Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

I was recently interested in this subject. I was paying more attention to the accuracy of the tonearm geometry of my VPI Classic 3 Sig SE and the Feichert universal protractor. Upon using the Feichert, I'm measuring 260mm STP. After going to the VPI site, the best info from HW was 258mm. So, I asked THE question. I was told by the administrator, brf, to loosen either or both the armboard platform screws or the arm mounting board screws and use any slack, to compensate for any difference. Neither worked. So, I just paid around 5k for a tt that hasn't even been machined correctly to conform to industry standards. I also asked if Harry's supplied gauge is based upon any of the (3) standard geometries. I have yet to receive ONE answer. WOW!

Stevenson responded to the thread I just referenced on the VPI site. He remarked that the difference in the 3 geometries was of little difference.

So, if this is accurate, why the reluctance of VPI to respond?

It does stand to reason that in the natural movement of music, especially in classical recordings, that the climax will be more into the end of every lp side. This is not new info.

Regarding the STP distance discrepancies...I ordered my TT through Music Direct and had them mount a cart. Apparently, they don't check such things before/or in the normal order of mounting customers cartridges. Wow! People need to know what's going on here. So much for relying on a VPI dealer to mount a cart correctly.

Threads on alignment always catch my attention. I have a generic setup-VPI Classic/AT ART9-tube phono stage. I’ve tried the VPI jig and Feikert,which has the 3 alignments.

I can’t hear a difference in ANY of them. I settled on Baerwald which seems to be the best "compromise" on paper. The VPI jig puts the cart somewhere between the Baerwald & Stevenson if I remember? Hindsight, I wasted the cash on the Feikert jig. I could be happy just using the VPI jig, and call it a day.Azimuth seems to be the only adjustment I can perceive when futzing with the cartridge.

If I owned a SERIOUS rig $$$$, I certainly would obsess in finding which alignment provides the best sonics. Second thought, if I had that kind of dough, I would PAY a "professional"

Astro58go-your VPI  story has me shaking my head with disappointment. Shame on BOTH of the companies involved. I have had positive experiences with the two. QC should be UNCOMPRIMISED regardless if one purchases an entry level product, or the very best$$!!!!

Here is my advice:  Find out what geometry your tonearm was built for. (Headshell offset angle will vary according to the length of the tonearm and the geometry assumed by its designer.)  Then use THAT geometry for THAT tonearm.  Here is why: In a few of my own experiments, I found that using a geometry not envisioned by the tonearm design, as you might expect, results in a need to "twist" the cartridge with respect to the long axis of the headshell; the cartridge will not line up perfectly with the headshell, in other words, if viewed from above looking down.  Listening tests suggested that this per se seemed to be a "bad thing".  I can think of theoretical reasons why this might be so, but I have no proof. However, to avoid that source of distortion, I say again, use the geometry for which the tonearm was designed.  Many vintage Japanese tonearms were designed either for a geometry unique to that company (e.g., SAEC, I think) or for Stevenson (e.g., Dynavector and probably your Lustre and Victor tonearms).  It's something like LP equalization; back in the "old days" there was no gold standard, and one company often did equalization differently from another.  Nowadays, RIAA and Baerwald seem to rule.