Tonearm recommendation

Dear friends: I hope this could be my last post in this controversial and misunderstanding critical/vital tonearm/cartridge set up.

"  Yes, the Loefgren calculations are correct. They are the basis of all the others. ", with the fleib " approval " here it is:

" Löfgren’s prime strategy is the ‘Löfgren A’ alignment which is based on adjusting the offset angle and overhang so as to minimise the weighted tracking error (WTE) and so minimise tracking distortion. "

The equation develpments to achieve those targets has three data input: outermost groove, innermost groove and effective length.

Löfgren and also tonearm designers/manufacturers does not care about P2S but primary the knowed/choosed effective length ( this is the first tonearm design parameter for nay designer. ) and second the offset angle and then overgang and at the end and  for reference to mount the pivoted tonearm design the difference between L and d gaves in automatic the P2S.

Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson and other gentlemans developed similar equations to Löfgren A ones. Stevenson developed two solutions, his B one similar to Löfgren and the A one that´s the one knowed as Stevenson ( the one used in Dynavector and other Japanese tonearms. ).

Stevenson used his original equations and in his A solution what he changed was one of the equations data inputs: instead of innermost groove distance he changed for an  inner null point to have at minimum ( last inner grooves mms. ) the distortion levels/tracking error in these last inner grooves with the trade off that all over the other LP recorded grooves the distortion is higher.

In all kind of alignments/solutions always exist trade-offs, there is no single kind of perfect alignment.

Now, if a tonearm manufacturer wants to change the original choosed tonearm effective length or wants to design a new tonearm with different effective length he will use the same equations and only makes the change to the new effective length data to know the new offset angle and overhang but as the begining he does not cares about the P2S for his design.
As a fact a manufacturer need to know the P2S distance for two main purposes: to build the tonearm mount JIG and information for his customers and that's all.

Whatever solution/alignment is choosed by a tonearm manufacturer the data inputs needs no changes and must be the ones stated by Löfgren and the others gentlemans but the Stevenson A solution.

So, to mantain the required distortion levels on each one of those alignments type everytime that efective length change the solution equations give us the changes in: offset angle, overhang and P2S.

In those old times ( 30's. ) Microsoft Excel tools did not exist and no spread calculators as the ones we have over the net that far away to really help us can puts several misunderstandings as the fleib/dover/lewm/Dynavector ones and many others, I made the same mistake for years Maybe in a dedicated thread I will disclose their common mistake in the mean time I hope that by it self they can find out the correct answer that's the Löfgren one.

Through several net calculators we can change the data inputs in the way we can imagine: we can stay with the same offset angle for different effctive lengths or we can stay with the same P2S for different effective lengths or change the innermost/outermost groove distance out of the IEC or DIN standards or any " crazy " choice but normally with out any real sound quality improvements but more of the time with higher distortions and a change in the LP surface where those distortions happens.
All these non-orthodox algebraic manipulations to the original equations are reallu useless for the customers/audiophiles.

I posted that the name of the game in a tonearm/cartridge set up is: ACCURACY and through the posts in this thread all were exposed about and why we don't need to look " for three foots of a cat knowing has four ".

IMHO we don't need Stevenson A or an special alignments for some kind of LPs , is futile 
What we need is that the Baerwald or what we choosed  be made it with ACCURACY/CERO TOLERANCE because a deviation of less than 0.5mm on overhang or 2° in offset angle or in P2S makes that distortions goes severly high against an accurate set up.

We audiophiles like to take out the tonearm manufacturers main responsabilities and own 4 or 10 different alignment protractors and we have " fun " making changes with out understand in deep what are invloved through each single change we do about and I think that we have to take seriously this vital cartridge/tonearm set up that in many ways define the quality sound level of our each one system.

My advise is: stop to play that game like a child with a new toy instead to play with only one alignmet solution toy and play it with ACCURACY.

If we are playing all those " games " with out accuracy what we are listening are only sound/music information with higher distortions, it does not matters that we are happy with those distortions.

In the mean time that the manufactuers of tonearms takes by it self the responsability to give us the ACCURATE and user friendly protractors to mount the tonearm and to mount the cartridge what we need is not a protractor with multiple options ( is useless. ) but one with single option ( example Baerwald. ) that be ACCURATE like the MINTLP that's dedicated to your specific TT/tonearm.

I can see here that some of you are proudly owners of several after market protractors of different prices, good you are but normally almost all of them are not good enough. In the other side ask your self: how many times each week or month do you need to change the kind of alignment ( for whatever reasons. ) in your tonearm/cartridge set up and WHY you need to do it? is usefull?

Remember that the distortion levels change in tiny increments/decrements at each recorded groove and no one of us can discern those distortion levels it does not matters the overall quality of the audio system we own.

