Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

Since downunder raised the point of alternatives to the "big 3" for alignment, I'll further muddy the waters by suggesting yet another.

This one comes from Allen Wright's site for vacuumstate.  I happen to own one of his JLTi phono stages, but that's another story.  He attributes this alternative alignment to someone named Rowan McCombe who he calls "The Guru".  I've traditionally utilized Baerwald but currently have The Guru alignment and enjoy it's musicality without any hint of distortion.

http://www.vacuumstate.com/fileupload/GuruSetUp.pdf

Dear @chakster : The 7045 is good tonearm and he 170 is very good tracker and this cartridge characteristics means that with or with out Stevenson alignment it will ride perfectly the inner grooves .

Again, your music/sound priorities are very personal and you have to use what fits it and that's all.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @fleib : I play several times with my 505. I almost not used the Dyna dedicated headshell but several others. I never like it what I heard it with what Dyna recomend alignment that's ( if I remember ) not exactly Stevenson ( maybe I'm wrong an it's. Never mind because this not the issue. ).

When I used, either, on it the Löfgren A or B  alignments I let all parameters in those alignments in orthodox form.

That is what works for the best for me in that tonearm even that you can be rigth about that " torsional force in the cantilever " that maybe could stay at minimum with cartridge that has very good tracking abilities.

For me has no sense ( even if I can be wrong. ) to sacrifice over the 80% of the recorded area in favor of " nothing " because as I said to @chakster : with good trackers we can't detect " problems ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @downunder : It's not the third part of the inner recording area but a lot less, never mind.

Yes, it's better a pivoted tangential tonearm design as the one you own, no doubt about but tonearm design is not only if its run tangentially but several other critical subjects for the cartridge can shows at its best.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @pryso : There are nothing of exceptional/new down there even than the ownner of VS said he had no explanation where comes those null points values.

Look, I posted several times and I think here too that for alignment calculations there are 3 fix parameters: effective length, most outer groove radius and most inner groove radius.
In you link Cotter used the IEC outer radius and changed the input inner groove to 66. What did it that " guru "? the same he changed the IEC radius on the inputs calculations.

Exist no " black thread " about but only manipulation of the input calculation parameters.

What did it Stevenson?, as @fleib pointed out he did not touched the outer radius but the inner one where he forces that the inner distance coincide exactly with the second null point. That's all.

If you read the Analog Planet link that was posted here, I posted there that that " black thread " discovery ( even new for MF. ) for the uni was only a manipulation of the most inner groove radius and I said it its value.

Many people puts angry with me when I use the word " ignorance " but it's tru when we don't have the rigth information we are ignorant on that and what we read could seems to us as the century's discovery when it's not.

You like it that alignment not because it's better but only that tracking error/distortions changes of surface LP position.

Regards and enjjoy the music,
R.