Installing a Dynavector 10x5 on a P3...What do I need?

Disabling the Rega dial should be fine since you are measuring actual tracking force with your scale. I would trust your scale more than the Rega dial, actually.

Anti-skate is supposed to make the arm pull away from the center of the record, so there is nothing wrong with observing that effect.

I trust the Hi Fi News calibration record so if it's telling you that the antiskate measurement has improved, I'd believe it. It never gives me any problem on my Rega using Baerwald, but who knows what differences may be present. At the end of the day, the sound quality difference between these alignment methods is on the order of 1 or 2 percent change, versus a major difference that you would observe by say, improving your cartridge as you have already done.

Happy listening!

Hukk

 

Don't be so quick to dismiss the recent input from KT88. It looked pretty sound. I'm betting KT88 could have had that 10x5 properly installed in a few minutes.

It looks like you're having fun with this project though. I appreciated the pictures you posted!

 

I have set-up a lot of Rega tables and used a lot of DV cartridges to do so. I can tell by looking at the arangement when it is "close" before I use the protractor to get it just right. Knowing when it is close saves a lot of time fiddling with them. I could go on quite a bit about how to get it in the ball park and then get it precisely done from there but it seems that my advice is not wanted in this case, nor the free tools which were offered to help. I am always glad to help those who want to be helped. If you are nearby and want to see what one looks like when properly set-up, you are welcome to visit our shop where there are always several on display.
-Bill

 

He can't tell anything. All you can tell from the photos is that it isn't set up using a Baerwald protractor. But using a Stevenson, it is set up correctly.

 

Sorry Ian, but that is not correct. You can tell by looking. It is based on a measurement afterall and that does not change. The only thing that changes is the stylus position. I would not be able to tell if it was very close, but when it is way off...

I have been doing this a long time and have installed many of these same cartridges on these same tables. I don't want to have you feel angered by this observation but I can't help you if you won't be open to the idea that it is not correct. If you feel that it is and that it sounds fine as it is, then by all means continue to enjoy it.

I am sorry that you felt insulted by my attempt to help you. That is specifically why I avoided the situation initially. I am now being made to feel regret for attempting at all.
-Bill

 

Why don't you get this explanation off your chest. Enlighten me. And without the commentary about how you feel bad for me or how people should just have their Rega dealer do cartridge installations. If you can do that, then it will be appreciated. If not, then there is no reason for you to post in this thread any further. Thanks.

 

Back to why antiskating was acting funny - did you check that Baerwald protractor by measuring the hash marks they provide? I only ask because some printers will print the thing out with distortions in length, which causes it to yield incorrect positioning.
Hukk

 

Hi Hukk. I appreciate you taking the time to think about this. Yes, the protractor was printed on a laser printer at 100%, and I measured the hash marks against a mm ruler. Everything measured where it should.

 

Everybody, this is very enlightening and useful. I see there is some disagreement, but I am personally open to and curious about the best way to set this up right.

I just purchased a Dynavector 10x5 for my P3 and am anxiously awaiting it. I am doing my best to absorb the knowledge being shared here and everybody's comments are providing something useful -- at least to me.

KT88...
any chance you can post a pix of what the position of the cart generally SHOULD look like?

I'd definitely appreciate it.

Danke schoen

 

Congratulations! An excellent choice. I did a long "recommendations" post earlier in this thread which may be helpful. Assuming you have your new 10x5 aligned correctly, (1) the biggest bang-for-the-buck in that post is resting your P3 on an Ikea Lack side table ($13) and (2) the biggest bang, period, is having the cart denuded (actually this is the biggest bang-for-the-buck, if you are brave enough to do it yourself).

Enjoy!
Hukk

 

What are the advantages or results of denuding? I have the 10x5 and would be curious how difficult this would be to do.

woody

 

What is it that "denuding" this cartridge will provide that I do not get in its stock form?

 

A noticeable increase in overall sound quality. More open sounding. "Faster" sounding. More musical and rhythmically compelling. Better bass, less congested mids, more extended highs. Bottom line, it ends up sounding like a cartridge you paid $500 for. After denuding, I would say the midrange equals and probably even beats the $300-pricier Dynavector 20xH.

As for how difficult it is to do, I do not know because I had mine done by the excellent service people at Audio Alternatives in Atlanta. I don't think it's a big deal (just a couple tiny screws, I think) but you would need to be verrrrrrrry verrrrrrrrry careful not to hurt the cantilever, which is really sticking out there on the 10x5, almost begging to be damaged.

Hukk

 

You know, I'm really tempted to try this!

I got my cart used, and I will FIRST get it installed on the RB300 and give it a listen. But for the price I paid, attempting to modify this cart MAY be an acceptable risk as long as it is not terribly difficult. I believe I can master moving slowly and being very careful -- but lots of odd parts and widgets and I'm likely to leave her alone.

Do you know of any "how to" or explanation on the web about denuding this cart? I have been unable to find anything aside from the description that it has had the protective cover removed.

 

Hi Ian,
First let me apologize for getting you upset. That was not my intention. I don't mean to ridicule anyone here or anywhere else. Sometimes typed words leave a lot of expression to be desired, especially in the interest of time. Second, let me apologize for jumping to a conclusion by not fully reading your post and then misreading the results. I believe that you are very close to being correct! I had initially noticed the cart being hopelessly off because of the overhang. I was assuming a Baerwald alignment, which is what is generally accepted as the most accurate and therefore the "correct" method. I have since looked at a couple of Stevenson's protractors that I have (I have a lot of Baerwald ones, including my own design) and I can see where your photo looks pretty close to that system after taking another look.

What confounds me is how you can get one to work well and the other to not unless you are doing something wrong. Since I had that in my mind and since I saw the photo of it being well off the mark for what I find to be the best suited alignment, I guessed that you had misread the guage or were using one not to scale, etc. I can see where the Stevenson's geometry would get you closer to where your cartridge is mounted, but I still can't see how you could get what sounds like unacceptable results with one, especially with the one which should provide better results. That is baffling.

It looks like your overhang is not quite far enough out even for a Stevenson's rig simply judging from the photo, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there as you are closer to your table ;-). If you want to try a Baerwald alignment again, you will find that it is barely achieveable on an RB series arm with the 10x5 due to their position of the cartridge mounting holes. You should have the cartridge vitually at the end of the mounting slots on the arm. A slight twist inwards and you are very close. I can't see any angle on your photo, but then I can hardly see one from a similar distance on a table in person. If you do not have your cart set-up near there, then it can't be correct for Baerwald. The key to getting it is the overhang. The correct overhang for a Rega arm is 17.5mm and that puts the 10x5 almost off of the arm. However, when it is set-up this way, it sounds wonderful to me and everyone else who I have talked to who also uses this method.

Really, I can't think of anyone else who uses Stevenson's much other than roy Gandy himself! The Rega protractor looks to be a derivative of that and gets inner groove distortion very low but most likely at the expense of the outer groove fidelity. So while I don't agree that the Stevenson's geometry or Rega's for that matter is the very best alternative, they are viable ones. The only question that I would have about your set-up in light of that is why you were not satisfied with the Baerwald and if you had gotten that done correctly. Maybe you forgot to readjust the arm balance in haste? I don't know. It's certainly not something that can be done very queckly for an A-B listen, you just have to go with what works best for you. Maybe your Stevenson's protractor is the most accurate? I give up; just call me stupid.
-Bill

 

Bill, I don't think you are stupid. Just rude sometimes. And I don't tolerate that from anybody. Now that you know, please take the time to be polite when you chat with me. If you do that, then we have no problems.

I'm glad you took the time to read this thread from the beginning now. Hopefully that will clear up some of your misconceptions. As you discovered, the photos are of a Stevenson alignment, and therefore represent a competent installation. It was the first cartridge I ever installed, so I don't expect to be an expert like you claim to be. But with the help of fellow forum members, and you if you are willing, I am learning a lot and am making changes as I learn about them.

Of course you can't tell from the photo, but the cartridge is positioned basically as you described it should be. That, and the fact that the stylus hits the 2 null points and is lined up with the alignment grid, give me confidence that it is installed correctly, even if not with the ideal type of protractor. I did not know about the superiority of the Baerwald protractor for the Rega until Hukk mentioned it in this thread. I tried it, and ended up with the cartridge, again, mounted just as you have described - all the way to the front and ever so slightly angled in. So I am feeling pretty confident that any problems I am encountering is not with the position of the cartridge on the tonearm. It must be a setting.

When I first set it up using Baerwald, I listened and thought it opened up the highs quite a bit. Actually, I know it did. I didn't test it because the Baerwald is so simple, I didn't think I could screw it up. But out of curiousity I used a test record the next day, and it did not perform well at all on tracking, and especially bias tracks. I was unable to eliminate or even balance out the distortion present using the slider on the Rega arm. Hukk recommended about a third of the way up the scale, and Rega recommends setting bias the same as the tracking force. I tried both and everything in between and I couldn't get an improvement. Although I thought it sounded nice with music, I was concerned with the test results and the safety of my vinyl, and thought it best to switch back to Stevenson because I felt confident my setting were correct and were not damaging my vinyl. Plus, it still sounds vastly better than the Rega cartridge I previously had mounted.

