![]() Otherwise, until/unless some worthy manufacturer decides to build a dedicated box for sale you could solve the problem by throwing money at it, I guess. You don't need a lot of money if you possess decent electronic skills. You really need a transformer or a dedicated pair of amplifiers to feed any scope from a low output MC cart. This is a very difficult task to perform with equipment unless you have access to a Fluke 5520 calibrator and an Agilent 3458 DMM to normalise the channel balance. I have a Tektronix TDS2024 and I could not measure my cartridge output 500uV. The problem here is you will measuring a voltage which could be close to the noise floor of the scope. You would be better with a very good DMM, but even this would require something like an Agilent a fluke would not be good enough. It has got to be set by instrumentation, such as an oscilloscope and test record.Ĭlick to expand.This will not work unless you a very sensitive LeCroy or Tektronix (very expensive) and would only be ok if you had a high output cartridge. Setting merely by "preferred sound" is not going to accomplish much. This affects the phase relationship between the two channels, and the channel separation, which are both very difficult to optimize just by listening. But, this is even worse than setting SRA by eye, because the real story of azimuth is the alignment of the coils and magnets compared to the record grooves. I also understand the concept of setting azimuth by looking at the stylus's (or cantilever's) angle with respect to a record. I have been told that most manufacturer's provide nothing like correct SRA or VTA in the cartridge's "design" position, so it is up to us to choose what actually sounds best in the real world. In other words, VTA makes an obvious sonic difference, so why not just set it to personal taste? Start with the cartridge body parallel to the record surface, trust the cartridge manufacturer that they have provided about the design SRA and VTA in this position, then adjust from there by sound. Rather than being so technical about SRA/VTA, the audiophile community has unanimously agreed that a "preferred sound" in combination with a complete audio system is really the most important aspect of setting VTA. Conceivably, the technical performance could be measured and optimized with a test record and oscilloscope. Since catridges are hand-made, all of these relationships vary from sample to sample, making it impossible to align everything perfectly by setting only one angle with a microscope. VTA is not merely a "correct" angle of the cantilever with respect to the record, but more importantly is the alignment of the cartridge's relationship between coils and magnets, and how their motion relates to the record grooves. I understand the concept of setting SRA by visual alignment with a record groove, but most of us follow the concept that VTA is more important than SRA. Yes, you could visually set these and think that you have accomplished something, but what you will have accomplished is only a small part of the significance of these angles. I don't think a digital microscope is going to accomplish much, for VTA or azimuth. Why could I not just record the output from the test record for both VTA and Azimuth tests and compare the outputs? I’m sure I can find a YouTube video that shows me how to do it. The one I saw was a B&K 15 MHz 2 Channel Oscilloscope Model 1420S and had BNC connectors. ![]() The 2 microscopes the one mentioned in the article for $249 Īs for the Oscilloscope I could get on ebay for less the $100 I saw one go today for $37 but I really don’t know what specifically I would need or how or how I would use it. So to me this looks like a smart way to sight it to determine the VTA and Azimuth. Avanti1960 posted this in another thread. Either a test record and an oscilloscope or digital microscope or both. I have been trying to decide what the most sensible way to go is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |