Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

Dear @lewm : """  within less than an +/-0.5mm margin of error, """, that's almost the overhang diference between Löfgren B and Baerwald. 

If we made an accurate overall cartridge/tonearm set up with either Löfgren or Baerwald it´s almost imposible that you or anay one else can  detect differences in the quality level performance. Against Stevenson things could be diferent because higher set up differences in the main parameters and with higher distorions overall Stevenson.

In both cases we can make it more " easy " if we know what to look for in the tests listening process.

Now, all we need is the MINT LP that's a dedicated protractor for the TT/tonearm/cartridge and for only 100.00. Makes no sense to spend ( because  is not an investment. ) any little dime over that cost because we can't achieve in true any single advantage but more " problems " for those expensive protractors you own or other people owns.

As a fact and I posted several times about no one of us should spend a single dime in protractors if the tonearm manufacturers takes its own/self critical responsability with their customers to delivery the tonearm with an ACCURATE  and user friendly protractor !!!!!, it's his responsability not us one but we are the ones that already liberated them from that main manufaturer responsability. 

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Hi Raul,

I agree with you that a tonearm manufacturer should provide an alignment tool with their product. It’s in their best interest that the customer have the best chance of achieving a good setup.

Lew -

An arc protractor can get you to within .001" of tracing the arc - limited only by your patience. I had forgotten about Conrad’s site. I’ve never tested it against the ones I produce with my CAD software.

As noted above, an arc protractor is specific to a single tonearm effective length, and you now have a website that will generate a protractor for you. If your printer takes card stock paper, you’re all set.

I stopped following the "other" protractor thread when the manufacturer refused to reveal his chosen alignment. It’s his choice and I respect that, but at the same time it leaves me no way of validating the accuracy and REPEATABILITY of adjustments made using his tool.

Parenthetically, I might add that I’ve seen some very good setups done with a Feickert. My preference for an arc protractor is that it eliminates any and all ambiguity.

If you think about any tool which depends on your siting down your cantilever at one or two spots, you’ll realize that the manner in which an arc protractor magnifies pivot-spindle/overhang errors lends a dramatically higher level of precision and it does matter.

For sake of argument, let's assume you have a 0.5mm overhang error in your setup.  If you rotated your arc protractor so that you can land the stylus on the inner (lead out) side of the arc, and and (without rotating the protractor) you swing the arm over the lead-in (outer) side of the arc the stylus will be several mm from the arc. 

This is can be confusing when someone is first learning how to use an arc protractor because they think they may have a 2, 3, or 4 mm overhang error.  Once you understand this "error magnification" however, it is a huge benefit in terms of enabling precision adjustments.

If forced to choose, I would opt for getting one tonearm/cart set up perfectly rather than taking a buckshot approach of multiple tonearms with suboptimal tools. Yes, I appreciate the fun of playing with multiple arms, but I’m a patient guy and would rather get one thing right than many things wrong.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design

Thom,  I am not sure what is your point in the last 3 paragraphs above, except to say that any protractor can give bad results if you don't know how to use it.  And I don't think any one of us takes a "buckshot approach" deliberately.  I am sure each of us is very meticulous, or at least feels that he has been as careful and precise as eyesight and lighting and the protractor make possible.

Wouldn't it be nice if we found out that underhung tonearms, which demand nowhere near the precision accorded to mounting overhung tonearms, were to become accepted as the superior sounding option?

@fleib

Chakster,

I bet you’ll wind up with Loefgren alignment. Both nulls are within the recorded part of a 7". Error will be much less through most of song. Stevenson will be better at the end, but much worse up until there.

No, only one null point is on the recorded part of the 7" inch. As you know Feickert use 3 steps: 1) for overhang. 2) for offset at outer null point. 3) for offset at inner null point.

Only Stevenson’s geometry is withing the 7" inch two times: First at step-1 (aka overhang), which is exactly the beggining of the recorded grooves (aka the beggining of the track, not the edge of the vinyl) on 7" inch, and step-3 (aka offset) on the inner null point which is exactly in the end of recorded music (not the edge of the label) on 7" inch vinyl. While the Baerwald and Lofgren are on the 7" inch ONLY at inner null point once.