So that's where this stands. I am more than willing to give Baerwald another try if I feel I have a solution to the bias problem. I believe you when you say Baerwald is better. And obviously there are plenty of other people who like the Baerwald too. I hope I can get it worked out. If you have any suggestions I'm more than willing to listen (as long as it is polite).

Thanks.

 

Hey, I totally agree there. I didn't realize that I was being perceived as rude. Again, I can't convey everything that i feel in writing, so do understand that no disrespect or implications of incompetence was intended. I'll still gladly openly apologize for making it sound as if that were the case. I assure you that it never is, I just don't behave that way. I do speak rather bluntly often and i write like I speak, I just can't seem to insert the correct vocal tones when I am writing, oops ;-).

So, then you are definitely in the ballpark if you are up front with Baerwald and just ahead of middle (in relation the the adjustment allowed on the RB300 there). From what I can see, it looks like your overhang may be a mm too short still, but you can measure that better there. It's hard for me to say from here ;-). Stevenson should be about 15.5mm, whereas Baerwald is about 17.5mm. That means that you should only be 2mm or so apart and it just looks too far back still, but I'll let you determine that. I find it easier to set overhang first as there is less futzing around with the gauges from there. It becomes really just a nudge here and a twist there (and I am talking very minor changes) to get it just right.

You do need a good gauge and a good eye. You can only get it as close as you can see and as careful as you can be. I get a lot of customers who want me to do it just because they are not comfortable with that physical process, not because they don't understand it as it was explained. I'll post a picture of my Baerwald alignment here so that you get an idea of where it should be and others who have tried based on that will as well. Most all modern aligment gauges are based on it, so it's really sort of hard to find a Stevenson.

Try looking at the overhang first and then using the gauge for offset angle only. In theory, you can use only the null points and achieve the proper overhang when you arrive at the correct azimuth but it takes a lot longer period of trial and error and I would be afraid that people would either give up and settle on something "close enough" or get confused with their vision tiring and just not be able to see where it really needs to be. If that doesn't work for you, what can I say? ...I tried to help and it works for me. So here is the photo of one my 10x5's:

 

Bill:
Can you post a similar photo, but from an angle looking straight down on the 10x5?
Thanks!

 

I want to thank everyone who's posted in this thread for all the info. And thanks to Bill, in particular, for his posts on this topic.

I've been breaking in a new 10x5 on my Rega 'table for about a month (it has replaced my trusty 10x4 Mk. II). It's been sounding good, but ... for years now I've used the mirrored protractor from Turntable Basics for cartridge setup. I set up the new 10x5 with it when I got it, and then I looked at it last night after re-reading this thread yesterday (and lots of other threads here and elsewhere about overhang on Rega arms), and figured it was worth giving Bill's suggestion (moving the cart all the way forward in the headshell, then tweaking the horizontal alignment slightly using a two-null-point protractor) a shot. My cart was actually quite close to the front of the headshell to begin with, but it wasn't all the way forward so I figured my overhang might be slightly off.

I set my antiskate to 0; moved the 10x5 all the way to the front of the headshell; adjusted its offset angle using a basic two-null-point protractor (I printed out the one Bill has on his website, but used the one that came with my old HFNRR test LP instead because it seems to be designed identically ... and it has a pre-punched spindle hole); reset the antiskate; and played the test tracks on the HFNRR record, and the results were very good and as expected. The cart's placement in the headshell now looks just like that in Bill's photo above.

Then I sat down and played a little music and, although I wouldn't say the improvement was dramatic (as I say, things did sound very good previously), I thought the LPs I played sounded sweeter (and, I was pleased to find, less distorted on troublesome inner-groove tracks) than before.

Thanks again, all, for the information and tips. From my experience, I know it's easy to think you really have a good handle on how to do things when you've been in this hobby for a number of years ... but there's always something new to learn, or to try.

 

Does the DB Protractor use Baerwald or Stevenson?

Thanks

 

Oh, also, Bill, when you refer to the Rega alignment gauge, is it the same as that piece of thick paper/thin cardboard that would have come with the old planar 3 back in the mid '80s? I was using Rega cartridges back then & didn't worry about it, but when I went with a different brand, & needed more alignment, it seemed too primitive, so I went with that DB protractor.

Thanks

 

It's classic Baerwald.

