zyx universe cartr.- ideal weight -ideal vta ,

Didn't work for me Doug!
Whilst your methodology sounds very convincing, I tried it on my Raven AC with Hadcock GH228 and it failed.
I have had the ZYX UNIverse for 1 year and thought I was tracking it at 1.9gm until I bought a digital gauge which showed I was tracking at 2.4gm.
Mounted the same Hadcock on the Raven AC a month ago and by following Arthur Salvatore's method of VTF, I found it sounded best at 2.33gm.
I tried your method and played the RCA Reiner Pines of Rome with the climactic strings at the end (close to spindle, max tracking error?).
The strings sound just as horrible at 1.5gm, 1.7gm and 1.9gm.
I couldn't discern what the 'mistracking' you describe actually SOUNDS like?

It then dawned on me why Arthur's methodology was better than yours?.........you approach it from the point of view of 'finding the BAD sound and moving up slightly from that?'
Arthur relies on finding the GOOD sound and building on that....see his method attached below.
I actually found that I heard none of your aural descriptions on HF and bass when I followed your methodology but I found a HUGE difference in sound quality, depth and staging when I used Arthur's.
The fact that I'm tracking much higher than you and apparently the other users here is a little worrying?.....but perhaps it's all system dependent?
I'm getting the Continuum Copperhead this week together with the Dynavector DV1s and I get my Schroeder Ref arm in a month so I'll be able to mount the ZYX in both to compare it to the Hadcock.
Philosophically I prefer Arthur's 'Glass half full' method to your 'glass half empty'?.....sorry.

A Vertical Tracking Force (VTF) Procedure

Here's a simple, four-step procedure that anyone can use if they have an accurate digital gauge and a tonearm with fine and repeatable VTF adjustability.

Step 1. Start with the VTF at the lowest recommended setting and increase it .1 grams at a time. The sonics will get better each time, but when they inevitably deteriorate, stop. All that's relevant now are the last three .1 gram positions. You are now "in the ballpark".

Step 2. Of the three relevant .1 gram positions from Step One, choose the middle position as the "ballpark", but reduce the ballpark VTF by .05 grams. Then go back up .05 grams per step until the sonics deteriorate, then stop.

Step 3. If there are three positions in Step Two, then the middle one is the new "ballpark". If there are only two positions from Step Two, then it's the lower one. This time go down only .02 grams from the new ballpark and then increase it the same amount until you hear a deterioration. The last position before the deterioration is usually the optimized setting. However...

Step 4. For fine tuning, and also verification, the position which sounded best in Step 3 should be compared with positions .01 grams both above and below it. Even ultra-fine tuning can now be attempted, if you want to become fanatical about it.

Hmm,HALCRO! Interesting post!!
Here is why I would opt for Doug's thoughts,even though you seem to have a good arguement(in the best sense,btw)....Too many folks are WAY too happy!WAY to easily!!They SELDOM go beyond the "first" good sound setting!....Reason(aside from the confidence of experience,which you seem to clearly have)?We have had so many unsatisfactory results over the years,as hobbyists,and especially if we have access to a goodly amount of "correct" sounding set-ups(which tend to motivate us to want "more" from what we have),at various friends' homes(I'm lucky/unlucky here,btw),that when we "GO" for anything new,we are usually pulled into being far too easily satisfied.Even if there is a bit "more" lurking around the corner.We just stop looking,and listening critically enough,when we get to the "it sounds good to me/us" part!
This goes doubley for fussy cartridges!Especially if one is active in going through equipment changes,or fotzes around alot to satisfy the "different" tastes of the "pickiest" friends,when they come over.(I have friends so eager to please certain members of our group,that they have completely re-voiced an already perfect set-up,just to make someone happy...which seldom happened,btw).
I,personally(just my own point of view,and taste)like to find the "first" setting where I am beginning to hear a subtle loss of timbre and harmonic warmth.To me,with my own arm(old as of last Saturday),this is clearly heard as a slight resonant characteristic.Unless you actually "own" my set-up,it is too easy to think this resonant characteristic is something else.I have been accused of this PLENTY,but I know my stuff way too well.Thank God,or my friends would drive me from this hobby!!I then go up,in VTF from there,at .01 gm increments.It doesn't take long to ultimately "know" the exact setting,from there,and I can "then" be quite secure when my own "carnivorous" friends come over...to criticise,as "always"!Of course you are speaking to a different cartridge and arm(the arm I am very familiar with,but was unlucky with),but the general procedure should be fairly universal.No?
I DO have a nice surprise waiting for the next session.-:)
Just my own thoughts,and nothing is set in stone,especially when I make a claim,or five. -:)
Best.

