Free Rega Rb250 Mounting Template Programs
. Welcome to What's Best Forum! Please consider joining our friendly and helpful community of enthusiasts where we discuss the best in audio and video to everything else we love from food to movies and music.
We are proud of the professional conduct of our membership and strict moderation of the same, combined with high level of technical content shared by our members. If you want to learn and have fun doing it, or share what you know about our favorite hobbies without fear of antagonism, WBF forum is for you. Is free and fast, and allows you to post in the forum in addition to the system remembering where you left off in your favorite threads.
- An old debate? Rega mounting distance. I thought it was a simple task to ask the guy building my plinth (Russ Collinson) to bore the mounting hole for my RB3.
- More Free Rega Rb250 Mounting Template Programs images.
Sorry John, I did some searching and I could not find ir either (it was some years ago), I will try to explain how this counterweight worked: a) It was made from a different metal than the original one b) It was not 'centered', it was off-cenetered in order to have more weight at the bottom of the tonearm c) It had a small screww to attach it to the arm tube, instalation was really easy. As for the incognito kit, not sure if it had a Litz wiring, silver maybe? Here is what I found at the Incognito web page: Incognito Rega Arm Rewire Now also available with silver loom A one piece, cartridge clip to phono sockets tonearm cable, specifically designed for all forms of Rega based tonearms. The Incognito cable features a continuous cable run from cartridge tags to phono plug. The heart of the assembly is a gold plated aluminium slug, situated at the base of the arm pillar, to which all earths are connected, grounding the various components of the arm assembly without the use of additional ground wires. The external section of the cable is run through a Faraday cage assembly inside which, protected by a spiral polythene tube, run the left and right channel signal leads. Yuris rache windows 7 patch. The signal leads are therefore shielded, but held at a fixed distance from the screen.
Sorry John, I did some searching and I could not find ir either (it was some years ago), I will try to explain how this counterweight worked: a) It was made from a different metal than the original one b) It was not 'centered', it was off-cenetered in order to have more weight at the bottom of the tonearm c) It had a small screww to attach it to the arm tube, instalation was really easy. As for the incognito kit, not sure if it had a Litz wiring, silver maybe?
Here is what I found at the Incognito web page: Incognito Rega Arm Rewire Now also available with silver loom A one piece, cartridge clip to phono sockets tonearm cable, specifically designed for all forms of Rega based tonearms. The Incognito cable features a continuous cable run from cartridge tags to phono plug.
Mounting distance: 222mm. Please login or register a free account in the forum. There were some versions of the Rega RB250 counterweight that were made.
The heart of the assembly is a gold plated aluminium slug, situated at the base of the arm pillar, to which all earths are connected, grounding the various components of the arm assembly without the use of additional ground wires. The external section of the cable is run through a Faraday cage assembly inside which, protected by a spiral polythene tube, run the left and right channel signal leads. The signal leads are therefore shielded, but held at a fixed distance from the screen.I noticed there are two versions available-one copper rewire, the other silver rewire.
Is the difference in price worth the silver rewire kit? One of the biggest upgrades, IMO, that we did to the Pacific NorthWest Audio Society's turntable which has the RB250 arm was the Michell Technoweight. I don't know about re-wiring it with a kit, but I think that the new weight is great value for money.
Let me get my head around this for a moment Gary! A counterweight having that dramatic of an impact on performance? I never ever would have thunk it! I'm not sure however if I competely understand why. Could you eleborate on this when you have a moment? Some of the counterweights are known as 'drop' counterweights because it 'drops' the weight lower under the arm because the mass of the weight it hanging under the arm.
Personally, I woiuldn't attempt rewiring the arm yourself unless you are skilled at that sort of thing. You could end up screwing up the arm if you don't know what you are doing and make it worse than if you left it alone.I'm not very skilled in that regard, although it doesn't look to be overly difficult. I'll check with my dealer to see if he can get the kit and do the install. Let me get my head around this for a moment Gary! A counterweight having that dramatic of an impact on performance? I never ever would have thunk it!
Warn 8274 Mounting Template
I'm not sure however if I competely understand why. Could you eleborate on this when you have a moment?I wouldn't have thought so either.
But the Technoweight seemed to tighten the bass, solidify the image and even expand the soundstage. This was with a Benz Micro Wood cartridge. The club had owned the turntable (a Rega P5) for years, and used very lightly because the members didn't like how it sounded. One day, I took it upon myself to take it back for a month and see if it was just set up badly. The Technoweight was something I had used before, and I bought one for the club. The improvement was quite dramatic - the most noticeable of which was the improvement in the bass. Quick Navigation.