Yep, the infamous cardboard wonder. I think it looks slightly different now but is much the same thing. It has the same design printed in French on the back. I believe it is a hybrid which was loosely based on Stevenson's geometry. More to the point, it's a bastardization ;-). I think the story goes that they started off with Stevenson's (probably because that's what they had) and then based on listening tests and moving the position around a touch to optimize those listening results on their subject table, using another unchanged from Stevensons as a way oy control. Probably what they found was that the only distortions that seemed very noticable or certainly really objectionable were those in the inner groove, so they moved the point closer to the pivot to reduce inner groove distortion. That's my theory anyway. All that I have heard for sure is that it was based on Stevenson's and listening tests.

I tried taking a couple of other photos but I got bad glare on the direct overhead (the one posted is really close) from the cartridge top or screw heads, which made it impossible to see clearly. When i tried a side angle, which normally looks nice, my overhead lights reflected badly in the album grooves. I didn't feel like removing the Lp or moving the table, it was all too much for one more shot. I went with the one that looks clear to me.

Basically, what you are seeing is the cartridge aligned per my instructions on my own protractor and by using that same protractor. I find it easiest to use (that's why I made it). I have other Baerwald protractors here including those from DB Systems (I actually stock those for sale), Linn, and one that I got from somewhere that is unmarked but I believe it was the first version of the one from the vinyl engine site. I also made a strobe disc for my customers and I see now that that fellow has as well.

For Stevenson, I have the vinyl engine template and a couple of the Rega ones which are much the same. Stevenson used 63.5mm and the Rega units use 61mm and now 60mm on the latest one that I have. Other protractors and gadjets that I had, I have since disposed of as they didn't ever see any use. In fact, I have become so accustomed to my own now, that I rarely use another. The more fiddly they were or the harder to read, the less use they received and I use them quite a bit.

For comparison, Baerwald uses 66mm for the inner point. As you can see, they are all pretty close as far as where the null point is, but that is only part of it. Because the arm travels in an arc, in order to arrive at the proper angle at these null points, the overhang must also change. Overhang is the distance from the center of the record spindle to the tip of the stylus location when aligned. The closer the alignment point to the center of the record, the shorter the overhang. This is also true of what is called effective arm length. The longer the arm, the greater the overhang and the more "flat" the arc is. Longer arms have that advantage but they also have the disadvantage of greater mass and the likelyhood of resonance. It must be more difficult to ensure rigidity in a larger arm as well.

I suppose the bottom line is that as long as you get the cartridge square with the groove wall at some median point on the Lp surface, you are better off than not! It is not possible to have it square all the way across and that is why these geometries were implemented. They found a couple of points that represent the average across the record. Get it wrong, and you are way off at some points and you will have some tracking problems. Weight also effects tracking but it's not as likely a cause of distortion at midband frequencies as higher frequencies.
-Bill

 

Success!

I started from scratch again today using a fresh Baerwald protractor downloaded from VinylEngine. This one had two null points like the Stevenson, which I felt better about. The previous Baerwald I used only had one null point.

The overhang and alignment look identical to my previous attempt to the naked eye. This time I set the Rega VTF dial to 2.0, and then moved the counterweight until the armtube was visually balanced. Then I used the Shure stylus force gauge to check it. It needed quite a bit of adjustment, but I made the adjustment with the counterweight until it balanced at 2.0 (with the Rega dial still set at 2.0).

I started bias tests at the 1/3 mark as was previously suggested. There was distortion in the right channel pretty quickly. I kept adjusting bias upwards until it is now very close to the tracking weight. This is where it ended up when I almost completely elimated distortion on the second-to-last bias track. It required very fine adjustment, going back and forth to find the perfect spot. Then I moved on to the final bias track and there was distortion as expected, but it was already balanced between the two channels, so I didn't need to adjust any further.

All tracking tests did great.

I'm not sure if it was the version of the protractor I used or if setting the VTF with a combo of the weight/Shure gauge and dial method made the difference. But it is testing well now and sounds great. Thanks to everybody who has offered suggestions.

 

oh la la----
you guys make it sound like rocket science!

A good tip that i cannot find a link to....is.....

Get a toothpick and tape it acroos the cartridge head (front) so that when you look down on it you can see if it is square ( this is harder to describe than do----i need a picture!!!!)

Someone posted it awhile ago and it was like a ureka moment for me--- so easy and works great.

I'll post a pic soon.

A lot of it is by eye line of sight----but i have always found it quite easy.

 

I think getting the headshell/cartridge aligned so it's square with your protractor is 90%.
Also having those 2 points is importaant so that it is aligned at different points/positions as it makes it's sweep across the record.

Glad you got it.

Once you've done it a few times it's easy.
Just check it every now and then with your test record and RESIST the urge to constantly TWEAK.
Enjoy the MUSIC-- that's what it is all about laddie.