Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!moncol!ben From: ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Linn/Naim seminar(results) Message-ID: <556@moncol.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 09:48:01 EST Article-I.D.: moncol.556 Posted: Thu Nov 7 09:48:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 03:46:39 EST References: <187@myrias.UUCP>, <242@polaris.UUCP> Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764 Lines: 25 >>1) The effect of a change in tracking force on the music. The claim >> is - increased tracking force is better. > >for what? not for record wear (though of course, too little is bad >too). any cartridge will track better at the higher end of the >recommended tracking forces, without exception. tracking better >automatically reduces various kinds of distortion. whether the record >wear is acceptable is another question. In most cases, record wear will be reduced by setting the tracking force towards the *high* side of the recommended range. As you said, any cartridge will track better at the high end of the range, and a cartridge that tracks better does less damage to the grooves. In nearly every case, the reduction of groove damage caused by better tracking will more than counter the increased wear of the slightly heavier tracking force. This is particularly true of some older cartridges. A few years back, manufacturers tended to suggest tracking forces that were less than optimal for their cartridges, since customers used these suggestions as a criterion for selecting a cartridge in the first place. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben