Will fine tune adjustments with protractor help with "brightness?"

IMO it's easy to obsess about tiny differences from the various alignment setups....

I use an SL1200G & have a Roksan Black & a Goldring 1024, both using the 1024 Gyger S stylus & mounted on identical headshells - the Roksan using Baerwald/Dr Feikert & the Goldring using the Technics gauge. They sound almost identical.

Any differences between alignment methods are very small (to all intents undetectable) & when done accurately, all sound excellent - although Feickert is more fiddly/precise. I agree with previous posts suggesting that the Technics engineers have chosen their alignment and users should trust it. 

By the way - back in 2012 I ordered a Mint protractor for a Rega. I asked Yip to use Baerwald... & he did.

@chakster

A couple of points and then I'll bow out of this discussion:

1) As I said above, Stevenson will be better and have lower distortion numbers than Baerwald (or Lofgren A) or Lofgren (B) in the 58-62 mm groove area. Hence, it will work well on those records, classical or otherwise on the last 60-90 seconds of those records. Across the rest of the record Baerwald and Lofgren have significantly better distortion numbers. There is nothing theoretical about this-it is simply a fact.

2) As such, the alignment that one chooses (if one makes or wants to make that choice) will be based on priorities: ie; whether they want to minimize distortion for 60-90 seconds on (certain) records, or whether they want to minimize distortion on the other 15-20 minutes of the record.

3) If you can't hear the distortions, no problem. Perhaps I could not hear them either. We're back in an entirely subjective domain then. Objectively, though, I would prefer to minimize distortion across 95% of the record as opposed to 5% of it from the star when it is a relatively simple procedure.

But if those distortions in the final 5% are more grossly objectionable than those in the 95% to the listener then their priorities may be different than mine. I don't have a ton of records with information around the 60 mm mark and don't play 7" 45's (if I did I'd explore other alignment options and a dedicated arm/table for them if I was serious) so it's a bit of a moot point for me.

4) Only the OP would be able to tell us if it would be worthwhile to change the alignment on his Technics and he'd have to do it to find out. If he's happy with the way it sounds now, there's no need to experiment. FWIW, other Technics users in the past have reported better performance with Baerwald, but I'm sure there are some who also can't hear any difference.

5) Japanese manufacturers do not "all use Stevenson". They typically almost all specify a 15 mm over hang and nulls around (but not exactly at) 60 and 114 mm. But 90 per cent of those nulls, while they are closer to Stevenson than Lofgren or Baerwald nulls, are not Stevenson nulls and they are often different from one Japanese manufacturer to another. The Technics "alignment" is but one example. The Japanese have simply been doing it that way for a long time, well before Stevenson wrote his paper(s) in 1966-67, and have simply continued doing it since.

6) I'm not familiar with the ViV Lab arm and really know nothing about it. If its geometry, however, contributes to significantly higher distortion numbers than Stevenson, let alone Baerwald or Lofgren, I'd be somewhat skeptical while trying to keep an open mind I suppose. Maybe some people just like the sound of certain distortion(s)? It's a subjective hobby and that can't entirely be ruled out.

Mint tractor is on it's way. Should be here in a couple weeks if not sooner. 

Working on a band new Technics tonearm for GAE, G, GR and 10R models Matsushita engineers changed and improved almost everything, except the tonearm geometry as far as i know. If this geometry would cause the problem they could simply change it in the last generation of their reference class turntables. They are completely changed the entire tooling of those machines. Working on such important project in 21st century the Matsushita engineers definitely made a lot of tests. I can not believe these guys knows nothing about Baerwald/Lofgren.

Anyone can explain why the tonearm geometry of a brand new Technics tonearm is the same as it was before (very close to Stevenson) ???

Technics carefully checked every weak part of the old design to create brand new reference class turntable, do you think those guys just forgot to check the tonearm geometry after all these years ???

Do you think Technics/Matsushita engineer have no idea about Baerwald/Lofrgen ???

Anyone can prove the level of audible distortion between Baerwald and Stevenson, so we could hear it in the recordings made with the same cart, same tonearm, but with two different alignment? Why it was not done before if the level of distortion is so audible for human ears like some people thinks? Is that so difficult to prove it ?

P.S. Another question: Which japanese top class high-end tonearm has Baerwald/Lofrgen geometry ? 

I noticed the same phenomena you described in your original post. My feeling is that the Technics tables just track so incredibly well that you are hearing the natural progression of analog sound and it is more noticeable on this table.  The outer grooves will always have better fidelity than the inner grooves.  You are just hearing it more obviously with the table.  You may have to load your cartridge to accommodate the brighter outer grooves.  The thing is that the inner grooves sound so amazing that they sound like the outer groves on most tables.  Not sure how they accomplished this.