Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

A general rule?

OK, I’ll admit that can be dangerous, but how about this? If you need to set up for 7" records (nandric, those large center hole 45s) or mainly symphonic classical, then Stevenson may be your best alignment.

Otherwise, play other LPs (33 or 45 should make no difference) set up with the more common Lofgren/Baerwald.

Of course Lew’s recommendation to follow your arm design may overrule this. But then that may also guide you as to which type arm to select based on the records you intend to play.

I use a Dennesen Soundtracktor for alignment and that was designed to conform with Baerwald. I still have nearly 100 45s from high school but those are hardly ever played. And I enjoy many symphonies but they are a smaller percentage of my overall listening. So I’ve never felt the need to try the Stevenson.

Now, the truly anal may choose to have multiple playback systems, each specifically set up to play a particular type of record. ;^)

Hi nandric, you seem to be quite specific with language so I will try to clarify my intent.  In my mind a general rule does not set a standard.  It merely suggests something which may be followed or expected the majority of the time.  So a general rule is not hard and fast (possibly an American expression?). For me, a standard would be more inclusive, defining all that met a minimum level of performance/results.

My hope was to offer a simpler solution which does not require measuring "zero" points or specifically identifying crescendos.  Instead, one might need only consider the size of the record and/or type of music utilized for the majority of their listening.  In fact I recall reading that Stevenson stated his alignment was intended to optimize symphonic music playback.

If you buy an Eminent Technology air bearing linear tracking tonearm you won't need to worry about alignment at all, as there is no tracking angle error. Even your favourite 7" Conway Twitty records will sound fantastic.

With regard to Dynavector and their preference for Stevenson, I know that the reference system at their factory premises in the 70's/80's had a response flat down to 13hz and yes large symphonic recordings were commonly used for auditioning. At the time their view was that you were better off to have lower tracking angle distortion on the inner grooves.  

Hi all,

As far as using the designer’s intended alignment, this is one of the few areas where I say experiment (ignore the designer) and see what works for you.

Assuming a fixed mount on your tonearm (meaning that you can’t change your pivot-spindle distance), then the overhang difference between Baerwaald and Stephenson is less than 4mm.

The offset angle difference is minimal, and given the variance in cartridges’ cantilever alignment, the stars might just align and result in your having a cartridge whose body is "square" to the headshell ... or not. IOW, I don’t view twisting a cartridge mount to be a big deal.

You might find it entertaining to download the John Ellison spreadsheet on the Enjoy the Music website (I maintain a link on my main support page to it) and look at the distortion numbers generated as well as the geometric parameters.

Personally, I look at the Stephenson approach (optimizing for the inner groove at the expense of increased average distortion) to be less preferable than Baerwaald, but everyone is different, which is why I agree with Raul’s advice to play and see what works for you.

As far as Stephenson and optimizing symphonic playback is concerned (i.e. it's all about the crescendo at the end of the record), I view this in the same way that I view people who don't play half of their records because they don't sound good. 

Why would you sacrifice the delicate section(s) over the bulk of the record to improve the last part? 

This is somewhat like a mother saying to her kids:  "finish those terrible tasting peas on your plate, and then you get to have dessert".  I'd rather cook vegetables that my kid likes ;-)

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design