Site Areas. Forums.
I would follow the advice given by Steve in that thread. Take a record with a trail off and set the anti-skate to that, the RB's anti-skate will probably not match up to your tracking weight, it will be more or less. The only way to tell is to do the dead wax test. Of course, some don't think this is the best test for anti-skate, but it is a good place to start.
Make sure when you mount the 103 to an RB arm that you don't over tighten the cart to the arm. Even better: make a little shim of veneer to go between the cart and the arm. The 103/RB combination is popular but not a perfect match. The 103 does best in a two-piece arm, it has a tendency to chatter when mounted on an RB, this can be overcome somewhat by not over tightening the cart to the arm.
I would follow the advice given by Steve in that thread. Take a record with a trail off and set the anti-skate to that, the RB's anti-skate will probably not match up to your tracking weight, it will be more or less. The only way to tell is to do the dead wax test. Of course, some don't think this is the best test for anti-skate, but it is a good place to start. Make sure when you mount the 103 to an RB arm that you don't over tighten the cart to the arm. Even better: make a little shim of veneer to go between the cart and the arm. The 103/RB combination is popular but not a perfect match.
The 103 does best in a two-piece arm, it has a tendency to chatter when mounted on an RB, this can be overcome somewhat by not over tightening the cart to the arm. Like I said: a place to start. You go on to say that you should listen to a mono record, why is that? Probably because setting the anti skate on a RB arm at the exact same weight as tracking force is not the ultimate anti-skate measurement.
You will never get the ultimate anti skate setting with this type of arm, it's not one of it's strong suits. Maybe the guy who started the thread should have all the options presented to him and let him hear with his ears with his own experimentation. He may find that the dead wax thing works better to his ears then just setting a dial at a set weight and who knows he may decide to adjust per record, people do crazy things like that. The important thing is to not be too dogmatic about what one does, it's better to try a lot of different approaches and find the path that works for you. Most importantly for him is the mounting of the 103 itself to the arm.
Click to expand.No argument there. I stated that he could use a mono record to test the accuracy of the setting he set using the scale on the arm, since he seems to be curious. I think that he will find it to be very close.
The most important part of my response was that there is never any one setting that will work optimally for every record. It is ridiculous IMO to adjust Anti-skating for each record, just as it is VTA. So what you are doing by setting the anti-skating adjustment is find an average setting that works most well for most records. That's kinda hard to do when using a single test record, don't ya think?.
I think that you will find many, many others who agree that dead wax is not the best way to set anti-skating as it has no groove modulation and thus lower resistance than a groove with music on it. In short, if you want to test it with a record, I'd use a mono and actually listen to it, setting the skating to center the image between the speakers. That will set it correctly for that record. If you can repeat that with a variety of records, you'll have an average that should be about right. I think that Rega has already done that for you when they set the scale on the anti-skating control, but it can't hurt anything to experiment briefly. It might cause uneven record wear to set it improperly however. Click to expand.Yes, exactly.
There is no one setting that is optimal. Anti-skating will always be a compromise of some sort.
The amount of anti-skating needed varies with the position of the stylus on the record (beginning, middle, end of side), intensity of the recording (more needed if the recording is cut hotter), stylus shape, and other factors. Trying to find the 'right' setting could drive one crazy.
Trust me, I know about that. In the end, I've found that the manufacturer's recommendation offers the best compromise. Interestingly, whenever I've found that significantly more or less anti-skating was needed, there's actually been a problem with that particular stylus or the tonearm. Click to expand.Hmmm.
Well, maybe in an ideal world the record would begin where it left off. In reality, if it does that, you either have a cuing device that very accurately captures and holds your arm in position all the way from and back to the groove (yeah, right;-), or your arm bearings are a bit sticky. Otherwise, you have zero anti-skating set on your arm. The reason that the arm drifts when it's in the air is that it sees no resistance from the groove. So the force that is being used to counter that resistance (anti-skating adjustment) is the only force applied and the arm moves sympathetically with that force. The anti-skating system doesn't know if the arm is in the air or in the groove and exerts force in either case.
It is designed to be set and used when the arm is down with the stylus in the groove and then keeping the arm stabilized against the record grooves pull to the center of its vortex. 'Oh No Dorothy, there goes Toto!' Well, maybe in an ideal world the record would begin where it left off. In reality, if it does that, you either have a cuing device that very accurately captures and holds your arm in position all the way from and back to the groove (yeah, right;-), or your arm bearings are a bit sticky. Otherwise, you have zero anti-skating set on your arm. The reason that the arm drifts when it's in the air is that it sees no resistance from the groove. So the force that is being used to counter that resistance (anti-skating adjustment) is the only force applied and the arm moves sympathetically with that force.
