Tonearm recommendation

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.

Dear lewm: Dynavector specs are really odd because don’t even the theoretical Stevenson calculations with the 241 effective length, 226 P2S and the 21.5° in offset angle they writed as tonearm specs.

Using IEC standard the nearest ( Stevenson. ) equations calculations gives:

L = 241.162 overhang: 15.162 and offset angle: 21.624° for the specification of P2S: 226.

Seems to me that even the manufacturer calculations are not accurate neither the protractor that comes with the tonearm.

Btw, when you used Baerwald in that tonearm: did you changed the P2S distance?, because it must be change it.

In the other side the difference between the Baerwald/Stevenson offset angle is lower than 1.5° but the other Baerwald parameters must be take in count in precise way.

Anyway, what do you think about the Löfgren papers/equations and the fixed parameters/foundation data those papers/equations states?

I’m asking you because, as always, fleib never gives a direct answer about.

Could you help? or maybe: Dover?  griffithds or: some one else?

I think that must be at least one other person with the precise and right answer even if is different answer from my opinion.

Answers are appreciated.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.