Dertonarm,
one more thing :-)
Done my pivot / spindle measurement on the SME-V and it is: 215.35 mm give or take 0.0... something!
The adjustments with a PW, Dorian, DV X20-L are minute actually, all changing this distance value by some few 100th of a millimetre, hallo!
So it looks like we are making one BIG elephant out of a fly here.
So, all's in butter, right?
Now, if we still have IGD, then what?!
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi all,
I'm getting a bit late into the fray of it all. I have the SAME inner groove distortion issue, AND every recipe that's been kicked around was tried, and failed.
Set-up is bit easier in my case I guess, since I sport an almost brand new SME-V arm, Peer Windfeld cart that's well played-in ~ 1/2 year on an SME-10 tt, ML326S phono-boards with SUT! Pass 350.5, Burmester 961 Mk3. So, call it high resolution is why I go into it.
I can move over-hang on the fly, VTA pretty much so, Azimuth is fixed on the V, and it IS ok (checked by mirror method), VTF has been tried as has been, also on the fly anti-skate. -------- AND I still have inner groove distortion. Marvellous reproduction every where else but through the last ~ 25% on the inside. I do understand the respondent arguing if he like me has tried all of that USUALLY brought up set-up stuff. Tried it all, nothing works!
Einstein once said: To keep on doing the same thing over and over, and expect different results -- IS THE SIGN OF INSANITY!
So, In also recall very well that the analogue fundi of Image-HiFi Mag. Dirk Sommer has been moaning about those "dreaded inner groove distortions" again!
Hallo, there is a guy on the level with M. Fremmer saying this?! How so?
Now my good Audio friend tried to fix his inner groove distortion --- and got it fixed beautily! Now he has OUTER GROOVE DISTORTION! Whow, not my idea of a fix either.
Why do I mention this? HE CAN'T SEEM TO HEAR IT!?!
So I think, it also has to do with hearing, like e.g. sibilants, and of course the higher you system resolution the more you CAN (or aught to) hear it.
Lastly I have a notion (but can not prove it) that it is EXACTLY this issue that make folks go for 10.5" - 12" tonearms.
(I'm sure we do not need to explain the geometry differences here)
Greetings... |
Howdy Dertonarm, and All
I had some time to speak to the old Egyptians (during my sleep last night), so here goes.
1) It is impossible to adjust overhang by moving the whole tonearm !!
THIS STATEMENT (ON ITS OWN) IS INCORRET. OVERHANG IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STYLUS AND THE CENTRE PIN WHEN THE TONE ARM IS IN LINE WITH THE CENTRE PIN (most tone arms do not allow physically to move this far, but the stylus' prescribed arc will exactly show it also (look at an LP12 set-up template and you'll see what I say is correct).
2) Overhang is a value that DEPENDS on the geometry of the given tonearm !!!
THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT AS IT STANDS.
3)The geometry of ANY pivot tonearm has one foundation: the spindle-bearing distance (= mounting distance).
THIS IS ALSO CORRECT -- IF "GEOMETRY" MEANS "OVERHANG" IN THIS CONTEXT.
4) If you move the pivot of the bearing away from the specified value as given by the designer, the whole geometry of your tonearm is gone!
THIS IS ONLY CORRECT IF (AGAIN) "GEOMETRY" MEANS OVERHANG.
But since overhang is adjustable with EVERY arm, either by head-shell (oblong holes) or moving the arm-post it is NOT "gone" as you put it.
Here is the deal from the 2500 year old Egyptian.
First ask why do you have OVERHANG in the first place, and than also ask WHY do different arm specify DIFFERNT overhangs, and why do different so called 9" arms have not exactly the same distance between mounting hole and pivot, and pivot and centre pin?!
BECAUSE IT ONLY MATTER SO... MUCH!
All we do with these different measurements, is using the OVERHANG to ensure that the two NULL-POINTS (or zero tangential tracking error) are distributed to the "right" places (two) over the record!
Note: This "right" place does not even exist!
Every expert has his own idea of what's best, not just Baerwald, Linn, etc. etc. not even the Egyptians would know.
Why? Because it e.g. depends how wide you decide to 'spread' the two "Null-Points" i.e. the shorter the overhang the narrower the 'spread' (distance between the two points) since you have made the tone-arm's prescribed arc smaller. MORE overhang conversely gives you a wider spread. So there is some agreement on "more or less" where you want to allow the most and where the least error ---- and that's ALMOST all.