The anti-skating system doesn't know if the arm is in the air or in the groove and exerts force in either case. It is designed to be set and used when the arm is down with the stylus in the groove and then keeping the arm stabilized against the record grooves pull to the center of its vortex. 'Oh No Dorothy, there goes Toto!' Based on my Rega Planar 3, I disagree with the set it to match the tracking force thing. That's overdoing it to my ear. Also, if you have a cartridge that needs to track over 2 grams or so, the anti-skating scale runs out of space (well, mine only notes a figure up 'til 2) - what happens to the 1 to 1 thing then? Maybe the #'s on the scale aren't so accurate?
I don't know, but I do know that in my experience, 1 to 1 based on this scale doesn't sound good. Get the Hi-Fi News Test LP, or whatever you like that has tracks to help set anti-skating. Put on ear/headphones - I've found it helps to turn the volume down to a realtively low level. If you're using the Hi-Fi News LP, go through the tracks at the end of side 1 sequentially. As you're tweaking the force and anti-skating, try to make any distortion go away.
While there is distortion present, get the distortion to basically balance between the channels. Adjust tracking force and anti-skate as needed. Hopefully you can get at least track 3 of the 4 to play without distortion - if you do, track 4 will probably be damn near impossible to track cleanly, but at least try to make the distortion balanced when playing it. Then make any tiny tweaks by ear with music, if things don't sound right. Click to expand.It's the same for all arms and cartridges.
You follow the mfr's instrucions and then you adjust by ear if you can hear any difference. Most people cannot hear any difference even if it's off by.5 gram or more but then some can. Not all records are the same and so it gets tricky.
You might be able to hear it on one but not another. So what I recommend is to just set it at the proper force according to the tracking so that it counteracts that force as it was intended. If you want to try and fine tune it by ear, I find a mono record to be the easiest to hear a difference in. You are not listening for slight drifting or tracing distions then, but a clear shift in channel balance. Once you get the image centered, then the force is correct. Here is the rub: Not all records have the same modulation levels, so just because you have set it perfectly for the mono track that you just listened to, you might find it a bit off on another record, and then back on another, etc.
It's a dynamic situation. So rather than go nuts over something that is unobtainable (it really is like a puppy chasing his tail - it's fun for him until he tires of it and becomes frustrated;-), just rest assured that the manufacturer has already done this excercize for you and set it per their spec. That is almost always 1:1 gram of tracking force for gram of anti-skating force. The only odd-ball system that I can think of off hand (there are probably others) that doesn't have a calibrated scale they devised from a known force, is the VPI which relies on 'dressing the tonearm cable' to create an unknown and temporary amount of force. Now, that you would have to listen to and would be tempermental as heck. Another more rough approximation is the Project method of using the weight on a string. It can't be made as accurately as a dial and spring or dial and magnet system simply because of how the thing works, tying a knot in exactly the same spots every time is not repeatable.
Plus the adjustment ranges are pretty crude as well, but I'll say that it's at least a scalable system and once you get it where you want it, it stays put. The Rega design is a frictionless, non-contact, magnetic system.
I agree with MMM, the obvious problem for Decapg is that 103's should track at 2.5 grams to 2.8 grams to be effective, which if I remember correctly on the RB 250 it doesn't dial up that high. The follow the manufacturer's recommendation mantra wears thin if you think about all of the myriad combinations of arm/table/cart that are possible. It's impossible for the manufacturer to take this into account nor should they have to, it's up to us as listener's to do some work on our own and reach some conclusions. Plus following the manufacturer's recommendation gets boring, think for yourself, experiment a little. It's boring to never make mistakes or try something different, you never learn if you don't try stuff. Click to expand.The Rega arms all incorporate a bias adjuster (anti-skating) which is continuously adjustable from 0 - 3g.
It has no 'clicks' or detents along the way but rather operates smoothly. A couple of things may lead to some confusuion. The sliders in the RB100, RB250 arms and all older versions of the RB series have only the numbers 0 - 1-2 embossed on the bias housing.
The new RB301, RB701 and RB1000 only have markings for 1 and 2 with no numbers embossed or stenciled anywhere. So it takes a little bit of understanding of the system to know how to use it properly. That is what your dealer is for.
