SAEC 308N vs 308SX

Dear Geoch, You bring up an interesting topic. I have read elsewhere that the ideal geometry for the SAEC is "unusual", but no one says what it is. Is it Stevenson type? I learned from trying to use Baerwald with my Dynavector DV505 (which IS designed for Stevenson) that strange and unpleasant distortions arise if you have to twist the cartridge in the headshell in order to conform to some iconic geometry. (I think the cause is magnified with the DV, because of its very short vertically pivoted arm.) When I finally found a Stevenson protractor and subsequently realigned my cartridge, those distortions disappeared. Ergo, I would want to know exactly how to align the SAEC 308SX so as to be able also to align the cartridge body in its headshell. And yes, it makes no sense to mess around with a headshell that does not have slots to permit fore and aft adjustment of the cartridge body, but I would rather not twist the cartridge body.

What is ULS3X? Is that the designation for the SAEC ceramic headshell? If so, am I correct in thinking that you are in disagreement with Raul on using the ceramic with the 308SX?

Dear Lewm, the ULS3X permits back & forth movement but not even the slightest twist of the cartridge. I would never imagine Raul to accept this kind of distortion as the above graph demonstrates so, I don't thing that he prefers this ceramic headshell on any of the 308 arms. As for me, I've never gave a chance to compare the SAEC alignment in my second armboard, with the ULS3X headshell (I 've keep it undrilled till today). The null points indicates a unique optimisation at the inner groove, but not a Stevenson align.
Now about the twist of the cartridge on the headshell, Daniel & John were in disagreement about the effect and if I have to choose between a tracking error or a mechanical paradox ... you get my point.

Have you verified the pivot to spindle distance in your second armboard? Is it in agreement with the SAEC's unique recommendation? If so, then you don't have much of a choice. I remember on most set-ups that I've seen (in photos) that the majority of users accept the std SAEC recom. align. of not twisting the cart. Me too I would like to hear from someone who has experience on both alignments upon a 308. Unfortunatelly I have very limited free time these days for more exploration.

Dear Geoch, Good point! I do have the armboard made by Kenwood specifically to fit the SAEC 308 to its L07D. It is reasonable to assume that the Kenwood engineers at least knew what SAEC intended in terms of geometry, so I should not have a problem, even without knowing the correct geometry per se. (I do recall that the preferred null points are given on the Vinyl Engine website, so one could work backward from that as well.) The Kenwood installation does allow for some "wiggle room"; one can slide the armboard from side to side a few mm each way to bring things into alignment, before tightening it down.

To answer your question about pivot to spindle distance, I cannot very well determine that unless or until I purchase a 308 and install it. One could estimate it by assuming that the SAEC pivot would lie right over the exact center of the hole in the arm board, I suppose.

Dear Lewm, all the geometry info is contained into the above Vinyl Asylum thread that I've copied back in my previous post.
Perhaps you've missed this so, please take a good look this time. It contains both alignments. First the SAEC recommendation and then the Baerwald for comparison. The P2S distance is 235 for SAEC and 222.759 for Baerwald. The difference is so great, that you can easily measure your (intended by Kenwood) P2S.
So, once again :
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/78/788115.html