Your cartridge has a (semi) line-contact stylus. Generally, these require just a fraction of the AS used for elliptcal styli. I don't know how the the TriPlanar is calibrated for AS, but most tonearms still match the AS to the VTF, an old holdover from the pre line-contact days.
If the VTF of your cartridge is around 2 grams, one gram or less of AS should be plenty.
Right now VTF is set right at the recommended 2.5g.
What you heard by reducing AS is what several of us are still enjoying with the Triplanar.
Doug Deacon found out a while back that the performance on the Triplanar/UNIverse combo can be improved substantially by lowering the AS force. Following his lead I have found that this also works very well with my Tri/XV-1s combo. We now use a few silicone rubber o-rings for AS weights on our Triplanars. Hopefully, Doug will see your thread and offer the correct o-ring size.
You then listen for slight mis-tracking, sibilance, etc, and then add another o-ring until it is gone.
I've found this to work with my Basis Vector tonearm as well.
Glad to see you're enjoying this discovery. I did this a year or two ago and shared the results here. Several other owners confirmed what you're now hearing.
Depending on the cartridge, the LP and the tracking conditions, the weight of the bare dogleg doesn't always provide enough A/S for clean tracking. I described our solution, the O-rings Dan mentioned, in my 9-16-2006 post on this thread
. We play with anywhere from 1 to 6 O-rings on the A/S dogleg. Other cartridge's requirements may vary, but that will give you a starting point.
While you're at it, read that whole thead from the top. Some (not all) of the tips I presented might help you get even more from this extraordinary tonearm. A couple tips won't apply if your TriPlanar is the latest model VII upgraded version, but they'll give you some perspective on Tri Mai's latest developments.
There are other tweaks which enhance performance still further, but you'll have to email me for those. They're a bit racy for a public forum! ;-)
Doug, As regards the drastic reduction of the anti-skate weight on the Triplanar, do you recommend it for all cartridges or only those with line contact styli?
I have a Koetsu Urushi, which I would guess has an elliptical stylus. Does anyone know for sure?
I set A/S by ear. That way it's optimized for any stylus and any tonearm. I think you should do the same.
To set A/S by ear you must first set VTF by ear (with A/S temporarily disengaged or set to zero).
Once VTF is optimal, increase A/S in *tiny* increments until you have no R channel mistracking even on very dynamic, difficult-to-track LP's. The amount you'll need will vary with the equipment and even from one record to another, but it will probably be less than indicated by the standard scale on some tonearms.
The TriPlanar has no A/S scale because Herb Papier understood that different cartridges track differently and that different records act differently. This makes any A/S scale arbitrary and essentially useless. Setting by listening is ultimately the best method and it teaches you more about your rig.
I have a question.I really mean it to be proposed as such,and am in no way trying to undermine any previous thoughts.
If we set(as I do)VTF...shouldn't antiskate be employeed,along with the VTF adjustment?
Doesn't setting antiskate, seperately from VTF, change the VTF value,necessitating an aditional re-check of VTF?
Very possible my own arm,and the one I am considering getting,work differently here.
Thanks, Doug. Sirspeedy, you must live in the DC metro area, as I do. I too was a longtime friend of Herb Papier's, and my experience of him was much the same as yours, i.e., a great guy. I met Tri Mai at Herb's house, when I went there to have Herb upgrade my Triplanar to a Mk VII. Tri was learning how to make the product at Herb's side.
Sorry for the off-topic blather.
I love the triplanar arm. Along the same line, has anyone use no damping fluid at all?
Newbee to vinyl
The TriPlanar has no A/S scale because Herb Papier understood that different cartridges track differently and that different records act differently. This makes any A/S scale arbitrary and essentially useless.
Still, a scale gives a visual marker that makes it easier to use and easier to return to a setting. Making physical adjustments in tiny increments can benefit from visual reference points. The fact that different cartridges track differently does nothing to reduce the value of knowing relative adjustment position. :-)
Doug - thanks for the tips. I had seen your advice in old thread but largely forgot about it. I will certainly go re-read them.
Am at RMAF enjoying myself this weekend. Great show. I must say that I think that we (Norvinz/Consonance) have some of the best sound of the show. Lots of other good stuff as well (and, as always, lots of stinkers as too).
None of the Triplanar owners that I know use any dampening fluid.
Scale?!? We don't need no stinking scale! :)
Good question SirSpeedy...