The zero is left off of the better arms as it's really a bit obvious and of course goes unused in practice. The other thing is that the actual scale extends beyond the numbers and it's logarithmic. That means that what is beyond 2 is 2.5 and 3 but they are not clearly indicated with numbers. You can easily see how the scale becomes compressed as it increases in force by looking at the relative distances between the 0 and the 1, then between the 1 and the 2. This is because the magnet used has a greater force as it nears its target on the arm base. So it doesn't take much movement beyond the 2 indicator to near 3g of force.
The scale is used as a guide and the actual mechanism is completely free from friction in any direction and continuously adjustable. That allows one to fine tune the adjustment by ear should they wish to do so. The scale which is indicated by numbers and or lines, allows users to adjust the system by sight, set and forget it. Not to beat this to death but I would say that it is confusing to tell someone that all you do is set the anti-skate to the same number as your tracking weight and then to forget about it. If the scale is exponential, which makes sense, than setting it to the same number would not be accurate.
I remember that the setting I used when tracking my 103 was way less than 2 on the scale, so you're right, it must be exponential. So where does the guy that tracks at 2.8 set his scale?
My point is that, as a listener, to get the optimal setting multiple methods have to be employed and the listener will have to make some effort to ensure that the anti-skate is set correctly as any other change to the arm will effect this setting as well. It would be impossible to set for a 103 by sight, if the scale is exponential and doesn't go up that high. Where on the scale should he set it, a hair past one, but a smidgen behind 2? Not to beat this to death but I would say that it is confusing to tell someone that all you do is set the anti-skate to the same number as your tracking weight and then to forget about it. If the scale is exponential, which makes sense, than setting it to the same number would not be accurate.
I remember that the setting I used when tracking my 103 was way less than 2 on the scale, so you're right, it must be exponential. So where does the guy that tracks at 2.8 set his scale? My point is that, as a listener, to get the optimal setting multiple methods have to be employed and the listener will have to make some effort to ensure that the anti-skate is set correctly as any other change to the arm will effect this setting as well. It would be impossible to set for a 103 by sight, if the scale is exponential and doesn't go up that high. Where on the scale should he set it, a hair past one, but a smidgen behind 2? Click to expand.Hi Chad, Wow, you really are splitting hairs here. I don't think that you fully understood what I meant when I said the scale was exponential.
It is really super easy. You are over-analyzing it. The magnetic force has a density that behaves logarithmically in its strength, but so is the scale embossed on the bias housing logarithmic as to coincide with the force in a 1:1 relationship.
So, even though the thing isn't laid-out equally like a ruler, you can still see where the 1 is in relation to the 2 and set the scale at 1.5 for instance by setting it in between the numbers. I think that I see where you are going with it, in that the actual 1.5 force would be somewhere just on the 2 side of half-way.
Well, that sounds about right. Although, it will be so close that most people cannot hear a difference. So even a sighted adjustment with no further listening would be just fine for satisfying 90% of the folks out there. Audiophiles are never satisfied, so we can just assume that they will not be happy with any setting;-). Also the same simple principle applies to the scale above the 2g position. Just look at the scale and you can see a relationship between how far the slider is moved and what the result will be.
You can always have your dealer demonstrate it. It is so easy to set and reset with repeatable results that I could demonstrate several settings for someone and have the thing reset where I had it, all within a few seconds. I think that I have drawn out long enough for everyone a very simple process and it should be pretty clear for all to visualize by now. It seems to be getting confused by all the attempts at posing various problems for it. It is really so simple that there isn't anything to be mistaken about. In short, if you don't trust it for some reason or if you just want to listen for yourself without feeling the confines of a visual scale, then by all means just listen and set the thing willy nilly until you feel vindicated. Really, I am just having some fun with your observations and attention to detail, Chad.
No offense at all intended. I do and have recommended that people listen to a mono recording to try and fine tune it if they feel that they can do that more accurately. If they can't hear a difference, then I suggest the visual setting per the factory instructions to avoid record wear by an incorrect setting. Not everyone has the patience to do the multiple records and trial by ear thing and so could not be bothered with it. You may have missed the bit about each record being a little different as well.
That is a fact and since it produces a different amount of skating drag on the stylus, a different amount of anti-skating force is needed to accurately offset that. In short, one setting that is 'correct' is impossible.
You have to find a median and by using any one test reference, even an actual record and listening to it and getting that to what you consider to be sonic nirvana, you cannot guarantee that it will bear any better performance than the factory default setting when you plop on the next selection which will present your turntable a completely new set of drag forces. Feel free to continue to ponder the significance of that dynamic relationship, but like Forest Gump, that's really 'all I have to say about that'. Cheers, Bill.