsurvey (and construction and woodworking) that when you measure there are no algebraic numbers but measurements are always stochastic. Meaning; there always is a range. Between measurements, no 2 are the same. For instance if you want to check if a plane is level you measure it with a waterlevel, then turn it around and check again. The bubble is almost always a little off. But when you turn it 180 deg the error goes the other way. Same if you want to saw off a plank straight you use a square. If you want to check the square, you turn it around. Even if your plank has a slight curve you can still saw it off tangentially (= straight at the point where you saw).

So the jist: attach the rod as I suggested, move it all the way to one side (mark it if that helps), move it all the way to the other side (mark) and then move it halfway back. This way you will have a fairly good approximation of 'straight'. Well within 1 deg. This will place the cartridge body in a fairly straight position. If the cantilever is straight, or more important, the needletip, is a matter of manufacturing accuracy. My suspicious mind tells me if they manufacture a round body on purpose they won't bother aligning it. They are simply saying:"we make round body, you expert, you use oscilloscope".

 

[msiklvr]

Jeep, I can see how the rod would work for setting azimuth, to set the cartridge body parallel with the platter.  This approach is visually less demanding than trying to view parallax with a rounded surface!  From there the azimuth can be adjusted to compensate for irregularities in the cantilever geometry via test lp and O scope.  I don't know how to make the rod work for setting zenith.
 
The last time I tried setting zenith with the scope, it seemed really difficult to null the traces.  I went back and revisited the problem and found it is the source.  The Ultimate Analog LP, is not the ultimate.  While it does have a steady 1k hz tone, the spindle hole is not centered on the record, so the phase of the channels relative to one another vary each revolution!!  Anyone know of a technique to eliminate this issue, other than breaking the LP?   Is there an alternative LP with a pure test tone in mono? 
 
So, it is back to the Mint tractor and eye strain.

 

[analogsurviver]

That is why I said attach a rod. You are right that there is play to either side but the truth is exactly in the middle. What I learned from lab-school and landsurvey (and construction and woodworking) that when you measure there are no algebraic numbers but measurements are always stochastic. Meaning; there always is a range. Between measurements, no 2 are the same. For instance if you want to check if a plane is level you measure it with a waterlevel, then turn it around and check again. The bubble is almost always a little off. But when you turn it 180 deg the error goes the other way. Same if you want to saw off a plank straight you use a square. If you want to check the square, you turn it around. Even if your plank has a slight curve you can still saw it off tangentially (= straight at the point where you saw).

So the jist: attach the rod as I suggested, move it all the way to one side (mark it if that helps), move it all the way to the other side (mark) and then move it halfway back. This way you will have a fairly good approximation of 'straight'. Well within 1 deg. This will place the cartridge body in a fairly straight position. If the cantilever is straight, or more important, the needletip, is a matter of manufacturing accuracy. My suspicious mind tells me if they manufacture a round body on purpose they won't bother aligning it. They are simply saying:"we make round body, you expert, you use oscilloscope".

NOT so easy with the assumptions why the body shape of better present day carts no longer are square and right angles - it is because of breaking up any mechanical resonances - either by shape, material - or combination of the two. Here one such curvy lady : 
 

 
and the "corpus delicti" :

 
and something more affordable:
 

 

[analogsurviver]

  Jeep, I can see how the rod would work for setting azimuth, to set the cartridge body parallel with the platter.  This approach is visually less demanding than trying to view parallax with a rounded surface!  From there the azimuth can be adjusted to compensate for irregularities in the cantilever geometry via test lp and O scope.  I don't know how to make the rod work for setting zenith.
 
The last time I tried setting zenith with the scope, it seemed really difficult to null the traces.  I went back and revisited the problem and found it is the source.  The Ultimate Analog LP, is not the ultimate.  While it does have a steady 1k hz tone, the spindle hole is not centered on the record, so the phase of the channels relative to one another vary each revolution!!  Anyone know of a technique to eliminate this issue, other than breaking the LP?   Is there an alternative LP with a pure test tone in mono? 
 
So, it is back to the Mint tractor and eye strain.

