Schroeder Reference Arm

Lewm,
I'm not advocating setting azimuth by ear as necessarily the best method over any other one, but one thing I've noticed is that using only one frequency (1kHz, or another one) to measure crosstalk isn't terribly reliable. When I managed to establish a good balance at 1kHz, I measured that it was not right at other frequencies. Obviously, a musical signal is extremely complex because of the number of acoustic waves occurring at any given time, but also because of the way they interact with each other (addition, subtraction), to stay with just the frequency domain. I wonder if one could make a recording where, instead of just single frequencies, there would be "blocks" of stacked up sine waves in various groupings across the spectrum... But even that might not be realistic enough to parallel the complexity of musical signals.
Joel

From what I've learned about the Foz and Feikert's software I would expect this. The Foz would get one close, and the software package would get you pretty much dead on the theoretical optimum. If one can do it by ear, it gets to be much faster. I would ask how much deviation from the theoretical optimum can we tolerate?

Dear Joel et al, By choosing 1kHz in my little proposal, I did not mean to take the position that 1kHz is the sine qua non for setting azimuth. The goal of my proposed experiment would simply be to compare the outcome when a really good ear (like Doug's or Paul's or Tbg's) sets azimuth according to his/her preference vs when azimuth is set by a typical audiophile conventional electronic method ((based usually on a 1kHz test tone). I have no preconceived notions (i.e., no hypothesis). It's actually dangerous to design an experiment to prove an hypothesis. It's better to acquire some good data and then make an hypothesis centered on the data. Further experiments then test the strength of that hypothesis. If you can develop a way to use a set of frequencies to set azimuth electronically, rather than just a single frequency, that would be a useful improvement on the electronic method, IMO.

If one could determine what frequency range that crosstalk is most discernable to the ear. Then maybe there would be an ideal test tone to use.

I just don't get how one night of comparison at RMAF is going to tell anyone which arm is better. I do feel that Dan_ed's personal experience will be much more valid (especially for himself). But any cartridge I have ever setup (and a good setup takes time and tweaking, I don't care what expert you are - as VTF, VTA etc all need to be fine tuned over time) needed about 2-3 days to lock in all aspects. The best one will accomplish is an overall character assessment in some regard or other.

On a different note the art of setting up a Schroeder is long and painful but very rewarding in my case. Using different counterweights and different headshell weights all contribute to the final sound. As does the damping etc. I can't imagine many people getting to hear a Schroder at it's best. But, Frank - that is the curse of your arm. It is a setup nightmare and has been confirmed as such in the mainstream press. You should almost include a DVD. But when you change VTA you change VTF and you change azimuth. Anyhow it is as if I circle in on a point and as I keep refining the setup the circles get smaller and smaller until I finally get to the point, where VTF, VTA - damping, Azimuth etc are all locks in. Don't forget HTA as well. The difference I have observed of the Schroeder outside of the difficultly of setup is that the lack of a ball bearing does slightly change the dynamic and resolution in the bass. This is similar to an air bearing arm. But there is a musicality and dimensionality that exists with certain cartridges on Franks arm that has made that sacrifice worth it. Now if a different arm w. a unipivot bearing can combine the best of all worlds that would be great but honestly surprising. But no single night in RMAF will give the complete answer. Just a gimpse of what the possibilities are.