Of course that the after market protractors builders tell us why we have to use diffeent kind of alignments and they take advantage of our each one misunderstood level.

Btw, from the last years the audio after market item market niche was and is growing up and maybe is better business than to market audio products and are all these audio products manufacturers whom permited the grow up and existence of all those after market items. Pity.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


dover, no I don't modified my 505 and the new set up is only 2mm ( around it ) on P2S and less than 1.5° on OA. The dyna specs are not accurate.
Never mind, has no critical importance your posts but a misunderstanding by your part. Please don't give any answer to this opinion.

Raul, It would be helpful if I can boil down your idea into one or two simple sentences.  Is it your thesis that one should standardize on one and only one geometry, Baerwald, because it offers the lowest average tracking distortion across the LP surface?  If you can respond "yes" or "no", that would be OK with me.  Thanks.

What I, and I think also Dover, wrote is that if the tonearm was not designed for Baerwald geometry (meaning essentially that the headshell offset angle is wrong for Baerwald, given that the tonearm is mounted according to manufacturer's recommended overhang or P2S or whatever), then one must twist the cartridge in the headshell to achieve Baerwald.  I found that this resulted in a distortion (Dynavector DV505) that was much more obvious and objectionable than any that I hear when I use the DV505 with recommended geometry, inferior though that may be by comparison to Baerwald.  Granted, one could move the pivot point around, or alter stylus overhang, so as to better accommodate Baerwald for a tonearm not designed for Baerwald, but that is very inconvenient at best, if not impossible in some cases.

Now it also seems you are saying that every protractor except maybe the Mint LP is an inferior toy.  That helps no one, except those who use the Mint LP.

fleib, thanks for the helpful response.

In fact I have used my Dennesen for the reverse process, to draw the arc to identify location for mounting an arm.

I also use a small Tensor light and hand held magnifier with the Dennesen when doing an alignment.  And I ignore the cartridge body and do all my sightings along the cantilever.  But I will check out linen magnifiers to see if one might be easier that what I use now (a small version of your standard Sherlock Holmes model).

And now that you mention it, I seem to recall the Feickert I saw did offer alignment options, but as stated, I'm happy with Baerwald.

Over the years I've owned a dB Systems protractor and those from various arm manufacturers but I really like the simplicity of the Dennesen.  And the results sound good to me and elicit complements on my system. ;^) 

Dear lewm: What I try to say is to use one: Baerwald or if we like Löfgren A/B. I don't think we can need more.
Today almost all the cartridges comes with a better suspension " mechanism " than in the past and the tonearms are more or less well damped with better damped TT, clamps and platter mats and all these makes things better than in the past. In the other side electronics and speakers improved too and makes that we can make a better cartridge/tonearm set up than in the past. There are many audio topics that improved and helps for that we needonly just kind of alignment if and only if the set up has ACCURACY/cero tolerance. Tha's it.

I use the MINTLP as an example because is one of the more accurate in the market and is dedicated for your TT/tonearm combination and for less than 150.00.  Could you ask for more or need something different?, I think not but I respect each one opinion and remember that my advise is only in the mean time that manufacturers of all today and future tonearms can give us their answer we all are waiting for in the way that we customers do not need again to look for an after market devices.

Respect the 505 we can talk private through email but as I posted not important in the main subject because is only another tonearm with some unique kind of design, maybe not a good example for my meanings.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Thanks, Raul.  Please don't confuse the fact that I own a DV505 with the idea that I believe it to be "the best" of anything.  I really think most audio equipment is flawed in one way or another and that it is our job to put pieces together that work as synergistically as possible to produce whatever "sound" one is pursuing.  (In your case, that would be the lowest distortion possible, pure and simple.)  Many people don't understand that the term "synergism" means 1+1 = more than 2, by the way. When 1+1 =2, the interaction is merely "additive".  I actually chose the DV505 several years ago for use with slate plinths I made for my Lenco and for my DP80; I wanted tonearms that could be flush-mounted on top of the slate without need for an armboard or to drill the slate, which is a royal pain in the culo.  The Triplanar, Reed, Durand tonearms also fit this description but are more costly.

I seriously considered the Mint LP when I decided to buy the UNItractor.  The UNI is like the Mint in that it is different for every possible tonearm, but unlike the Mint in that it is a 2-point alignment, not an arc alignment.  However, 2 points define an arc for a given constant radius.  If you have a lot of tonearms, then the cost of the UNI rapidly becomes reasonable, as compared to buying a Mint LP for every tonearm.  The UNI includes a different template for each tonearm, accommodation for three different spindle diameters, ability to set the cartridge using a stabilized magnifier, a built on light which makes the job easier, and several other features that make exact set-up closer to possible.  But like the DV505, I am not saying it's perfect or "the best", just very very good.