@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.
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.