- ...
- 47 posts total
And what of expensive tonearms that omit anti-skate like the Schick. Are those better? I owned a 714 and it worked best with low compliance cartridges, for me. The 704, 727 and 747 mated best with the F9e, etc. IMHO. So I did not see it anywhere; I was an owner. All of the repeated info on the effective mass of the arm seems to originate here: http://www.fl-electronic.de/analog/tonarme.html The internet seems to merely echo unsubstantiated claims until they are no longer questioned. But for a moment, let’s give that low effective mass number credence. I’m with Mr. Lederman. Your Shure V15 V , or other light tracking, high compliance cartridge, may not show signs of overt mistracking in an arm sans anti-skating, but the wear characteristic on the stylus will be uneven. I believe this also implies that groove wear will also be uneven as vinyl is softer than diamond. Audio is a thousand different religions. Pick yours. |
I was very proud about myself when I got 90 microns ''pure'' from my combo Sumiko 800 + Ortofon MC 30. But then I have read Van den Hul's warning not to use too much anti-skate needed for such values. Too much anti-skate was worse according to him then no-skate at all. By all his carts one get anti-skate values for his sample. The other problem is that this ''force'' also depends from record radius. So, obviously, the same anti-skate for the whole record is also problematic. I ever owned the only tonearm with ''variable'' anti-skate : Sony 237 with an ingenious ''curved'' lever with different anti-skate related to record radius. In addition there was provision for stylus shape. I give up anti-skate not because I don't believe the theory but because there is no way to do this correct. |
- 47 posts total