I'm sure the Hadcock is a fine arm, but it's not going to behave the same as a gimbal bearing arm. There is not really much difference between the two methods. Because one method may work better for a particular setup than the other does not invalidate the other method.

Hello Halcro,
Thank you too for your post, enjoyed the read as well.
After I read it, I was thinking of Doub, thinking of some of the things he would be telling me to "remember-consider" with Cartridge set up/Tuning.

Doug I remember mentioning once to me not to be too anal about the precision of a Digital Scale, and that while a decent scale will help you get into the ballpark, and the Manufacturer's recommended range of settings, that the ear is the final criteria in achieving best sound.

I think common sense would dictate, when one makes a change, or tweak, and it sounds better, one could assume "somthing right was done".

I myself also went to a better (or should I say "easier") Expressimo Micro-Tech Digital Scale, from previously using the Shure teeter-totter SG-2.

I double checked this Digital against reference weights just to insure it was reaonably accurate, and it was, but of course, a Scale that only reads on .1g increments isn't going to tell you if you're accuratly at 1.93g.

Doug had mentioned an ultra accurate Gauge was only perhaps needed if one wished to exactly repeat a previous setting if one was doing constant changeouts, and wanted to get dialed back in quickly with a previously used Cartridge.

Not to hammer you with the obvious though, have you ever perhaps confirmed the accuracy of your newer Scale? Mark

Hi Halcro,

You combined two topics into one post. I'll address them individually.

METHODS

Arthur's method and mine are more alike than different. We each start from a defined baseline and move up in increments, noting sonic improvements as we go. When the sound begins to deteriorate we take that as the upper limit of the sweet zone. We then fine tune between that upper limit and the last known point of improvement, which of course is the sweet zone's lower limt. It's the same methodology.

There are some differences of course. Our baselines are different. Arthur starts at the manufacturer's recommended minimum VTF. I start at the mistracking point, which will vary with individual cartridges, tonearms, climates, and even records. Choose an arbitrary point or learn how to optimize for each unique situation, it's up to you.

Arthur takes you through big steps, then smaller steps, then tiny steps. I take you directly to tiny steps because IME they are audible with this cartridge.

RESULTS

We play a few hundredths of a gram above the mistracking point. You prefer much higher VTF's. I suspect this is because we listen to different music, through different systems, with different ears that are attuned to different sonic priorities. (BTW, it would really help discussions like this if yours were listed.)

The strings sound just as horrible at 1.5gm, 1.7gm and 1.9gm.

I'm not surprised. 1.5g is much too low and 1.7 probably is too. Ours is the only UNIverse I've heard of that's yet broken in (down?) enough to play below 1.8, never mind any lower. 1.9 would have been marginal in colder weather for us a year ago, as I explained. I doubt yours has enough hours on it to attempt such low VTF's.

I actually found that I heard none of your aural descriptions on HF and bass when I followed your methodology.

The fact that I'm tracking much higher than you and apparently the other users here is a little worrying?.....but perhaps it's all system dependent?

I'm getting the Continuum Copperhead this week together with the Dynavector DV1s and I get my Schroeder Ref arm in a month so I'll be able to mount the ZYX in both to compare it to the Hadcock.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The UNIverse is too resolving and sensitive a pickup for your present tonearm to get the most out of it. I suspect you'll hear very different results with both of your new arms, on which I congratulate you BTW.

Doug