Tracking error distortion audibility


I recently unpacked my turntable from a couple of years of storage. It still sounds very good. Several times during playback of the first few albums I literally jumped from my chair to see which track was playing as it sounded so great. After a while I realized the "great" sound was always at one of the "null" points. They seem to occur at the approximately the proper place (about 125mm from spindle) and near the lead out groove. Questions:
Is this common? I have improved the resolution of my system since the table's been in storage but I don't remember hearing this before.
All others geometric sources of alignment error not defined by the null points (VTA, azimuth etc.) are essentially constant through out the arc correct? If so they should cancel out. I assume the remedy is a linear tracking arm but I am surprised at how obviously better the sound is at these two points.
Table - AR ES-1, Arm - Sumiko MMT, Cart. - Benz Glider, Pre - Audible Illusions, Speakers - Innersound electrostatic hybrid
Do linear arms really sound as good across the whole record as I hear at only the nulls with my set-up?
feathed
Phew,
thanks for all the various inputs. Never expected THAT much feedback..
To clear up some items and also add some more thoughts.
1) I use a 30dB SUT (XF-1 type M, 1:31.6 xfactor) which is pretty much on the high side for a 0.3 mV cart as is the PW.

2) So far PRIMARY loading gave the best result, it is VERY much different to SECONDARY loading, which I have also tried.
I don't want to go into the detail now, but believe it or not 13 ohms! seems just about a perfect impedance match.

3) With no SUT the loading is anywhere from 500ohm to 47kohm and VERY phono-pre dependent

4) Back to inner groove distortion:

a) The PW allows azimuth alignment 1-3 degree, due to 3 point support. This I long checked with a mirror (as mentioned) it looks fine.

b) the SME's (all of them) come with a SME type overhang adjustment tool --- it appears VERY sensitive and (at least to SME) as accurate, or more, then most any other method.

c) the head-shell is fixed and has a 22 deg. off-set angle (no slotted screw holes) so all seems fine, or?

d) I wish I could have had some better experience with Ortofon. The PW came about due to a Jubilee exchange, a side-wall of the Jubilee splitting open AND a badly misaligned cantilever. The PW seems to be OK regards the housing (new design) BUT has an issue by VERY 'low riding' AND the new 3 point housing needing exceptionaly much higher arm adjustment (the two rear point are to high for the one in front). This makes for a VERY limited VTA adjustment range, with the rear body (tail-end) easily touching the vinyl, when it has a lip (start grooves) or with slightly warped vinyl.

e) Now, using a different cart, Lyra Dorian on 9c Project arm with RPM9 AND LP12 alignment, Baerwald paper alignment tools, etc. ALSO gave me inner groove distortion! --- also with a different phono-pre (PS Audio GCPH).

f) this may help to explain my mentioning Herr Albert Einstein's bit on doing the same thing over and over -- expecting different results :-)

g) As the cart goes it appears to be just riding too low -- when my 3 times repared Jubilee came back from Ortofon, it also sported a higher ride-hight than originaly supplied. Maybe my PW could do with some of that too? But I am sick an tired of Ortofon to be honest.

h) having also tried a Dynavector DV 20X-L, higher compliance than PW and less heavy, I could still make out some but less distortion. Did not fiddle too much with it as it only was a quick test, and this cart is no where near as good/neutral/resolved/etc. etc. as the PW

Maybe it's just all my vinyl...? New Alison Krauss & Union Station "so long so wrong" has ALSO distortion e.g. side two last band --- much too sibilant.
So there you go...

Thank you for careing and greetings
Axel
Two more items:
I did not respond correctly to the spindle / pivot item. The SME has a hard fixed cart-mounting-holes to arm-pivot distance.
Of course the SPINDLE (main baering) to arm-pivot distance is the VERY thing that IS variable with the SMEs,-- contrary to most other arms, that have a fixed pivot spindle distance once the whole for the arm-post is drilled.

One more interesting and MOST readable post to the subject happens to be found under: Analog / Mounting of a tonearm.
It, as it happens, echos some of my 'intuitions' for lack of a better word.
Dear Axelwahl, the TT's spindle to the tonearms pivot bearing point is NEVER variable in a pivot tonearm. It is the ONE single FIXED foundation of a given tonearms geometry. The distance of the tonearms pivot point to the center of the LP (= spindle of TT's bearing ) is NOT variable. The SME sliding mount is not meant to "variate" the mounting distnace nor to compensate for the fixed cartridge mounting holes. The SME V has a fixed mounting distance of 215.35 mm (SME does give this value in such detail because it is paramount for the whole tonearm geometry....).
Not taking this point as serious as it is means to skip the whole geometry alltogether and results in poor sonic performance and high distortion.

Please see here:
http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Series-V-1330.shtml
Woopsy,
I might get something VERY wrong here. Now PLEASE how can it be as you say... if I move the tone-arm post (containing the pivot bearing) back or forth -- it should be STILL the same distance to the centre bearing / spindle??
What is truely fixed (SME) is the distance from the mounting holes to the pivot bearing. Since there is no standart from mounting holes to stylus tip (usually ~ 9mm) the arm post in the SME design can slide back and forth to adjust for correct overhang.
This means the arm-post (containing the pivoy bearing, yes?) will change its distance to the record main-bearing centre pin, its unavoidable else there'd be NO overhang adjustment possible.
The only way to adjust overhang with a FIXED pivot to centre pin distance is to have oblong head-shell holes and NO SME head-shell has, hence the arm-post slide system.
Maybe we are not talking about the same measuremen(s)?
Axel
Dear Axel, we do talk about the same thing.
However - there is a huge missinterpretation by several SME V owners.

On the whole sliding distance of the SME mount - some 25 - 40 mm - there is ONLY ONE POINT where the spindle - pivot bearing distance (=mounting distance) is exactly the 215.35 mm SME does specify.
The distance is always the same on a circle around a given fixed point (here: the spindle). The SME slide does not feature a circle segment, but a linear one.
I guess the point is clear now - isn't it??
The SME-mount was introduced in the 1950ies to allow precise alignment of the mounting distance even when the drilling of the wooden armboard was inprecise. The fact that the SME V does feature fixed cartridge mounting holes have been critiszed from the day of its introduction.
It is simply a big mistake in its design. If the horizontal distance mounting holes to stylus on all cartridges would be the same (as it should, but is not...) , then SME would be right. But in real world, the SME does not allow adjustment of overhang........ with a given cartridge you either get it right by simple luck - or you doesn't.
You can not adjust it.
Unfortunately cartridge designers do not stricly design there cartridges with a standardized distance mounting holes to stylus.

Again - yes, there is no overhang adjustment possible with the SME V......
Sorry - SME's fault.....
I know a few SME V owners who do indeed have modified their SME V so that now they do feature oblonged holes to mount the cartridge.
They can adjust the overhang now.
With a stock SME V you simply CANNOT adjust the overhang.
If you try by using the SME slide, your whole geometry goes nowehere.
Thus the SME V does limit your selection of useable cartridges quite a bit......