Curved and Straight Tonearms

Dear @genesis168 : When you change the P to S tionearm distance ( in any arm. ) you are changing too the effective length and between some limit range on that alignment parameter number what you are doing is to increment or lowering the tracking distortion figure and tracking error too.

Using Löfgren A ( Baerwald ) and going from 245 ( FR spec. ) to 248.13 ( 231.5 ) means that you have a little lower distortion levels but you can play with those parameters and test for example: 256 on EL and this again will gives you lower tracking distortions figure and any one can do it. Obviously that we can do it between some limits due that the tonearms has a limited length and headshells too, so it’s only to make some tests to see where you can go with better results and I repeat you can do this for any tonearm that permits it.

We can do that it does not matters if we are using Löfgren A or B or Stevenson alignments.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear Nandric, Should I dip it in only the finest olive oil from Don Corleone?  I am loathe to disassemble precision devices that I may not be able to re-assemble properly.  In other words, my inclination is to let well enough alone.  I went through this dilemma with the L07J tonearm from my Kenwood L07D.  I was determined to upgrade the wiring and to create a continuous run from cartridge to phono stage, but I could not get the vertical piece of the arm structure to disengage from the horizontal piece, so as to get behind the one-of-a-kind Kenwood DIN plug and access the internal wiring.  I got it loose, but the two pieces would not give up their death grip on one another.  Rather than to risk total destruction of an irreplaceable item (as the bearings go rolling across my basement floor), I gave up. Discretion is the better part of valor, they say. Instead, I plan to run the new wire outside of the arm tube, totally bypassing the internal wiring.

Re position of the lateral counter-wt on the FR64S: I think I do have a copy of the owners manual, but I never consulted it as regards the lateral weight. I will do so now.

Dear friends: Stevenson made two different alignment solutions, one was A and the B that coincide with LÖfgren A ( Baerwald. ).

Almost all Japanese tonearm manufacturers choosed Stevenson over both LÖfgren alignmente solutions because  they want that distortions at inner LP grooves goes lower and audiophiles took it at the " best " alignment when IMHO it's not and makes no real sense.

Stevenson A reduce distortions at the very end inner grooves but in the other 9/10 of the LP grooves distortions goes a lot higher than both Löfgren solutions. For some of you this makes sense and that's what you like and is the way you are using the FR.

My take here is: why and how is it that any one could likes higher tracking distortions ( 9/10 of LP. ) ( this is a fact a measured fact not an opinion. ) than overall lower distortions with both Löfgren alignment solutions?

Any one can put some ligth about?  @lewm  @genesis168  or some one else?

@lewm / @genesis168 , a little help to understand: both of you are using 231.5 on P to S distance. The overhang that you are using is: 14.8 with an offset angle : 21.15°? or these parameters are different?

Thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

There is a reason why the Stevenson alignment exists. Yes it is universally known that the Lofgren had a lower overall distortion figure across "most of the playable surface" on the LP. Have you asked yourself why Not only use Lofgren then? We all know the most difficult part of the LP to track is the inner grooves. The outer and middle parts of the LPs are relatively "easier" to track compared to the inner tracks. If you look at the graphs Lofgren vs Stevenson the distortion figures at the inner grooves are way lower hence making it easier for the arm to track. Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track so if you need to choose your compromise then I'd rather take the lower distortion on the most difficult parts to track.

Also, for those who listen to large scale classical music, the crescendo almost always falls at the end of the side. So huge dynamic swings at the most difficult part of the Lp to track. That's why Stevenson works. 

I guess everyone has heard of inner groove distortions and not outer groove distortions so that explains something. Inner groove=difficult to track. 

I am not for or or against any type of alignment. They all work. Stevenson did do his homework and made his compromise. Try it and decide. No sense listening to second hand talk from others. BTW, there is this "new" curve called the Uni-DIN which I like. There is nothing new about it but just a set of compromises taken at the different points just like all the other alignment curves. 

Lastly, there is no use plugging numbers in speadsheet and trying to make sense  at distortion figures and curves. Numbers don't usually tell the whole story. Numbers won't tell you what will sound good or bad. It's just a guide. If you like numbers you should all go and buy some Japanese home theatre receiver.