Tonearm recommendation

The reason some people find those zero offset arms sound good, is reduction of torsional forces on the cantilever. Do linear arms solve these problems? If and only if, they can maintain tangency at all times and otherwise behave as a proper tonearm Re: mass, friction, etc.

Fleib,
Don't you mean the other way round. If an arm has zero offset vertical bearings then there will be torsional force on the cantilever when the arm moves up and down. If the tonearm has offset vertical bearings that match the cartridge offset, then there will be no torsional force on the cantilever when the arm goes up and down, however there will be additional torsional force on the bearings with an increase in bearing friction in the vertical bearings.
Your comments on the Dynavector make sense, the arm comes with a jig for the cartridge which if followed the cartridge ends up dead straight in the headshell with the vertical bearings aligned. If Baerwald A is used in the Dynavector then the cartridge is offset from the vertical bearings and torsional force is introduced into the cantilever. This is probably not a good thing in such a short arm.

fleib: """ When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length ... """

according with that sentence a tonearm designer first needs to know the pivot to spindle distance to determine the effective length on his tonearm design?

You said that I have to forget Löfgren papers but makes no sense to me because there is the overall foundation on tonearm alignment and from there comes all the know type of alignments as: Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson, etc..

So, please tell me why me or any one must do that?. Don't put examples of nothing and please give a specific answer because through this thread you never give a specific answer with an explanation of why: yes or why: not.

You are reluctant one and again to avoid the Löfgren papers and just post nothing that makes reference to it:

which are your reasons not to do it? what's wrong down there?

The 3 calculations on 3 different type of alignments ( through Löfgren original papers. ) I posted showed that on each calculation the PtS distance was a variable and different on each type of aligment.

In the Löfgren his equations ( and all the other know alignments posted here: B, P, B, S. ) starts with a knowed L ( effective length ) and from here comes all the alignment variables like the PtS one that in there comes from here:

M = L - d    , where L is the knowed ( fix. ) effective length, d the calculated overhang and M the PtS distance.

Please don't just tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me why, give any explanation. This is not a contest as many gentlemans here I want to learn and if you are right then: good for all of us. This is all about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, forgeret about that 505. It's not the main subject in what we are discussing.
I repeat don't put examples just an explanation and please don't try ( again ) to change the subject taking a different " road ". Stay in the road!

Btw, I'm using the IEC ( not DIN. ) standard for the calculations in the original equations and through it the second solution in Stevenson ( first solution is similar as Löfgren A. ) calculated this null points:

60.325 and 117.417  , not the ones by VE not even if I choose DIN standard. Remember that accuracy is the name of the game: cero tolerance, but the point is that of these null points but about that effective length subject.


There are many internet calculators that as VE ones does not stay in focus.

The original equations are simple ones and by algebra we can do whatever we want ( I already said it 3-4 times in the thread. ).

If we want the PtS distance fixed then we can do it or if we want that the overhang stay the same with different alignments we can do it.
That's what shows all those calculators and create several misunderstood like the fleib one.

Fleib, I already did my job years ago because I had that misunderstood too. 
Now you need to do your job too just from the begining with the foundation of all this subject: Löfgren explanation and equations and I'm sure you will understand it or can confirm your point.

Repeat, forgeret about manipulations of those equations or new dedicated  alignments because no one can hear the level distortions changes in an accurate alignment set up.

To re-enforce what Dover said regarding the DV tonearms, I had the experience of mounting a cartridge in my DV505 using Baerwald, which requires the cartridge to be twisted inward with respect to the long axis of the headshell.  It was surprising to me that this did not sound good at all, using a cartridge with which I was quite familiar, and I hypothesized that having the cantilever arc at an angle to the vertical arc described by the arm wand was a possible cause of the distortion I heard.  When I re-aligned the same cartridge using Stevenson or the DV recommended parameters, all was well.  This is what I call circumstantial evidence, but it makes some sense.  And I draw the conclusion that it is wisest to use the geometry for which the tonearm was designed, not necessarily one's own preferred geometry, when using typical pivoted tonearms with offset headshells and stylus overhang of the spindle.

I own an RS-A1. It is quite a weird gadget, not easy to set up but at the same time rather uncritical of P2S distance.  It does sound surprisingly excellent with a wide variety of cartridges.