But not all things are quite equal:
The pivot to centre pin distance ALSO determines WHERE on the record your particular "null-point spread" would be! No good to have a zero tracking-error where there is NO GROOVE, (or better where there is MOSTLY no groove).
So having determined e.g. that it (null-point) is some 2 1/2" from the label (inside), then you figure it is say ~ 1/2 inch after the start groove --- you obtain by geometrical principal the overhang required for a GIVEN pivot to centre pin tone-arm measure.
That's why (amongst other things like alignmnet preference)not all overhangs are quoted the same (15, 17, 18 mm, etc.), because the pivot to centre pin distances are not all the same with 9" arms or 10.5" , 12" etc.!
So back to the geometry argument and how 'crewed up' the Egyptian says it gets.
Let's look at SME again, OK.
The "error" comes in by the arm-post (arm pivot) moving, to obtain a pre-determined overhang (given by SME set-up template). We now ever so slightly change the arc, by e.g. moving the arm post forward with e.g. a cart of shortish stylus mounting hole distance.
But HOW MUCH will that be? My current experience tells me within 1mm, of course it depends on the cart. Take a VERY odd one, the Dynavector 17D3 Karat Cartridge and it will get as way-out as it gets, perhaps 2mm short of the more average 9mm distance --- so I'll better not use that, unless I dig the resultung change in alignment.
Back to the +/- 0.5mm stylus mounting hole variation. Now if the distance is more, the 'null point spread' gets a bit wider and visa versa a bit narrower when the distance (stylus / mounting hole) gets less.
The question is: How much is "a bit"?
That "bit" is equal to the above mentioned flavours of overhang producing Linn, Baerwald and what not, alignments --- take your pick. Go with what sounds best for your system and your ears. I have tried (from one template alone) about four different overhang flavours, each one having it's pros and cons. The difference between them (resulting change of prescribed arc) is not more than a few mm of where these Null-point wind up on the record.
So what's the Egyptian say: Don't worry be happy --- unless you INSIST on a particular geometry (alignment) that is NOT a Linn (then don't by one) or a SME then don't either.
Both of these have FIXED head-shell holes / arm-pivot to head-shell to centre pin distances. And both have been going for longer than ANY of the all current offerings also, funny no?
Linn sells their own carts and by that they make sure you got it right, SME hope you get the right cart +/- since they know it is NOT THAT critical after all, where you null-point are. 1-2 mm this way or that way will be hard to tell, even with bats-ears I guess.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hey, one more thing
re: Dertonarm
--"100% precise spindle-bearing-mounting distance"--
Just PLEASE bear in mind that this is hard FIXED with ALL SME arms. Overhang is adjusted by moving the bearing-post back and forth, yes? |
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. |
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 |
Holy moly, you are dead serious in what you are saying as I can read ---- BUT something does not gel at all.
1) SME adds a overhang template, with a machined bushing for the V! (it goes over the centre pin). Then you put your stylus into a tiny prick-holed template (marked by a cross) and adjust the overhang so that the arm geometry (arm is tapered, yes) aligns visually, from above with the template! There is a lengthy section in the manual just dealing with that and exactly how to do it (and how not to do it). Also the is a special key tool to do the sliding bit (nothing like hand moving here). All that just to get this micron exact point -- with NO gauge to support your idea? Sound pretty far out, now doesn't it?
2) There'd be NO means, other than some funky optical measuring equipment, maybe the latest for a tool-shop, that would be able to set the arm as you suggest.
3) Since there are precision holes (for cap screws) drilled and tapped into the ALU arm-board, they could be just fine and no pivot-post movement mechanism needed, just some oblong holes, right?
4) There seems to be a MAJOR discrepancy here with some other expert Forum members that maintain that the pivot to centre-pin distance is NOT of the ULTIMATE importance as I hear it from you.
5) If it really was, why would SME for the last 50 years maintain a pivot post slide on the "best tone arm in the world" (their words, not mine) It written on the box, believe it or not.
6) So, I guess I hear your argument loud and clear, but SME can't be the one to support it, rightly or wrongly... And I do NOT say: you don't have a point.
I got to digest that bit! Do some geometry to see if your argument is valid, though.
It may just turn out as yet another funky argument, like all the differing anti-skating, and dynamic VTF stuff.
I'm baffled, but thank you for sharing,
Axel |
Hallo Herr Tonearm :-) and who ever is still with us
As I said, my tonearm pivot to spindle centre is to SME spec. as it turns out, (with my current cart, Per Windfeld).
I thought THAT was the salient point of YOUR departure on the DEFINITIVE- tracking error as a result, if this measurement is out of spec.
So now as this is right on spec, I try to understand why this should yet also be a problem?
Baerwald or Loefgren have THEIR best interpretation about where the null-points aught to be, Linn has theirs, SME theirs and so on. There is no FINAL and ONLY position where these null-points aught to be, else e.g. Linn and SME would have it ALL wrong the last 50 years --- is what I understand you try to relate, no?
Every 'template maestro' has his own sweet intuition about how to get there, so as to have the least distortion as a result. No problem with that at all, but as always more than one way leads to Rom (and many of course do not, also true).
I just think, if your first point is not the case here (spindle / pivot right on spec. in this here situation) why question the manufacturers 'preferred' set-up, and go on about other set-ups?
The exact arm-pivot to spindle with an e.g. Linn 9" arm is different to SME 9" arm and so is their resulting overhang and therefore their exact set-up. I guess you only let me off if I go with some set-up other than SME's, no? :-)
There is one still relevant item that was not even mentioned this far, that at both null-points, where ever they are picked to be, the cart's cantilever aught to be as close to 90 deg., as can possible be, in order to have at least at these two points 0 deg. tangential tracking error.
It seems to me, that it here where the SME (and Linn) arm can cause a problem with a cart's skewed cantileve. The SME arms (just as Linn's) have next to NO play to allow for the cart's cantilever skewness to be compensated, true.
With older cart designs its less of an issue, since they have no threaded mounting holes but need rather a longer screw and nut for fastening. This allowed (allows) for a slightly bigger margin for twisting the cart body to get the cantilever (rather than cart body only) aligned. And I would agree further, that the method used by Graham seems just about the best to achieve that also!
So not all is lost.
My last point: I do question greatly whether e.g. Graham arms (any other arm) are mounted, spindle / pivot, to the 100th of a millimetre correct! Never in all your live!
And it was THIS distance's absolute need for TOTAL correctness that stared this dialogue Egyptian geometry and all so at least my take. I might have missed something though.
SME also Linn assume that the cantilevers of the carts mounted are not out of true. Experience shows that this is of course not so, but it is a question of the degree of skewness relative to the cart body, with 1-2 deg. seeming the acceptable tolerance, so my understanding by Ortofons techies.
Now I may only wish that or discourse will be of some edification not just to the two of us :-)
Mit bestem Gruss,
Axel |
Hallo Herr Dr. Tonearm,
now this is getting somewhere, very good!
This pivot / spindle distance actually only came about because of our protracted discourse, and me having it measured, no effort lost, methinks.
Also, some bystanders may profit, all very beneficial, no?
That IEC-standard got pretty well lost in the general 'shrapnel' flying about in the other thread -- at least for me not having been into it earlier.
a)I have addressed, but as you confirm and mentioned, setting it is VERY marginal with the last resort to bore open the mounting holes of the SME arm. Something that I'm not too crazy on doing since the PW cart is not THAT much out of true --- yet it definitely is and previous (new) Ortofon Jubilee had the same issue. (Sent back 3 times, etc. etc.)
b) don't know if that is VTA, please explain to correlate...
c) since it's on-the-fly, easy to test with the SME, tried and found innocent. The distortion is actually ONLY during high energy passages soprano blasting, tenors also at full tilt, sibilants included, as well as higher pitch (mostly) instruments e.g. ff full orchestra violins and sundry crescendos.
d) +++ 2nd zero-error point already long passed when you reached the inner grooves (the SME uses an IEC-standard when calculating the zero-error-points. The 2nd point is pretty close to the 1st and in the inner grooves you are close to the maximum error
+++
I'm confident you got that standard sussed, and it would explain exactly what's going on then. Now, how far are these ICE null-points apart, be VERY interesting to know?!
++++ - why this IEC-standard was used and favoured by SME and Ortofon was explained in the "Prices for Oldskool tonearms"-thread. It has to do with the new way to master and cut LPs in the early 1980ies.
++++
I have my take, which may repeat what's been said on the other thread?
DG by example had decided to leave a LOT more dead wax to the end (early 80s, yes) to improve on the very IGD issue. That being so, it would explain why null-point 1. and 2. got moved closer together, wouldn't it?
Some GREAT ideas don't always do so good like e.g. RCA's Microgroove (...virus).
Now, what about Linn I ask?
Also gone IEC-standard?
Would be interesting to know (I hope you don't need to repeat all of this...)
Lastly if you want to drop the IEC-standard it will of course need to re-think / set all, by NOT going with the manufacturers supplied tools. Not a very cheerful thought, I say.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hallo Herr Doctor,
Ich must geschimpfen!
Sending me on a wild goose-chase for your IEC-standard comments, eish!
None such that my searches will scratch out of this endless pandering stream of "Prices of oldskool tonearms"
Lots of FR tonearm info sure, (I happen to use a FR XF-1 type M SUT). Pitty they're dead and gone; but NOTHING like your mentioned IEC-standard stuff --- so,
say a, say b,
please let's have your take on all that DMM stuff etc.
You sound like you have worked for the "Pallas" (press-works, jawohl!)
Gruss,
Axel |
Hi Herr Tonearm,
thanks for the offer re.: calling :-)
When I'm looking East (for long enough..) I'll see the Indian Ocean.
Methinks, that's gonna be too much phone-cost since we have no real discrepancy in perception anymore.
Ain't that something for a change.
That other thread is some 'free for all' and next they'll talk about who is better at soccer... no thanks.
Thank you for offering, I do appreciate your unquenchable enthusiasm, jolly good show, I say.
The remaining issue (for me only) is, if I want to change to another then the SME's alignment system --- maybe some day, we'll see. Meanwhile I'll have to stick to the IEC-standard that comes with that SME purchase.
Greetings from the Black-Continent.
Axel |
Herr Tonearm,
I'm going to log out now, I see that we are for some reason out of sync. Your are still busy with my older responses. No problem. Thanks for the great detail offered.
Take care,
Axel |
Hi, just a little aside from behind the curtain as it were.
SME in their misguided wisdom using the "ICE-standard" (that strangely exists for LP manufacturing at al, BUT not cart ALIGNMENTS, correct me if I'm wrong ) for their alignment happen to use Baerwald, hallo!
Now Baerwald is what most everybody and his uncle is using these days... and is constantly being referred to in this here circle, very good.
The other item that might shine some light on this pivot to pin distance issue, and SME's disregard for such importance is: The SME V (in fact all 300 series) are based on a mounting hole to stylus tip distance of 9.52 mm or better 3/8". Therefore 233.15mm stylus-to-pivot distance, and a 23.6350 offset angle.
Most carts I've seen/worked with are ball-park, give or take 1/10 of a millimetre. This means that the post is move by about that amount to correct for overhang for that specific cart. A difference in VTF alone will change this distance by some 0.01 mm.
Nobody seems to take note here, that when a hole of some dimension about 32 mm is drilled in a plinth to take a fixed pin/pivot arm arrangement, that 1/10 mm or even less is simply within tolerance.
Unless this is done in a tool shop with a highly accurate machining set-up.
So whilst I DO agree with the importance of it all, I surely disagree to get complete anal about this. Reality of arm fitment is most probably a lot worse than <0.1 mm.
Now I feel so much better :-)
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi Raul,
nice to be able to call you by name, unlike most folk that prefer to hide behind some alias.
All taken in good sprit, the point missed might be, that some folk might leave this here discourse with a major case of 'audiophila nervosa' because their spindle/pivot is out by 5 hundredth of a millimetre.
Figure that out in thousands of an inch if you will, and it might give more of the participant a better feel what tolerances we are talking. Recall it takes 25.4 millimetre to make 1 inch. So now we are talking about 3 or 5 hundredth of a millimetre!
AND we still take care by a good set-up to compensate for this, by making sure of the right amount of overhang at each null-point AND being dead-on 90 deg. It seems to get just a bit 'unreal' to pretend to pursue this hyper-tolerance notion.
Add 0.1 gram (usually 0.4 gram tolerance) variation in VTF, your suspension goes a bit down, your stylus-pivot distance has changed by 0.002 or0.003 at least. Now we 'pretend' get the arm post holes drilled so this is within such tolerance --- please, let's just accept the real world situation, I say.
One last point I want to share: the lateral Azimuth (twisting the cart left or right) when trying to get the CANTILEVER (never mind the cart body) as close to 90 deg. (0 deg to the groove) at the two null-points.
