Nagaoka MP-200, Technics SL-1210GR, & Tonearm Height

Disagree about what part?

 

As far as I could understand, you disagree that his first hand experience is more trustworthy than a home made ABX test that he could conduct himself with the help of friends or family. That's fine.

 

Yes, of course.

 

Just to confirm, you are using the stock Technics headshell?

More-so than the guidelines given in the manual, I would start with whatever setting puts the tonearm level with the stylus in the groove. I would think that may be anything from 0 to 1 for a cartridge that size. Then set VTF and see how that sounds. You can fine-tune both VTA and VTF to make things sound thinner or fatter, and neither should damage records if you’re within the recommended VTF range and you aren’t deviating wildly on the VTA (which you won’t be within the 0-1 range on the dial).

The correct answer is to measure the angle of the cantilever relative to the record surface to match what Nagaoka gives in the specs (hopefully that is listed in the specs included with the cartridge, as I’m not finding it quickly online). However, I find that difficult to measure, and I don’t think that’s as important as how things sound. Most cartridges should be manufactured to at least be close to the specified VTA with the tonearm level, anyway.

 

Correct, I wanted and expected it to sound better set to 1. It didn’t. I tried it again hoping I’d get used to it, and no. It’s set back to 0. Leon, you’re talking theory, not reality in this case.

 

Major variable. Are you using the rubber mat? If so, sound reasoning. Slip mat or alternative mat from stock rubber mat will affect tonearm height adjustment baseline.

 

Setting the height by ear is OK.

 

Even a “fat” elliptical has a longer contact area that can change angle, as opposed to a conical that is basically just a circle of contact at virtually any VTA. I don’t see any reason why changing angle by a quarter of a degree wouldn’t have some perceptible effect. Plus, OP has observed it, as well as his wife and kid who likely have no idea what VTA is.

 

No, Im talking logistics and math. I like how no one has asked me yet why it is that I come to my conclusions.

Yes conicals make virtually no difference, and the Nagaokas are near Conical in shape. Im aware the people claim they hear something, Ive never said they didnt.

 

There is no problem with your math. The disagreement is whether 0.25 degrees makes a perceptible difference in sound. How do you come to the conclusion that it doesn’t?

I know the MP-200 stylus is a .4 x .7 elliptical, which is certainly fatter than a more typical .3 x .7, but I am also curious how you figure that is “near conical” as it is still nearly twice as tall as it is wide.

 

Here is an "interesting" article on VTA. Of course some folks around here may find it "controversial".

Exposing the VTA myth? [English]

 

Im glad you asked. Record thickness, warps, even groove modulations change the SRA and VTA constantly. If a difference of 0.25 degrees is actually heard then isnt it strange that the degree changes occurring with any of those factors, sometimes all 3 at the same time, are not a concern?

Its .15μm away on the front and back from a true Conical. What do you mean about its height though?

 

I mean the shape of the contact area. It’s taller than it is wide, unlike a conical, which is basically a circle.

Regarding differences in record thickness, they don’t generally vary by a full millimeter (they probably can, if you have some super-thin old records and some of the thicker 180/200 gram records, but those are the extremes). However, there certainly are people who are concerned about that variance, hence the existence of VTA on-the-fly, or people adding a second mat to play thin records. Warps absolutely have an effect on sound, part of which can be the SRA/VTA fluctuation. Groove modulations aren’t going to be that big, given that there is not anywhere near a millimeter for the stylus to move up or down in the groove.

 

No, not from what Ive seen in diagrams. Ellitpicals actually have a smaller contact area than conicals. But please share whatever you have on the height of Ellipticals contact area.

I dont know how record thickness generally varies, but they certainly can vary by quite a bit from Dynaflex to 200 gram slabs as you said. I have lots of both anyway. And yes Im aware that some do VTA changes for each record. I find it funny that pretty much no one thinks of this either and only do it when someone points it out to them. However the point was about why this isnt heard already, or if it is, isnt a concern.
Warps are something which we all experience, if its heard because of SRA or other factors is debatable of course, but even then with the small to quite big SRA/VTA changes its usually not too audible at least for me. Maybe I dont have records that are warped enough.
How big is "that big" however? We are talking of changes less than half of 1 degree here. And what changes is the drag causing the cantilever to lean up and down. Which is one critique of SRA installation with digital microscopes, as its set on a stationary surface.

