Will fine tune adjustments with protractor help with "brightness?"

@chakster

1) I am aware of Stevenson's link with classical music and in fact alluded to it in my post

2) "I doubt in your knowledge of record formats." Does that comment make you feel better-more superior?

3) I could be wrong but I doubt there is anything but a very small minority of posters here that spend a great deal of time playing 7" 45's relative to 12" records in their collection. If there are, accept my apologies;  my comments were not directed toward them.

4) For those playing large numbers of highly collectible 7" 45's with playable grooves between 50-82 mm and with a serious commitment to them and wanting to hear them at their best, Stevenson, while it may be preferable to Baerwald and Lofgren, would actually make little sense in that scenario.

What would make sense for those collectors would be to create a custom alignment with nulls somewhere in the 51-52 mm and 75-77 mm area. 

5) For those of us with pivoted arms it makes perfect sense to work at minimizing distortions when it is a relatively simple and basic procedure based on the geometry and, for most, a lot less complicated than moving to a linear tracking arm. 

@knollbrent 

Sorry to hear of your pain with the death of a cartridge. For what it's worth, I came very close to destroying a higher end Koetsu shortly after I bought it.

But you got right back on the horse! Congratulations on installing the new one !! Well done - I remember how much of a stretch it was, that first time.

@hdm

So in your opinion Stevenson works well for classical music ?

Because the main quastion is why Stevenson made his alignment long time after Baerwald / Lofgren and why nearly all Japanese manufacturers of high-end tonearm using Stevenson till today. Do you have any explanation of this ?

It’s weird that audiophiles ignoring millions of records pressed on 45s singles on independent labels in the 50s - 70s (not available on any LPs). In fact the choise of music on expensive audiophile pressing LPs is awful (with some exceptions), which makes me think that audiophiles are about quality, not about music itself. As i said inner groove on 45s is different, that’s all i was trying to say.

At the same time the "normal" people just use what they got from the manufacturer like Technics.

I personally use different alignments, mostly Baerwald and Stevenson on different tonearms. I can’t hear distortion with Stevenson! Probably Technics engineers can’t here distortion too, also many other Japanese tonearm manufacturers can’t hear distortion with Stevenson alignment.

You statement is theoretical, but practically it is not necessary for the OP to change alignemnt on Technics turntables with Technics tonearm.

I would be happy to hear some files recorded with Steventon vs Baerwald / Lofgren to prove the audible distortion. I think it will be impossible!

I would like to point you on ViV Lab tonearm and its alignment method which has nothing to do with Stevenson, Baerwald, Lofgren etc. But no one complained about the distortion. Why?

IMO it's easy to obsess about tiny differences from the various alignment setups....

I use an SL1200G & have a Roksan Black & a Goldring 1024, both using the 1024 Gyger S stylus & mounted on identical headshells - the Roksan using Baerwald/Dr Feikert & the Goldring using the Technics gauge. They sound almost identical.

Any differences between alignment methods are very small (to all intents undetectable) & when done accurately, all sound excellent - although Feickert is more fiddly/precise. I agree with previous posts suggesting that the Technics engineers have chosen their alignment and users should trust it. 

By the way - back in 2012 I ordered a Mint protractor for a Rega. I asked Yip to use Baerwald... & he did.

@chakster

A couple of points and then I'll bow out of this discussion:

1) As I said above, Stevenson will be better and have lower distortion numbers than Baerwald (or Lofgren A) or Lofgren (B) in the 58-62 mm groove area. Hence, it will work well on those records, classical or otherwise on the last 60-90 seconds of those records. Across the rest of the record Baerwald and Lofgren have significantly better distortion numbers. There is nothing theoretical about this-it is simply a fact.

2) As such, the alignment that one chooses (if one makes or wants to make that choice) will be based on priorities: ie; whether they want to minimize distortion for 60-90 seconds on (certain) records, or whether they want to minimize distortion on the other 15-20 minutes of the record.

3) If you can't hear the distortions, no problem. Perhaps I could not hear them either. We're back in an entirely subjective domain then. Objectively, though, I would prefer to minimize distortion across 95% of the record as opposed to 5% of it from the star when it is a relatively simple procedure.

But if those distortions in the final 5% are more grossly objectionable than those in the 95% to the listener then their priorities may be different than mine. I don't have a ton of records with information around the 60 mm mark and don't play 7" 45's (if I did I'd explore other alignment options and a dedicated arm/table for them if I was serious) so it's a bit of a moot point for me.

4) Only the OP would be able to tell us if it would be worthwhile to change the alignment on his Technics and he'd have to do it to find out. If he's happy with the way it sounds now, there's no need to experiment. FWIW, other Technics users in the past have reported better performance with Baerwald, but I'm sure there are some who also can't hear any difference.

5) Japanese manufacturers do not "all use Stevenson". They typically almost all specify a 15 mm over hang and nulls around (but not exactly at) 60 and 114 mm. But 90 per cent of those nulls, while they are closer to Stevenson than Lofgren or Baerwald nulls, are not Stevenson nulls and they are often different from one Japanese manufacturer to another. The Technics "alignment" is but one example. The Japanese have simply been doing it that way for a long time, well before Stevenson wrote his paper(s) in 1966-67, and have simply continued doing it since.

6) I'm not familiar with the ViV Lab arm and really know nothing about it. If its geometry, however, contributes to significantly higher distortion numbers than Stevenson, let alone Baerwald or Lofgren, I'd be somewhat skeptical while trying to keep an open mind I suppose. Maybe some people just like the sound of certain distortion(s)? It's a subjective hobby and that can't entirely be ruled out.