Doesn't setting antiskate, seperately from VTF, change the VTF value,necessitating an aditional re-check of VTF?
Certainly VTF and A/S are interactive, but IME adjusting A/S only occasionally alters VTF. The amount of lateral bias force we need is so tiny relative to downforce that this would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Consider this: if you applied enough downforce you could play almost any record with no A/S at all. It might sound like doo-doo but you'd have no mistracking. OTOH, no amount of A/S would let you play cleanly if VTF were insufficient.
For initial setup it helps to disengage A/S because it lets us find the cartridge's VTF mistracking point quickly, and that's the key to optimizing VTF. Once you've got VTF on the knife edge of perfection, a REALLY tough-to-track passage (piano stikes, big operatic solo, hard blown horn or sax) will demonstrate the need for A/S, since you're likely to get some R channel mistracking. (If you get mistracking on both channels you need more VTF, at least for that record.)
Ultimately you're right Mark, they do interact, but that's at the level of changing weather and changing LP's. For those willing to adjust every day or for every record they do have to optimized interactively. I did that the other night. A strong piano solo record needed more VTF and six O-rings on the A/S dogleg. Then a big cathedral organ record needed a hair less VTF but far less A/S, just two O-rings. Then a harpsichord record needed still less VTF and just one A/S O-ring. This interactivity is only for those willing to adjust for each LP. The differences are audible, but some would regard such frequent adjustment as insane. It lets us hear more of the music so we don't mind - but we're insane!
P.S. I should mention I've come around to your view on cartridge alignment. I leave A/S engaged at a typical value when aligning the cantilever on a protractor. It's likely the cantilever will adopt a similar angle during real play so that's how it should be aligned. Very belated thanks for that tip!
The TriPlanar's A/S dogleg does have visual markers, a ridge every few mm along the dogleg where you slide the weight. They're not numbered but you could count them if you wanted. Using O-rings to fine tune both VTF and A/S gives us repeatable visual references. For example: I know I need somewhere between 1 and 6 A/S O-rings for any record, depending on the record.
No damping fluid here either. Tried it. Hated it. Dumped it.
I've heard rumors that some insane owners have actually removed their damping fluid troughs altogether. I would never encourage such irresponsible behavior of course, even if it does reduce resonances and notably lower the noise floor!
Hmm Doug,I do feel a bit sorry for you!Since you change vtf parameters so often(and it IS legit,if one wants to extract the absolute max from lp's,but it's a bit nutsy,in the best possible way-:)you REALLY missed the boat with Air Tangent's auto/remote controlled linear arm going out of production.You should have jumped on one!!
I did mention this to you a while ago(I'm sure you remember),but this was an arm MADE for you!!Of course this is all "tongue in cheek".....but... what if?
Aside from absolutely the best performance anyone could ask an anolog device to deliver(I consider it the "best" audio "thing" ever invented,but it's only my opinion,and the previous owner's as well)and assuming you upgraded the standard pump,to the motor boat sized one my two friends got,it offers a digital "remote controlled" readout for any vta setting one could want!
My friend (not Sid,who had the el-cheapo 8500 dollar model)actually had listings on each LP jacket for the "exact" vta for a given disc.It worked like a charm,given the different thickness of various vinyl pressings and the other parameters involved.
It was dirt cheap too...ONLY 13,500 dollars!!You gotta seek one out,it was made for you!.....AND Paul...-:)
"Call me irresponsible - call me unreliable
Throw in undependable too"
I'd have bought an Air Tangent, but it was so cheap it didn't even print out the VTA labels for each LP jacket! If I have to write them manually I might as well adjust them manually!
Yeah, we're nuts, but playing a harpsichord LP is still easier than playing the real thing. Real harpsichordists have to retune four octaves every time they turn on a lamp, because the room temperature changed! Compared with that, tweaking VTA/VTF/AntiSkate for each LP is child's play. :-)
Been a while on on this thread. I've been playing around with my anti skate on my Tri planar this weekend. Seems like if I take the thread off and remove the dogleg (totally removing the mechanism from the arm), clarity goes us a notch or two. Maybe it's a lowering of the noise floor.
With the antiskate in place, and 3-4 rubber o rings as weights, seems like I get more weight to the notes.
I don't have any tracking or sibilance issues either way.
Honestly, I like both settings :) Wish I could find a way to keep the weight but goose the clarity.
