Curved and Straight Tonearms

Dear friends: Stevenson made two different alignment solutions, one was A and the B that coincide with LÖfgren A ( Baerwald. ).

Almost all Japanese tonearm manufacturers choosed Stevenson over both LÖfgren alignmente solutions because  they want that distortions at inner LP grooves goes lower and audiophiles took it at the " best " alignment when IMHO it's not and makes no real sense.

Stevenson A reduce distortions at the very end inner grooves but in the other 9/10 of the LP grooves distortions goes a lot higher than both Löfgren solutions. For some of you this makes sense and that's what you like and is the way you are using the FR.

My take here is: why and how is it that any one could likes higher tracking distortions ( 9/10 of LP. ) ( this is a fact a measured fact not an opinion. ) than overall lower distortions with both Löfgren alignment solutions?

Any one can put some ligth about?  @lewm  @genesis168  or some one else?

@lewm / @genesis168 , a little help to understand: both of you are using 231.5 on P to S distance. The overhang that you are using is: 14.8 with an offset angle : 21.15°? or these parameters are different?

Thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

There is a reason why the Stevenson alignment exists. Yes it is universally known that the Lofgren had a lower overall distortion figure across "most of the playable surface" on the LP. Have you asked yourself why Not only use Lofgren then? We all know the most difficult part of the LP to track is the inner grooves. The outer and middle parts of the LPs are relatively "easier" to track compared to the inner tracks. If you look at the graphs Lofgren vs Stevenson the distortion figures at the inner grooves are way lower hence making it easier for the arm to track. Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track so if you need to choose your compromise then I'd rather take the lower distortion on the most difficult parts to track.

Also, for those who listen to large scale classical music, the crescendo almost always falls at the end of the side. So huge dynamic swings at the most difficult part of the Lp to track. That's why Stevenson works. 

I guess everyone has heard of inner groove distortions and not outer groove distortions so that explains something. Inner groove=difficult to track. 

I am not for or or against any type of alignment. They all work. Stevenson did do his homework and made his compromise. Try it and decide. No sense listening to second hand talk from others. BTW, there is this "new" curve called the Uni-DIN which I like. There is nothing new about it but just a set of compromises taken at the different points just like all the other alignment curves. 

Lastly, there is no use plugging numbers in speadsheet and trying to make sense  at distortion figures and curves. Numbers don't usually tell the whole story. Numbers won't tell you what will sound good or bad. It's just a guide. If you like numbers you should all go and buy some Japanese home theatre receiver.

Nandric, if you read my comments near the end I mentioned that I'm not for any type of alignment. I urge users to experiment themselves and not just look at numbers. My post was not that Stevenson was the only way to go but that Stevenson method did make some sense hence it was adopted by certain tonearm manufacturers. That was it.