Curved and Straight Tonearms

Dear @g_nakamoto: Who can't remember it? when The Zero ( for zero tracking error. ) was and still is a TT design with a truly extremely special pivoted tonearm with " zero " tracking error that when designed in the 70's was " thousands " of years a head on pivoted tonearm designs even for today top designs.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear friends: Almost all the time when I ask to other gentlemans that enrich or provide/contribute with real information that can help us in the subject we are under a dialogue those gentlemans ( that posted a critic or not so good opinion in the subject. ) just disappears, no additional post in the subject only " dead silence ".

Make no sense to me that kind of attitude because if I come to any audio subject dialogue is because I have something not to say but something that can help or enrich our learning level.

In this alignment on pivoted tonearms audio critical subject at least two gentlemans ( genesis 168 and clearthink ) decided no additional coments, yes this is their privilege.

Btw, Stevenson A alignment solution today is totally out of question. It gaves NOTHING to improve the quality performance level on any cartridge or any system or any tonearm. Similar alignment approaches today helps to NOTHING.
Stevenson maybe works in the old times but not today, contributes only to listen way higher distortions due to its inherent higher tracking distortions level.

@larryi gaves very good reasons about and you read information ( not just an opinion. ) I posted here and through the years in other treads.

So make your self a favor and a favor to the MUSIC: staying out of STEVENSON alignment. Of course it’s up to you.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

" In this alignment on pivoted tonearms audio critical subject at least two gentlemans ( genesis 168 and clearthink ) decided no additional coments, yes this is their privilege"

I did not respond to you because it is patently obvious that you don't know what your talking about and when confronted with facts you respond in a way that clearly denies the facts that are readily apparent to literally everyone  who reads this board. For example you wrote that "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 professional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. " You admitted that you didn't care about alignment and even claimed that no one else did either but as I showed you in my response that is completely false it is only true that you did not know about it and after you discovered the importance of proper alignment you now want to instruct everyone here on your special knowledge of alignment which has actually been generally known for decades as I previously pointed out to you. So there is no point in responding to you when you are confused and pretend you know everything there is to know about this subject that you just learned about relatively recently in time and yet you take credit for enlightening everyone here about the matter as you shout that we should enjoy the music and not DISTORTION. 

Dear @clearthink: Unfortunatelly you are wrong in your assumptions of what I posted. Maybe becfause English is not my native language. am I confused, how?

I and you can ask to audiophiles ( even today professional reviewers ) in this board what were their knowledge levels on the precise and critical understanding the different cartridge/pivoted tonearm alignments in the middle of 60's early 70's.

Which kind of true accurate protractors were they using and what level of accuracy had the own tonearm pick-ups? and not only that but in how many of those vintage protractors they read a precise explanation of the importance of accuracy on that st up or the type of alignment the protractor showed or in the case of tonearm manufacturers that explained it along the protractor accuracy its protractor had?

In which of those protractors came perfectly explained that what the audiophile has to align is the cantilever and not the cartridge sides?

Even in 2015 M.Fremer when was " talking " of the tonearm cartridge importance of precise set up posted ( somewhere. ):

""" 

If you buy a  ‘table that’s been pre-drilled and fitted with a secondary manufacturer’s arm, it’s a good idea to check the P2S distance either by using a protractor that has a measuring beam (Feickert, Dennesen, etc.) or if you don’t have one of those, by using a ruler marked in millimeters....................................................................................

Fortunately, there is some room to compensate for P2S distance error here in the form of head shell slots........ """"

imagine how good could be the today clear understanding on the subject by us audiophiles ( not you. You are an " expert ".  ) when MF has that kind of misunderstood and in this thread there are clear examples of different kind of misunderstood by more than one gentleman that posted here.

Of course that for you is very clear where is that MF misunderstood, rigth?

Anyway, I re-read twice your two posts here and just can´t find out your " expert " level on the alignment pivot tonearm subject.

You only post part of stereo recording history but you did not shared nothing on the pivot tonearm alignment subject, that's what I'm talking in my last posts.

So, what are you talking about? what do you want to prove and where are precise facts that can prove what you think (?) can prove?

Please show us who you are ! ? ! ? ! ?. Every day is a learning day.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

Dear friends: This kind of discussion ( pivoit tonearm alignment subject. ) always makes me to look over the information I have and that I learned through the years to find out if something I learned is wrong and rectify it or to confirm " things " are ok.

Well, in these kind of discussions almost always I learn something from other gentlemans and this time was not different.

The comment from genesis 168  ( refering to Stevenson A alignment. ): 

"""  Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track..... """

I gave an answer to that and the answer came in that precise moment:

way before the stylus tip hit the first LP recorded groove Stevenson A  approach tell us its inherent high distortion levels on those grooves against Löfgren approaches where the Stevenson A and Löfgren equations solutions are what numbers says with a zero tolerance in the overall cartridge/tonearm parametrs set up . 

That's what mathematics says but is almost impossible to make any of those set ups with zero tolerance and this fact means that " things "/distortion levels always will be higher that what the solutions says and we have to remember here that distortions generates harmonics too and that over the LP play exist IMD too.

For years I posted here the critical importance of accuracy in the cartridge/pivoted tonearm set up subject and now is more clear why.

That accuracy level ( ideal: zero tolerance. ) is even more important because all the imperfections of the LP it self as in the cartridge too and because of the different recording velocities recorded over the LP surface.

As you know my target is to be/stay nearer tothe recording but as you know what is in the LP recorded surface is not what is in the recording, far away from there.

In theory we can have what is in the recording when the phono stage applys the inverse RIAA eq. where the magnified set up " errors " ( non-zero tolerances. ) during the LP play along the distortion levels of each kind of alignment are magnified again on that inverse severe eq.

Taking all those in count Stevenson A is the worst of those kind of alignments and seems to me with out today facts that can justify it use for many audiophiles in the world as some of you in this forum.

The alignment cartridge/pivoted tonearm has to live inside of what is surrounded with and not only taking in count the inside grooves alone as and island in the earth because exist a whole relationship with all what surround the overall analog alternative.

Stevenson A approach is an extreme approach with extreme consequences due that he puts the inner null radius ( zero wte. ) at r1. I already explained the " terrible "consequence about that for me preclude the use of this kind of alignment or similar one.

Now, I can be wrong and if I'm I would like that some one of you clarify this subject for me. Thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.