Any thoughts? Using a Lyra Skala currently.
Same cart, same arm, different table. Ultimately, I found that I preferred the increased resolution over the added sense of body, weight or gravity to the note; as such, I've removed the monofilament and dogleg completely. I've found that adding a tiny bit of VTF (we're talking maybe a hundredth of a gram, probably less...about a tenth of a rotation on the fine VTF) more than compensates for this loss. I assume you've also removed the damping trough completely as well.
I also find that I enjoy listening more at this time of year as it's warmer and more humid (even with AC). Not that I enjoy the heat, but something about the way sound travels through the warmer air tends to give me a greater sense of body, better dynamic shading and overall sonic density, like you can reach around each performer a bit more clearly. YMMV and all that.
Hi jfrech. Could be related to what cartridge is being used. I know someone else who prefers AS with a Skala. I still prefer mine without AS and I'm using Dynavectors. On the Talea, all carts sound much better with that tiny bit of AS one or two o-rings provide.
dealer disclaimer: Durand Tonearms and Dynavector
Ha! Speak of the devil. :-) Ok, so at least the three of us agree on the Triplanar with no AS.
This advice is not specific to the Tri-Planar, and may be only specific to my Ekos/Arkiv(but I don't think so). If the last song of an lp sounds the best, you have too much anti-skate. It's usually just a tiny bit too high. I would not use channel balance, or any other parameter to adjust anti-skate. I did, moving from a very involving sound to one that made me less interested in listening to records.
You are not alone!
I use a VPI JMW 10 and no anti-skate! I have never heard any inner grove distortion on any LP. Do not believe test record anti-skate test tracks, they are all too severe for real recordings.
Harry of VPI was right on the 10, 10.5 and 12"" arms, but bent to "false" opinion, and now offers an anti-skate option for disbelievers.
Maybe a little anti-skate for short, 8 to 9" arms.
I used to be in the minimal antiskate camp. I setup everything else first and then dial in anti-skate by ear and test record. By using torture tracks on the test record, it resulted in a much higher antiskate setting than I would use by ear. I felt that my ears should be the ultimate judge and determined that is the best setting. Torture tracks were unneccessary torture for me and the stylus.
Recently, I visited a knowledgeable friend. He managed so much information from the groove that I have never heard. He suggested setting antiskate using the test record and than redo VTF, VTA and azimuth to suite to the new antiskate setting.
In doing this exercise, I have resulted in much better sound: much more detail, cleaner bass, a soundstage that extends as far to the right and to the left with no hole or gap in the middle.
At the increased antiskate setting, the azimuth is changed by a small amount. Under dynamic condition, the skating force applies an inward force on the tip of the stylus. THe antiskate applies an outward force at the headshell. The net result is a tiny amount of torque along the axis of the cartridge body and changes the azimuth.
After the new antiskate and azimuth is set. I proceeded to define a new VTF and VTA setting. I find that I can extract much more info by tracking at a lower tracking force. By properly using antiskate to compensate for skating, I can focus on adjusting VTF to properly align the coil within the magnet housing and minimize THD. Inadequate antiskate will encourage increasing VTF. If skating force and VTF are looked upon as a vector, increasing VTF will point the vector more vertically. This would minimize the nastiness generated by the skating force but would not change the net horizontal force acting on the cart. SImply, using the same force (skating) but tugging on a heavier load will result in less motion. It does not change the net horizontal force needed to completely counterract the opposing force.
Another friend of mine used an USB oscilloscope to look at THD with varying antiskate and azimuth. While proper azimuth is needed to point the stylus vertical to the record, proper antiskate is needed to keep the stylus tip at the very bottom of the groove. Inadequate antiskate will let the stylus track more along the inner groove away from the outer groove. This causes THD to rise in the right channel and obscure fine details.
The minimal (or no) antiskate setting along with increase VTF produce a warmer sound due to THD. THD is generated from the suboptimally tracted outer groove and the THD improperly raised VTF.
I was very grateful that my friends shared the info with me. My wife is forcing me off audiogon now. I will expand on the subjective difference betw the settings.
I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean to say that your friend visually observed total harmonic distortion?
