I've been using a sKale on my Aro for a couple of years now initially with a 17D3 and lately with a Proteus on the sharp end. The results have been a little inconsistent with the cartridge seeming very sensitive to minor adjustment on the tracking force (TF).
I bought a 3 place stylus balance to help try pin it down but it's not consistant enough showing a difference of 0.04g reading between the front and rear of the target spot but it will show differences if not moved between readings.
I was adjusting the sKale for a higher TF by holding the stub and applying a little pressuer with the fingernails so as not to disturb the azimuth setting, lifting the Aro off its cup whilst doing so, for a lower TF I'd lift the stub by putting a finger under it and pulling back on both sides of the sKale trying not to lose the azimuth setting, the shaft of the Aro resting on its rest in both cases. Adjusting like this gave the impression that the difference between rather flat and full of life and bounce was a very small adjustment and the inaccuracy of the balance meant it was hard to be sure what the TF actually was.
The 3 O rings inside the sKale are a tight fit on the arm stub but relatively loose in their grooves and what I think was happening was that the arm was singing when they were centred in thier grooves but a little flat when constrained at one end or the other and that the apparent micro adjustments that made all the difference were centering the O rings.
I was led to this conclusion whilst refitting my Proteus after a demo of a Well Tempered Versalex. the Versalex was very good and bettered my deck on the day for body and timing but I had a memory of my deck sounding better than on that occation. Before the Versalex demo I'd adjusted the sKale the old way and got the dynamics to some extent but at too low a TF so my deck sounded too lightweight, the timing wasn't helped by the rather old belt I'm using.
Reassembling I tried another way of adjusting the sKale. This time after oving the sKale I'd rotate it back and forth a couple of times to centre the O rings before setting the azimuth, there was much overshooting but this time I was moving the O rings on the stub and not just the sKale on fixed O rings and most importantly the O rings were able to decouple the sKale properly. The arm really sings when set like this but it's a right pain trying to change TF a tenth of a gram or so as it overshutes hugely when you get the O rings moving on the stub and you go back and forth past the target several times before getting lucky.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by tonym
Thanks for a very interesting post Mr yeti. Can't say I've noticed the effect on mine but maybe I should experiment. I wonder if it might be a good idea to lubricate the rings with a very light oil, one that won't affect the rubbers.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by yeti42
Between the standard weight and the sKale I found a reduction in noise floor but I've only done this comparison with the 17D3 in place, I'd be guessing at the difference with the Proteus but it is a lot more revealing than the 17D. I've removed the spring arm and screw from the counterweight stub so it's not a trivial matter to compare. I'm content that removing the low pressure metal to metal contact is of benefit. Incidently I tried the elevator too and it undid most of the benefit of the sKale as judged using the 17D so that's back in its box, I'll have to try it again some time.
A bit of lubricant would make it easier to adjust but I suspect you'll be forever readjusting, particularly the azimuth.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by fatcat
Yeti.
Perhaps you should ask other users if their conterwieghts are a loose fit on the O Rings. If not, return it to the supplier and ask for a replacement.
It could just simply be down to machining the the groove diameter slightly to big. Easily done.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by Steve J
The best way to lubricate the O rings, as told to me by Peter Swain, is to breathe on them, as you would a pair of glasses you want to clean. The condensation produced is enough to help with positioning.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by fatcat
Steve
Yeti is saying his counterweight is a loose fit with the o rings. They grip the arm tube but not the counterweight.
Is your counterweight a loose fit on the O Rings.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by fatcat
Steve
Yeti's O Rings are also a snug fit on the armtube.
But, the O Rings are not griping the counterweight. Does your counterweight grip the O Rings.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by yeti42
I should have called this thread "a matter of sKale". I'm not complaining, just reporting a new insight, for me at any rate, it may well come under "no shit Sherlock" for others using a sKale. I've been strugling with inconsistant results for the last two years and think I've finally worked out what's going on.
The sKale is designed so that the O rings have a tight grip on the stub (unless recently breathed on) but only a loose grip on the counterweight, if the counterweight is pushed up against one side of the O rings as it is when a gentle pressure is used to move a it fraction it's gripped tighter, sort of wedged in, but the dynamics take a nosedive. When the O rings are centred in their grooves they grip the sKale less tightly, still tight enough that the azimuth can be set but the mass of the sKale is decoupled to a greater extent from the arm resulting in much better dynamics, macro and micro and a greater sense of musical flow.
Posted on: 23 November 2015 by Chris Dolan
My sKale is definitely not loose - it's nicely snug and needs to be removed very carefully on the odd occasion that it does need to be removed.
I would love to try a Proteus though 