This is some issue with ALL fixed head shell hole arms e.g. SME V, IV, 300 series, Linn..., when a cart's cantilever is not quite in the 'perfect' place related to the mounting screw-(threaded)holes of that cart.
It is than because nigh impossible to get it to 90deg. due to the next to no play (~0.05mm) of the mounting screws in the head shell holes.
So, get a better cart, or file open the holes? Do not drill them open!! This would allow for too much lateral movement of the cart in the head shell. I discourage this of course, but to spend another 2-3k dollars may just make you change you mind on that also.
Greetings,
Axel |
Raul,
you're the man! Couldnt agree more with you.
Note: The Azimuth has to items to it: lateral and vertical Herr Tonearm explained...
Vertical is A OK with a cart like PW in an SME, it allows for some degree of tilting due to it's 3 point mounting plate (must have thought of SME here :-)
If the cantilever it too skew to the cart's body we are in BIG trouble with SME's non slotted design. BUT ONLY is since everyone asked for screw holes in the cart mounting plate!
This then has next to NO adjustment left to 'twist' the cart left or right. If the cart has just the good old lugs with the long bolts and nuts used at the bottom, there is enough play to come right usually, maybe not with the worst though.
It seems the price to pay for a more 'comfortable' cart adjustment...
This is actually was what I found out to be the source distortion. I got it pretty much fixed, but juuuust just with max. twisting to the left as so to align the CANTILEVER, never mind the cart body it mean NOTHING. Look at the cart body --- you can't even notice a difference.
Thank you for caring,
Axel |
Raul,
well said! BUT in order to understand this position you take, it needs some intimate knowledge of the subject matter --- and unfortunately this takes time, and more importantly interest AND motivation to acquire it.
A lot of folks don't want to know the details of their car's differential gear, but simply use it.
So, that said, it might make a case for Linn and SME's non-variable approach.
I'm also not really sure if a very 'funky' adjust-all approach is the last answer to all this.
As with all things, learn as you go --- THEN make a more informed decision, on what is best for your needs AND preferences, or?
Thanks for your ever present words of wisdom, it always makes for good reading.
Axel |
:-) Dertonarm,
Mine is not long, but white for sure, and SME's founder is dead by now.
It must have been at least their intention to move on with all this fiddly-dilly alignment stuff. I feel obliged to give them credit for it, even one can't agree with it all at times.
Incidentally, I just learned by John Carr himself, that Lyra got it right on target with the stylus-tip to mounting hole-distance 3/8" = 9.52 mm tolerance +/- 0.3 mm.
So, yet another step in the right direction.
Get a Lyra, get an SME, and stop worrying about your 'differential'-> alignment(s).
Jolly good show, I say!
Best,
Axel |
Hells Bells,
here comes a man that actually makes the stuff (Frank) and tells me what I was arguing for 101 questions and answers with DerTonarm i.e. the spindle-to-pivot distance is not of this ultimate importance to be even close to 0.1 mm according to some geometry decided spec.
You just compensate with the off-set (turn the cart some more left or right) someone must have heard me cry for help.
So now you have it from an arm designer and manufacturer. Very nice Frank, thank you for sharing, time for bed.
Greetings,
Axel |
Frank,
thank you for all that common sense approach.
I happen to be a trained engineer myself (old school German Mechanics) and I can only agree, that IF you need to get 'anal' about some of these setting, be aware what is 'value added' to improve things, not just for the sake of doing 'something' that might be of little effect in practical terms.
Having said that, in my present experience and so far with two of Ortofon's top MC's --- they have a problem to get their motors in the middle of that sintered body shell. Funny thing, it is hardly, if at all, an issue with their cheaper lines i.e. the Kontra-Punkts. It is to my dismay an issue, that for some unknown reason, with their more expensive Jubilee and PW lines.
What seems a constant here, is the motor being closer toward the left cheek of the body (looking from the front). This creates some, at least for me, more intricate issue since the cantilever is straight as such!
Of course, not being anal about it, just turn the cart a little to the left, if 6:00 o'clock was straight, say to 6:03, and call it a day.
Being now being anal about it, the cart would have to be actually offset at 6:00 to the right, i.e. NOT turned, but shifted toward the right to compensate for the left offset of the motor. The offset is about 0.3 mm and quite noticeable by only looking at it, straight from the front.
In your experience will it be all the same, or actually make a difference in practical terms (in geometry there will be a difference, I say)
Greetings,
Axel |