I am with Glai. On my Triplanar with a Koetsu Urushi, the sound is very problematic with zero anti-skate. (But I have not removed the device from the tonearm, so I cannot comment on the putative benefits of doing that per se.) With AS set to zero, there is considerable distortion in the R channel and also a channel imbalance with respect to gain. Also, Palasr, I was interested to read that you found you could reduce or eliminate AS by increasing VTF a tiny bit. I cannot remember the formula for estimating skating force, but I thought VTF and skating force were directly proportional, so it seems odd that increasing skating force by increasing VTF would decrease the need for AS. (Maybe I am incorrect about the relationship between VTF and skating.)
Found this quote on Audiokharma, from someone named "Marcmorin":
"...the higher the friction of the stylus in the groove the MORE skating will occur. Groove friction is the driving force behind the skating behavior. The mathematical derivations should make that clear. It's the friction of the groove pulling on the stylus that tries to turn the tonearm around its pivot towards the spindle. More friction = more turning effort (torque or moment). Less friction = less turning effort. Groove friction is directly proportional to VTF since it is VTF that presses the stylus against the groove. More VTF = more friction force = more antiskating required. Less VTF = less friction force = less antiskating required."
Note, skating force is proportional to groove friction, and groove friction is directly related to VTF. My memory neurons are still firing, thankfully.
Lewm, those of us who are removing our AS do not experience any distortion from one channel vs. the other. HOwever, I believe this will be cartridge dependent. It probably has to do with centering of the coils. This discussion is regarding the Triplanar. Other arms, YMMV. Even with the Triplanar, YMMV.
There is no right or wrong answer here, and I don't think this proves anything about HW's position on the need for AS. As Jonathan Carr has told us, the forces are there and they are acting on the stylus. The fact that some of us may prefer the sound with no AS doesn't mean it isn't needed.
As I stated, all cartridges I have tried on the Talea for example do sound better with a slight amount of AS, well below the VTF setting. I'm talking AS in the range of 1/3 to 1/2 gram. Anymore and the sound collapses.
My experience. YMMV, FWIW, etc.
Lewm: VTF may increase skating force but probably less than 1:1 ratio. Antiskate force is multifactoral and some portion of it is probably not modified by VTF.
I am saying that increase VTF reduces the nastiness generating by skating force. This is different than saying VTF reduces skating force. Even if VTF increased the skating force, the increase skating force is contending with a higher tracking force and therefore end result is less problematic gross mistracking. (Look at it as a vector with both magnitude and direction).
DanEd - My friend measured THD of the two channels using USB spectral analyzer while tinkering with antiskate and azimuth. Search Rick stereopal.
When I was using the minimal or no antiskate setting, I did not have any gross tracking problems. It is rather that the soundstage does not illuminate to the same degree in the right channel. For an orchestra, the first violinist and lead violist are still to the left and right. In the left channel, the recording ambience and the locations of the rest of the violinist are very apparent. In the right channel, the locations of the remaining violist, cellist are less specific in relation to the lead and the ambient clues are much less apparant. In an opera, when the singer is moving towards the back of the stage, the way the voice excite the boundary is apparent on the right but not so much on the left. I think these are due to increased THD in the right channel from inadequate antiskate. It obscured very subtle clues in the recording that provides the sense of space (boundary interactions, reverb).
I have used two triplanars, grahams in various length, centroid, dynavector 507, davinci, fidelity research and various cartridges. I find this relationship to hold true in most cases.
Regarding VPI various length with no antiskate, I have not owned them. I would share my experience with 12inch vs 9inch graham. I initially anticipated a lower antiskate setting on the dog leg when going from 9 to 12 inch. My anticipation came from less tracking error reduces skating force. While this is still true, the reduced skating force applies more torque towards the tonearm center from the added length. (Or the same setting on the dog leg applies less torque at the tip of arm). Reduced skating force but more torque ultimately landed me to the same setting at the dog leg.
I am still learning a lot of this and I may be wrong. All I am saying is that trying this method may yield better sound. Setting antiskate as a finally adjustment will lands you in the no to minimal antiskate setting because we just spent time optimizing everything without antiskate. Adding antiskate at the end is like throwing a wrench into it. VTF, azimuth, VTA needs to be redone to appreciate the advantages of proper antiskate setting.
(1) All I'm saying is skating force is proportional to VTF. The word "proportional" in a mathematical term only means that they increase or decrease in relation to one another, which relationship may not be perfectly linear.
(2) Just about any tonearm instructions I have ever seen from any manufacturer will advise setting AS at some value below that of VTF, so no one would argue with that, least of all me.
