Curved and Straight Tonearms

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.

"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."

This is absurdly incorrect and misleading although it is revealing because it shows that raulruegas discovered the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a Music Reproduction System fairly recently and now that he has made that startling to him discovery he now portrays himself as an expert on the matter when it is actually clear that he is confused and I am being polite by using that word. The importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a  Music Reproduction System goes as far back at least as the earliest stereo records that employed the Westrex 45/45 system and early ariticles about the amazing Westrex 45/45 system almost always included information about the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment it is not a new or recent idea at all! In fact it was concern over not just proper alignment but that the problems caused by tracking error that the earliest linearly tracking arms/turntables were introduced. Rek-O-Cut made a linearly tracker in the 1950's and the Truline also dates to the 1950's and of course in the 1960's you had the original Rabco linearly tracking arms so to suggest that the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment is recent and that "no one"cared until lately is a  patently false claim. Raul is way behind the times here and clearly lacks the experience and knowledge he professes in this group and the claim raises questions about the techniques he employs to measure the "DISTORTIONS" that he seems to always be shouting about in this group.

Dear @clearthink: """  This is absurdly incorrect and misleading although it is revealing because it shows that raulruegas discovered the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a Music Reproduction System fairly recently.... """


totally wrong assumption. Way before no one in this forum ( that I remember. ) talks in deep about the different alignment solutions I posted several times on that critical audio subject y through the time along other audiophiles we discuss in deep the overall subject.

""" 
he now portrays himself as an expert on the matter when it is actually clear that he is confused ... """

first than all I never portrays as an expert on this issue. Through those years I posted where came those solutions for overhang and offset angle in the cartridge/tonearm set up. I don't want to repeat what I posted several times years ago ( not recently as you assumed. ) and only for your records and way before those linear tracking tonearm you name it was in 1908 when Harsanyi touched for the first time the subject on pivoted tonearm designs, Wilson followed him in 1924 and Löfgren in 1938.

You just came here trying to hit me in anyway but as many other gentlemans you just failed.

Instead of that why don't share to us why I'm wrong and with out know-how as you said. Please prove it not only post it with out true foundations or precise facts. Please enrich not only my ignorance level but the knowledge level of all other audiophiles.

Thank's in advance for your " ligth ".

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.