It is travelling back in time when records were made better. Ebay is the best approximation ...

 

[]eep]

Jeep, I can see how the rod would work for setting azimuth, to set the cartridge body parallel with the platter.  This approach is visually less demanding than trying to view parallax with a rounded surface!  From there the azimuth can be adjusted to compensate for irregularities in the cantilever geometry via test lp and O scope.  I don't know how to make the rod work for setting zenith.

The last time I tried setting zenith with the scope, it seemed really difficult to null the traces.  I went back and revisited the problem and found it is the source.  The Ultimate Analog LP, is not the ultimate.  While it does have a steady 1k hz tone, the spindle hole is not centered on the record, so the phase of the channels relative to one another vary each revolution!!  Anyone know of a technique to eliminate this issue, other than breaking the LP?   Is there an alternative LP with a pure test tone in mono? 

So, it is back to the Mint tractor and eye strain.

For zenith you would need another axis. You could use a rod that lies on top of the cartridge or under the headshell. Combined with the other rod it would form a T-shape (arm ^), or _|_ where the arm is in the downward direction. That way you set up 3 points, exactly what you need to define a plane and its normal (is that the mathematical term in English in plane-geometry?). The perpendicular line through the needletip.

The issue with the test record is another example of tolerances in the real world. There could be a way to change the position of the hole somewhat. Look at the frequency on the scope and mark where the frequency is highest and where it is lowest. This should be where the radius is largest and smallest. If you have a small pointed hobby-knife you can cut away a small half-moon shaped chip from inside the hole (or a small round iron-file) so the hole will be just a tiny bit bigger and just a mite elongated. Now you can scoot up the test-lp just a little bit in the right direction. Measure again and see what the difference is. If needed make an arrow on the label to remember which side you must push it against the spindle. This is an easy way to fix an lp with an eccentric hole.

Again: the more you strive for perfection, the more you notice that nothing is ever perfect. There are always tolerances. The trick is to be aware of this and use a method that will not accumulate errors but rather make them linear (distract from each other). Another example from landsurveying: if you measure a large field to set distance poles (or lampposts on a street) with a measuring tape the tape stretches under strain (linear). You need a set force to stretch it to the calibrated length. Every time you make a mark you will have a difference (measuring fault). Now if you would measure 10 poles (or lampposts) from 1 to the other (not rolling out the whole tape but the lazy way) you would add up 10 errors at the end. Every consecutive post would inherit the errors from the previous ones. But if you would roll out the whole tape and make a mark for every position every post and the total would only have 1 measuring fault's worth. Measuring is a science in itself.

NOT so easy with the assumptions why the body shape of better present day carts no longer are square and right angles - it is because of breaking up any mechanical resonances - either by shape, material - or combination of the two.

Yes, I was aware of that. But I didn't mention it to keep on the heart of the matter. But what is more important; I don't believe it to be true engineering science but marketing science copied from speaker design. If you manufacture a cartridge with a thin stamped body from plastic or aluminium it might just fly. But if you ground the body from a block rounding the edges will not reduce resonance (if any). It will merely increase resonance due to lesser stability. You do not gain stability by grinding off corners, only by leaving the inside-corners stand and so increasing wall-thickness. In vibration-reduction only 2 things help; increase structural mass or increasing damping. Ie.: keep it from happening and kill it quick.
And to make this even less important; the force acting on the body relative to it's strength and mass are minute and almost irrelevant compared to what happens in the motor; the cantilever and suspension. The yoke needs to be strong, but the rest of the body is basically to keep the dust out. So what Lyra does is way smarter and sensible than 'cutting corners' by rounding off edges.

What we have seen in the last decades in woodworking etc is that speaker cabinets can be more rounded off due to advances in technology. No longer big square boxes. This is actually better from and engineering standpoint because it improves dispersion and reduces baffle reflection (wavy freq resp). But speakers are big with a large radiating surface and the walls are relatively thin. What the public, high-end enthousiasts with little sense of physics, have come to expect is that big speakers with big massive hardwood panels and rounded off bevels are good. And it is. For speakers. But that does not translate to cartridges 1 on 1 (or at all really). I know only one exception to this story and that is the Decca cart in the tin can that can make music on its own. But that is a different beast entirely.