 

Yep, stock rubber mat on the Technics, stock headshell. Nothing custom as I want it the way Technics intended. The only thing I adjusted was the height. I didn't adjust anything else and I didn't turn the volume down when adjusting so it wasn't that either. So, same everything aside from setting the height between 0 and 1. And set at .5 I did not hear a difference so that was interesting.

 

And I'm sure the math (and physics) would show why there is an audible difference in my case.

 

This table shows exactly what I am talking about. The elliptical has an L1 measurement that is almost twice what the L2 measurement is. That creates an oblong area that can be tilted. It is of course not as as much so as the line contact examples shown, but it’s till more than the conical (which is the same measurement both directions). I will also concede this shows a .3 mil radius, not .4 mil as the MP-200 has. I still doubt it’s a circle.

I don’t disagree that SRA moves around as a record plays, and that it may not make sense to align with a microscope, etc. However, if OP (and his family, who, again, likely don’t know what any of this stuff means and are as close to a blind test as he may really get) hears a difference with a 0.25 degree change in SRA (which is a rough calculation, anyway, because it’s not as simple as changing the complimentary angle of a fixed line), then I would suggest that means 0.25 degrees is a significant enough difference.

 

Are you talking about 3.8 and 4.5? I admit I did look at it wrong before, thinking that the 5 mil conical was the Elliptical. But how is 0.7 a 50% increase in contact height?
Or are you talking about the bottom numbers, because I dont think that is in regards to height specifically.
But again, Ive never said that it makes no difference. And I agree that Elliptical styli are more sensitive to SRA than conicals as said earlier. The point of contention is in the amount.

The point of an ABX test is not that the subject is simply unaware of what they are listening to but that you repeat the test with random change to see if they can identify whats in question with consistency.
If the test is done properly and it is consistent then yes, I would agree that its audible.

 

I see 2.5 x 4.5 under the elliptical. L1 is how tall the contact area is in the groove, L2 is how wide. I would consider a 5:9 ratio almost twice as much, close enough for the sake of this point.

And I understand the OP’s wife and child noticing a difference is not the same as ABX testing, but it’s as close as most people are going to get/bother doing in their homes. Corroboration of three people hearing the same thing before and after a change is close enough for anyone’s purpose who isn’t trying to publish research, especially when the change at hand is just a VTA adjustment and not something with any money at stake.

 

Yes, were we not just speaking of how tall it is, as in L1?
3.8 x 3.8 is more as well. Am I missing something?

I get that most wont bother with it. But really, its not hard to do. Takes maybe 10 minutes if one is efficient.
Bottom line is, I care about if something is true or not. Some dont, and thats okay.

 

Yeah, it sounds better at 0 because it's a 17mm tall cart not 18mm. Therefore the cart is level at 0 and tail high at 1 setting. In other words you have the cart in compliance with Technics scheme, so you are getting the best result not for being off the chart but for being on it.

 

I am talking about the shape of the contact area of an elliptical versus conical profile. One is a circle, one is oblong. The circle is the same contact no matter how much you tilt it; the oblong will be oriented differently by tilting it, which can affect frequency response as it will change how deep the stylus is reaching in the groove and how evenly it is contacting the different frequencies. It’s not as much as a fine line profile, but it’s certainly not “near conical in shape.”

I understand you are defining “true” as empirically measured or scientifically proven, but the way you are arguing this makes it sound like you think OP and his family are just imagining things.

 

It would be very easy for OP or anyone with a MP-200 to just measure and confirm this. Digital calipers = one of the best $6 purchases of my life.

 

That's an awesome deal you got. I use a dial caliper, and it's good. I think it cost about$60 which I thought was a good deal.

 

It’s a cheapo (I just looked, currently closer to $9 on Amazon), and I wouldn’t suggest it’s fit for serious laboratory use, but it sure is handy. Certainly it would tell us whether a MP-200 is closer to 17 or 18 mm.