2. analog
  3. 126563-5377

Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

I’ve managed Dr.Feickert Analog Protractor for a decent price (build quality is superb, such a great tool).

Time to play with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson alignments on my Luxman PD444.
Need advice from experienced used of the following arms:
Lustre GST 801
Victor UA-7045
Luxman TA-1
Reed 3P "12
Schick "12

Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ? What do you like the most for these arms?
Manufacturers recommend Baerwald mostly. 

Dedicated "7 inch vinyl playback deserve Stevenson alternative, maybe?
Since it's a smaller format than normal "12 or "10 inch vinyl, it's like playin the last track's according to position of grooves on '7 inch (45 rpm) singles. RCA invented this format, i wonder which alignment did they used for radio broadcast studios.   

Thanks

chakster
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Dear chakster, The answer to your question depends more from

you records than your ears. But first thing first. Lofgren was, uh,

the first who described the optimal geometry for the tonearm in

relation to the record radius. Hoewer Bearwald got the honors

( as being the first) instead of Lofgren. This ''optimal'' geometry

means ''optimal'' for the whole record radius. Aka ''average'' values.

Stevenson wanted ''optimal values'' near the spindle with assumption

that the grooves end is about 6 cm distance from the spindle. To put

it otherwise he thought that the ''inner grooves'' are the most problematic

for the (conventional) tonearms. The Japanese tonearm designers ,

among which also Ikeda, somehow prefered this geometry.

I own hardly any record with ''inner grooves'' near the spindle

so all my Mint tractors are ,uh, Bearwald (grin).

chakster's avatar
chakster OP
6,144 posts
 
@nandric

Stevenson wanted ’’optimal values’’ near the spindle with assumption that the grooves end is about 6 cm distance from the spindle. To put it otherwise he thought that the ’’inner grooves’’ are the most problematic for the (conventional) tonearms. The Japanese tonearm designers, among which also Ikeda, somehow prefered this geometry.

Thant’s the point, theoretically Stevenson’s geometry is better for 7’inch records (45s). In this case we don’t need optimal geometry for the whole radius of 12’inch, because the 45s (vinyl singles) are much smaller, there is only one track per side. That’s the same 45 rpm (7’inch) on my platter.

It make sence to use Stevenson with this format of the vinyl.

Since the RCA Victor invetned mono 45s in 1949 they soon became the most popular format (in stereo) of the industry for radio disc-jokeys in the 60s & 70s. As far as i know analog radio broadcast equimpement were on very high level in Japan (NHK), Europe and the USA in the 60s and 70s period (supplied by the top manufacturers like denon, technics, emt ..).

I wonder when Stevenson invented his alignment (before 1949 or after) ?

nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Dear chakster, ''Thant's the point?'' I have no idea what this

expression means. It my mean ''that is not the point'' but also ''that is

the point''. But if you know better why do you ask this question?

I considered only the ''normal'' (aka 12'') records. I hate it to

stand up and walk to my TT to turn the 12" records . So I never

owned those 7'' kinds. Are those also called ''records''?

chakster's avatar
chakster OP
6,144 posts
 
@nandric

So I never owned those 7’’ kinds. Are those also called ’’records’’?

Haha. Believe it or not, but many bands from the 50s, 60s, 70s never released a full albums, just one or two singles on independens labels in 7’inch format (often just 500 copies) and then they are gone, so many fortotten gems in all genres of music. That’s why they are highly collectable, i’m talking about originals of course. Even if the band got an LP album the 45 single version can be different (take or arrangement). Pressing of the 45 (7inch) release is also cheaper than LP or "12.

I know that most audiophiles ignoring this format and i can understand why, but for collectors those 45s are holy grails. Some of them recorded very well btw, some comes with mono and stereo versions of the same track on different side of the record (easy to comare).

As for the Stevenson’s alignment i’m not sure, it’s just my suggestion, i think there must be industry standard (special alignment) for small record.

But my original question is abut users experience with those arms adjusted by Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson.
rauliruegas
13,129 posts
 
@chakster : Again, """  Time to play with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson alignments... """"

Do you already did it? what happens? whcich one do you prefer?. You are the one that in your system and according your music/sound priorities the best judge.

Accuracy means that any alignment you choose or like by your experiences " playing it " must be accurate on set up.

I can't understand why you ask for other people experiences on alignments when all depends on that accuracy level, system, kind of LP and personal priorities. All alignments in a pivoted tonearm designs has tracking error and some distortion levels. Differences is where in the surface LP grooves happens those different levels of distortions and that's all.

Alignments is not a rocket science very dificult to understand.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
More to discover