(3) Glai, I think it is more correct to say that MORE tracking error reduces skating force, not less. The whole reason we contend with skating force is because the headshell is offset at an angle to the arm tube to minimize tracking error. This is what generates the skating force. If the headshell is not offset at an angle to the arm tube, then there is no skating force but lots of tracking error. In a 12-inch tonearm, this effect is somewhat ameliorated compared to a 9-inch one. That was the rationale for the Nottingham 12-inch tonearm with no headshell offset.
I agree with you guys; I do use the very most minimal amount of AS necessary to overcome that R channel distortion and to give even channel balance. I am not sure what Glai was trying to convey in his discussion of imaging, but I think we agree; I hear the musicians kind of get squooshed together on the R side. My observation was made with my Triplanar, but I also observed similar phenomena with a Dynavector DV505. With the TP, I need to try the tiny O-ring idea.
I think the way in which the cartridge is a determinant of the need for AS is only due to differences in stylus tip shape and mass. Those factors affect groove friction. Groove friction and VTF are all that should matter, for a given offset angle of the headshell.
Thanks, Glai. I misread the USB oscilloscope. However, I am not sure I agree with everything you've stated because what we hear without the AS mechanism is an increase in detail, not less as would be the case if there was indeed some distortion taking place. The imaging and placement of artists in the soundstage tell me things are working very well. But I am not arguing that every Triplanar owner should do this. Some may like it, some may not.
I do agree with you that all of these adjustments are in relation to each other. I do not disengage AS to set the other parameters as has been recommended for many years. The more I listened and tweaked and learned I found I was getting just as good if not better results by taking them all into consideration at once.
Dan-ed: As long as a good effort has been made on re- adjusting VTF, SRA, azimuth to go along with the new increased antiskate setting, you heard what you like. One should always setup according to one's preference. Who can argue with that? I measures stuff to no end and I understand the importance of critical listening.
(1) To some people, proportional connotes linearity, two values can increase and decrease geometrically or exponentially and I personally would not call them proportional( not important if we disagree). I have spent them at Whiting school of engineering and if I remeber, you are also in the Baltimore/DC area with interests in virology. We did share some common ground. :^)
(2) I don't think I said anything about setting antiskate higher than VTF.
(3) "If the headshell is not offset at an angle to the arm tube, then there is no skating force but lots of tracking error."
Consider a linear tracking arm which the headshell is not at an offset. For your statement to be true, there would mean no skating force and maximum tracking error. How could that be?
When I was refering to tracking error increase skating, I was referring to the inner grooves.
This is my understanding. To be more specific with Lofgren and Baerwald, tracking error at the outer track reduces skating force. Tracking error at the inner tracks increases the skating force. Stevenson shoot for 0 tracking error at innermost groove to minimize skating at the inner most track.
I measure a lot also, but more from my crossovers and horns. I've about finished on that end so maybe I'll join you at some point measuring the source end. :-)
Glai, I guess I failed to express myself properly. When VTF goes up, skating force goes up (not down, which in my parlance would be an "inverse" relationship). Likewise, when VTF is decreased, skating force will decrease. This is on average, across the entire surface of the LP. The defense rests.
My point was that Palasr's report that he increases VTF to mitigate issues that arise when he decreases AS are contrary to the physics. But other things could be going on that contribute to what he is hearing.
Am intrigued about your comment that all carts sound better on the Talea with AS.I have had the AS doggy stick in place on my Talea sans any weight(I had removed the AS from the Triplanar and believe it sounded better). A brand new Lyra Titan i arrived recently as a replacement for a wounded Orpheus L.Am trying to tweak the Talea/Titan i combo to come close to sounding even half as good as the Talea/Orpheus pairing but am pretty underwhelmed.The 1/2 gm to 1/3 rd gm you mention I presume relates to the smaller of the 2 cylindrical A/S weights that come with the Talea?
Apologies for hijacking the thread.