Don't get me wrong; I really like round edges and curves. They look and feel nice. But wood is not amorph, it has grain, making weak in certain directions. That is why round, turned wood is always delicate. Rounding off all edges isn't helpful to the guy setting up the TT nor does it do anything useful. Except maybe taking away the false idea that you don't need an oscilloscope with a Shibata/vd Hul etc. needle.

 

[analogsurviver]

For zenith you would need another axis. You could use a rod that lies on top of the cartridge or under the headshell. Combined with the other rod it would form a T-shape (arm ^), or _|_ where the arm is in the downward direction. That way you set up 3 points, exactly what you need to define a plane and its normal (is that the mathematical term in English in plane-geometry?). The perpendicular line through the needletip.

The issue with the test record is another example of tolerances in the real world. There could be a way to change the position of the hole somewhat. Look at the frequency on the scope and mark where the frequency is highest and where it is lowest. This should be where the radius is largest and smallest. If you have a small pointed hobby-knife you can cut away a small half-moon shaped chip from inside the hole (or a small round iron-file) so the hole will be just a tiny bit bigger and just a mite elongated. Now you can scoot up the test-lp just a little bit in the right direction. Measure again and see what the difference is. If needed make an arrow on the label to remember which side you must push it against the spindle. This is an easy way to fix an lp with an eccentric hole.

Again: the more you strive for perfection, the more you notice that nothing is ever perfect. There are always tolerances. The trick is to be aware of this and use a method that will not accumulate errors but rather make them linear (distract from each other). Another example from landsurveying: if you measure a large field to set distance poles (or lampposts on a street) with a measuring tape the tape stretches under strain (linear). You need a set force to stretch it to the calibrated length. Every time you make a mark you will have a difference (measuring fault). Now if you would measure 10 poles (or lampposts) from 1 to the other (not rolling out the whole tape but the lazy way) you would add up 10 errors at the end. Every consecutive post would inherit the errors from the previous ones. But if you would roll out the whole tape and make a mark for every position every post and the total would only have 1 measuring fault's worth. Measuring is a science in itself.
Yes, I was aware of that. But I didn't mention it to keep on the heart of the matter. But what is more important; I don't believe it to be true engineering science but marketing science copied from speaker design. If you manufacture a cartridge with a thin stamped body from plastic or aluminium it might just fly. But if you ground the body from a block rounding the edges will not reduce resonance (if any). It will merely increase resonance due to lesser stability. You do not gain stability by grinding off corners, only by leaving the inside-corners stand and so increasing wall-thickness. In vibration-reduction only 2 things help; increase structural mass or increasing damping. Ie.: keep it from happening and kill it quick.
And to make this even less important; the force acting on the body relative to it's strength and mass are minute and almost irrelevant compared to what happens in the motor; the cantilever and suspension. The yoke needs to be strong, but the rest of the body is basically to keep the dust out. So what Lyra does is way smarter and sensible than 'cutting corners' by rounding off edges.

Don't get me wrong; I really like round edges and curves. They look and feel nice. But wood is not amorph, it has grain, making weak in certain directions. That is why round, turned wood is always delicate.

I agree with all of the above.
 
Now, the biggest joke in cartridge design history regarding body resonances : 
 
 

 
 
remedied by this : 
 

 

[]eep]

Eh, yes. My one exception. I was still writing/editing... I know all about the trouble with that beast. Or setting it up on a unipivot arm.

 

[yeahx]

Oh good some pictures. All those words look scary so I just skipped them.

 

[bbophead]

  Oh good some pictures. All those words look scary so I just skipped them.

Like.

 

[Maverickmonk]

I think I spent too much money on my Rega 2. Lots of new parts today, time to finally get it set up. Grado Prestige Black, VTA adjustment mount, SS stub and weight off the RB300 tonearm. Honestly I might as well upgrade the subplatter and platter next. After that there really won't be much left of this that is still an R2 other than the motor and the RB200 arm.