Tonearm recommendation

Dear lewm: I'm only want to clarify mi overall position on your last email:

I can´t see nothing really wrong on Baerwald or Löfgren that could preclude I don't use it. The one that I'm not advocated is Stevenson alignment.

If I choose B or L the main subject is that the overall alignment be accurate when mounting the tonearm and when mounting the cartridge: offset angle, overhang and P2S. Tha's all.

Regarding that the MINT protractor is a dedicated one for the TT/tonearm and when you or me own 4 tonearms ( example. ) you will have the right protractor for each tonearm for only 400.00 but how many audiophiles has 4 or more tonearms that really are in constant use?, only a few audiophiles.
In the other side as I posted that some protractors came with options to make alignments for different LP labels is something useless and out of reality because how many times each week we will be willing to reset the whole tonearm/cartridge alignment only to listen 2-3 LPs and after that return to the original alignment.
I can understand that could exist audiophiles that are doing that " every day/week " but 99.95% do not cares about and the fact is that we really don't need it.

Lewm, what do you want: listen MUSIC all the time or just making changes in hardware loosing the time?
My opinion is that if my audio system is already fine tunned at every single link in the audio system chain the we have to worried only where exist more time to listen MUSIC and not looking to play the hardware when the system is already fine tunned.
Well that's me, maybe you think different and is ok.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

dover: do you have right now on hand the 505?

If yes just try Baerwald or Löfgren alignment changing the P2S distance from Stevenson. Then listen and listen in between ( B, L and S alignments. ) and return here to share your experiences there.

If not, your post is useless and futile this time.

Through all your posts in this thread and IMHO your contributions helps to no one because you have not today facts on hand.

Raul,
You are wrong again.
I own a Dynavector DV501 which is superior to the DV505. It is more rigid through the vertical bearings than the older 505. I own the actual Final Audio VTT1 turntable and Dynavector arms and cartridges used in the review of Japanese Highend Audio by Warwick Mickell in TAS in 1983.
I also own a Dynavector Karat Nova 13D which is set up for Stevenson with its integral headshell.
Here is a link to the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D set up for Baerwald/Lofgren A using the same Dynavector DV501 and Ikeda Headshell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXzmZ10Q2kE
You will also note the the video clip shows that I have also run the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cartridge in a Fidelity Research FR64S.
You will also note if you look at my other video clips that I have run the  
same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cartridge in a unipivot Naim Aro that I also own.

My Dynavector Karat Nova 13D is real and freshly rebuilt by Dynavector with an updated micro ridge stylus ( previously had a fineline ); it is not a frankenstein fake like the one you advertised on Audiogon.
 
Personally I preferred the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D with Baerwald/Lofgren A but Lewm has preferred Stevenson with his cartridges. Unless you have heard Lewms system you cannot possibly disagree with him.

As far as science goes the pros and cons of offset vertical bearings vs straight vertical bearings arguments are real and measurable. Origin Live for example have listened to both options and prefer to go with non offset bearings. Other arm manufacturers have taken a different view.

Furthermore I also have an Eminent Technology ET2, much improved with custom mods, that has no tracking error and a lower horizontal effective mass than both the Dynavector and Fidelity Research arms due to the clever patented decoupled counterweight system. Not only that but the decoupled counterweight in the horizontal plain also means that the vertical and horizontal resonant frequencies are split and the fundamental resonant peak is much lower. If you do your research and go and find the Shure white papers on tracking, you will find that the fundamental resonance of tonearm/cartridge combinations induces a sweeping motion in the stylus cantilever when tracking even normal grooves. Therefore the ET2 will have the best tracking of any of the arms discussed in this thread.

Whilst I agree with your comment on the ET2 being mechanically ungrounded due to the captured air bearing, Martin Colloms review in Hifi News of the ET2, where he ran some resonance tests, showed that resonances  induced in the arm wand tended to pass through the air bearing relatively unchanged.

I have run the same cartridges through all my arms which include the ET2, Naim Aro, FR64S & Dynavector 501 and I rank them in that order, subject to cartridge compatibility.  
Examples :
Shure V15vmr & vxmr - 1st ET2, 2nd Dynavector 501
Koetsu's - 1st ET2, 2nd FR64S
Dynavector Nova 13D, 1st ET2, 2nd Naim Aro
Ikeda Kiwame - 1st FR64S.
Other arms owned previously include the SME V, Zeta, Alphason, Well Tempered, Syrinx and many others.

PS on the subject of the FR64S I own two of them - one silver wired, the other copper wired.The silver wired version is considerably more transparent than the copper wired version, and is tighter, cleaner and faster particularly in the bottom end. 

Addendum to post above - 

I also own a Dynavector Karat Nova 13D which is set up for Stevenson with its integral headshell.

This should read "standard Dynavector alignment" which is a variation on Stevenson. 

Hi all
I’m looking for budged arm for mid and high compliance MM cartridges for second system (technics sp20).

Those 3 below are from Raul’s list along with Technics EPA-100 mk2 (i wish i could find one).

Anyone elase can say anything about these vintage arms (below) ?

-Stax UA-7 vs. UA-7-CF (carbon fiber) vs. Stax UA-70
-Lustre GST 801
-Denon DA-401