Lewm, I am talking about an increase in VTF by a tiny amount - considerably less than a hundredth of a gram. At the same time, when we speak of measuring THD as it relates to AS what is it exactly we are hearing? I think on the TP, the AS dogleg contributes as yet another resonant bit (like the dampening trough) - I find its removal beneficial to the overall sound by removing a tiny (but noticeable) coloration to the presentation. At the same time, there is a slight loss of depth and gravity to instruments in the R channel, but I find that adding a slight amount of weight (like .004 grams) seems to firm up and add weight back to the presentation. Perhaps I am suppressing an increase in THD via VTF due to my removal of the AS entirely; maybe I'm actually increasing THD and I simply like it - again, all the factors of setup interact intimately with one other. Am I merely trading one type of coloration/distortion for another? Probably. I guess it all depends on which type of dirt you like the best, or find the least offensive - because ultimately, it's all a little bit dirty, a little bit colored. In fact, if the goal was a "perfect" coloration-free audio system, I think most of us wouldn't be sitting here discussing such minutiae, because listening would be rather boring and sanitized - look where digital has brought us.
Pradeep! Good to hear from you!. Alas, that Orpheus L was truly hard to beat.
I think I put two small o-rings in the hardware kit for you. That is what I'm using for AS weight now after recommendations from Joel and a few other owners. This was about the time I shipped the arm to you so I'm not sure of myself. One, two, or three o-rings, and it seems related to the mass of the cart. When it's right the sound becomes fuller, much like when azimuth is correct. Too much and it collapses back again.
Dear Glai, You wrote:
"Consider a linear tracking arm which the headshell is not at an offset. For your statement to be true, there would mean no skating force and maximum tracking error. How could that be?"
My response is... What? My statement IS true for pivoted tonearms. It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact. The case you cite is a red herring if every I saw one. Pivoted tonearms in principle present us with this dilemma of a trade-off between tracking error and skating force. Linear tracking tonearms avoid the issue altogether, but by their nature they present new and different issues, as I am sure you know.
I have never set up a Triplanar arm, but, with every arm I have set up, when doing antiskating adjustment by ear (using torture test records or just long term listening), the setting I find that works is MUCH lower than that which the arm manufacturer recommended. This has been the case with both Graham 1.5t and Phantom arms, for the Vector 3 arm, and SME IV arm.
I believe that VPI concluded that the antiskating mechanism itself causes more sonic harm than skating forces (more loose parts to resonate and muck up the sound), but, was forced by the market to add such mechanism to their arms.
I wonder if anyone would dare to apply surgery to their expensive arm to remove such devices totally to see if that improves the sound.
Lew: How about the Stevenson alignment used by dv507 (pivoted arm) which supposely put the null point at the innermost track? The advantage of this approach is to minimize tracking error and hence reduce skating.
Where can I read more about skating force?
Larry, that's what we've been discussing. Some of us ARE removing the AS mechanism completely from our Triplanars. Not much surgery really. Just a single cir-clip and set screw holding the thread.
I suspect our differences may rest on location of the groove and the terminology. Are you refering to the general schemes of different alignment? Stevenson have increased average tracking error across the record but less skate force at the innermost tract. L and B have less averaging tracking error but increased skating at the innermost track.
I am refering to the actual forces acting on the stylus at the innermost tract. The fact that Stevenson can feature least amount of skating at the inner groove is deal to minimizing tracking error at the inner most groove ( null point).
Where can I read more about skating?
Dear Glai, If you are asking me, try searching the Vinyl Asylum for discussions of skating force. Some pretty knowledgeable guys used to post on these topics, altho of late (the last year or two) most threads are about trivia. Or, try Google.
AFAIK, the various tonearm alignment geomtrys (Stevenson, Lofgren, Baerwald, etc), are about where to place the two possible null points along the path of the stylus from outer to inner groove, and to minimize average tracking error in between those two null points. (Where "null points" means points where there is zero tracking error. You can only have two of them in an arc traversed by a pivoted tonearm.) The Stevenson geometry happens to place the innermost null point closer to the spindle than any other standard geometry, which is why Stevenson is not commonly used any longer, or so I was led to believe; most tonearm designers favor placing the null points toward the outer groove for maximum fidelity. The various geometrys will affect skating force insofar as the optimum tonearm offset angle will be different for each geometry. I'd have to think more about that, though.
Dear Sunnyboy, Dan_ed:
The Titan i has a 3um x 70um stylus, with a major radius that is over twice as large as the Orpheus' 3um x 30um stylus (which I have prior experience with).
IME, the more aggressive stylus shape means that the Titan will most likely benefit from higher AS than the Orpheus.
hth, jonathan carr
Would you educate us on how various forces contribute to antiskate? How should one go about setting the correct antiskate?
Jonathan, thank you. That certainly makes more sense.