Curved and Straight Tonearms

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. 

For the record, I wasn't once on "that" post talking about the FR tonearms or the 231.5 PS point or the alignment on my system. Only talking about the Stevenson alignment in general that it made sense for what it was designed to do. 

As a rough generalization, older records tended to be cut with grooves that went closer to the label.  As mastering engineers got better at altering groove spacing to match the groove modulation, more music could be packed into any given space, so the necessity of cutting close to the label went down.  Also, narrower profile styli (e.g., Shibata, van den Hul, other line contact) and other cartridge developments have made inner groove tracking less problematic.  That means that the issues Stevenson alignment addresses is less of a concern these days.

Dear @genesis168 : All we know the Stevenson reasons but thank’s to confirm it.

Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the profesional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. No one cares about and the " trouble " for some cartridges at the very end grooves was magnified.

Today thinks changed and almost no one has true problems at the end of inner grooves and when they have it’s only that the set up is not accurate. Every thing is continuous movement/changes and for some reasons I can’t understand we never change and stay sticky to very old " fashions " that only goes against our hobby that is MUSIC.
My advise is to change and try to live in 2017 and next year in 2018. Is up to each one of us.

Many of those gentlemans with that kind of trouble bougth the great MINT LP protractor and the tracking trouble just vanished and MINT LP use regulary Löfgren alignment.

I have several LPs with very hard/high velocity grooves to track it and not only at the inner groves but at the first third part of the LP grooves and I tested all those tracks ( that are part of my personal test process. ) using those 3 normal kind of alignments and if you try it you will listen very clearly what Stevenson alignment in those " easy " ( this is what you said or I understand from your post. ) begining grooves shows you against either Löfgren alignment and what you will find out is higher distortions/colorations.

But I tested too with LPs at inner grooves and in specific the Telarc 1812 where MC and MM cartridges makes its works with no dificult at all and tested these tracks with those 3 alignments and through Löfgren you can’t hear any additional coloration/distortions.

To be sure about we have to experience it making those kind of tests.

Now the measured tracking distortion levels of those 3 alignment solutions stay always if the alignment is " perfect "/accurate it does not matters the cartridge. Those numbers are the ones that always we have but because there is no perfect set up those distortion numbers goes up.
So, it’s really important accuracy and try to have the lower distortions as we can in the major LP surface.

At least for me is critical, numbers speaks for it self. I always want to be nearer to the recording and Löfgren puts me nearer way nearer than Stevenson.

The sellers that are behind those inner grooves alignment in reality are only sellers.

I agree with you that any one can choose whatever he wants.

Now, the ones that are using 231.5 P t S value and have 246.324 as the effective length of the FR that kind of numbers means are using Stevenson alignment and the ones that have 248.135 as effective length are using Löfgren A ( Baerwald. ). Obviously with thr rigth offset angle figure for each kind of alignment solution.

Btw, that's why what you posted is wrong:

"""  Nandric, you are correct. """  The P to S distance does not define a kind of alignment.

It’s clear that the gentlemans that are sticky to Stevenson or similar are unaware of the higher distortions are listen it and they like what are hearing. Maybe are unaware of it because they did not tests against other kind of alignments with a rigth test overall process.
I know that people do not likes I tal about distortions but again and again the posts confirm that many of us like higher DISTORTIONS ! over lower ones. That goes against MUSIC.

When I learned about those kind of alignments and its real importance along accuracy on it my set ups were and are around Löfgren solutions. No more Stevenson A or something similar.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.