Shure V15 - Very Nice Indeed

Someone there has to know the answer--it's just a matter of finding the right person. Engineering department?

 

Forgive me if this question has already been answered...

What setting do you use for anti-skating?

1.0 or 1.5 ?

Logically it would be "1" since that is the effective VTF .....but is that what all of you are using?

 

Ben: my tonearm isn't even calibrated for anti-skating--on mine, I have to move a tiny counterweight on a small suspended shaft. And I've found on other turntables that the anti-skating setting doesn't necessarily match the tracking force. (That's the theory behind it anyway--a 1.5 gram tracking force should result in a 1.5 anti-skating setting.) I've used my Shure V15 obstacle course LP to assist with setting the anti-skating (it's adjusted for the same amount of minimal distortion in both channels, which implies the stylus is contacting each groove wall with equal force). A non-grooved record comes close.

I don't know what effect the brush has, but the fact that the brush AND the stylus are contacting the moving vinyl, which causes the tonearm to naturally draw itself inward toward the spindle, might lead me to think the setting should be higher than the "effective" net force at the tip.

 

Thanks Rudy. I don't have the obstacle course LP, but I'll try a groove-less record and see what happens.

 

Grooveless may not be perfect, but I've found it's pretty darned close to the obstacle course LP. I occasionally see the Shure LPs on eBay for not too much money. Just have to be sure to buy the correct one. I should scan mine and post it for reference.

 

Here's another oldie but goodie: the Telarc Omnidisc. I set my antiskate, as per the LP instructions, by playing a stereo IM test track that had a tone cut at an increasing velocity and adjusting antiskate so the distortion appeared in both channels at more or less the same time. Worked very well. I have no idea whether Omnidiscs ever show up on Ebay, but it's worth a try.

 

Wow...that's a title I haven't heard of in awhile!

 

Are you guys running your cartridges with the brush in place? I was under the impression that this was some sort of stabilizing device for extreme circumstances that could be moved out of the way and not used for normal playback, thus resulting in better sound.

 

Prix,
I think Shure intends it to be run 'with'. It seems to have various functions: stability, anti-static, etc.

I asked VPI--the turntable manufacturer--and they said 'ignore the "no brush" comments on the internet (which I had read). VPI likes the V15. And they said when run through the oscilloscope they got a virtually flat reading WITH the brush.
And suggest running it that way. Although he said it would still sound good even run less than optimally (without).....

Mark

 

I run mine with the brush down at all times. It is also partially a safety device...if you drop the tonearm onto the vinyl in a clumsy moment, the brush dampens the fall. Even on flatter vinyl it also cuts down on some of the woofer fluttering.

Discwasher used to sell a little piston device that attached to a headshell that did the same thing. Would still have had mine if it didn't get bent in the last move.

 

According to Shure, the cartridge is supposed to sound better without the brush.

 

And just about everyone who has reviewed the V15V agrees!

 

What Rudy said.

 

ooops, wrong thread.

 

The brush is also there to dampen the low frequency resonance of the arm assembly. Most critical with higher mass arm assemblies. You can literally see the stylus move up and down in the grove if this resonence is present and not dampened. This too helps the cartridge track at a lower tracking force.

Richard.

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

Another vote for brush down. I leave it that way all the time.

 

So nobody is concerned about the brush "playing" the record and the fact that you can hear it?

 

To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard that kind of "microphonics" with the brush down. I've worried about it, but never actually heard it. Anyone else?

 

I had noticed this for a while. When using headphones, I could hear the brush play the record when the brush touched down first when the tonearm lowered. And it would increase when I turned up the volume. So it's both acoustic and electrically playing the record, it would seem.

 

Actually, come to think of it, I had noticed what I took to be a little extra pre-echo from time to time at the beginning of an LP. Guess I'm hearing the brush, too. Time for some A/B tests.

 

That would actually be a post-echo. The brush hits the grooves after the stylus does. But yes, you might hear other grooves from the brush while the stylus is in the lead-in wax at the beginning.

 

Yes, that's true, but that's not what I meant, exactly, which is why I specified "beginning."

Yes, that's what I meant. The brush is wider than the stylus, yes, and would thus be able to contact the grooves and "play" them before the stylus got past the lead-in wax and got to work. And wouldn't also hold true during play afterwards? which if so means that one could have a veritable festival of pre and post-echo.

 

Just kidding on the post-echo thing, Gardo.

The only way I'm going to be able to hear this is by listening through headphones, at high volume. Might be an interesting project for this evening.