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
rauliruegas
13,129 posts
 
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.
rauliruegas
13,129 posts
 
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.
rauliruegas
13,129 posts
 
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.
rauliruegas
13,129 posts
 
Dear @lewm : On your take about the Vivid floating tonearm design it's ovbious that you are just speculating about the AS issue.

"""  but the arm gets great reviews and is revered in Japan and Europe.  ""

several people when listen something diferent and especially when the audio item manufacturar touted its " great design " almost always all ( especially reviewers. ) " revered ". Sometimes like in your example is by ignorance sometimes because they like those biased diferences and sometimes those biased differences are no more than higher distortions. In that regards about the " underhung " the design has no real foundation and the manufacturer speaks only on what the listeners heard it but with out single fact on its design and why is " so good ".

Mathematics always helps and you are an advocate to. What happens with the " underhung " higher eror(distortions?

Anyway, maybe all of us have diferent opinions about and maybe no one has the rigth one. That's why exist the so many forums in the internet with so many " hot " discussions. Is part of the audio fun where all we can learn.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
fleib
1,124 posts
 

Lewm,

When Loefgren published his alignment(s), he equated alignment error to  distortion. I wonder if any attempt has been made to qualify or quantify this assertion,  what kind of distortion and how much?  Aside from a very small amount of phase error between channels (we're talking about rotation of contact area within the groove), it seems to me most error is subtractive and would not qualify as distortion.

With underhung straight pivoting arms, reduction of torsional forces on the cantilever is also said to be a function of no offset angle and skating is reduced to the extent that it becomes unnecessary.

Yamaha offered such an arm as an option on the GT-2000. It is the YSA-2. 


http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;image=122280

Regards,


More to discover