I have even read several self appointed experts here argue vehemently that either Lofgren or Baerwald alignments are far superior to StevensonStevenson optimizes end-of-side play — namely it reduces distortion intrinsic to the inner grooves' diameter and velocity. This makes sense with much Classical music, which often ends with a fortissimo finale that's harder to track. The finale of Mahler's Third, for example, taxes any alignment and Stevenson handles it best — even so, it can't match a linear-tracking arm with (theoretically) zero trackng error.
Personally, I'd rather have a bit more distortion on other parts of the LP, where it's less noticeable, than at the place where it's most noticeable.
All these alignment theories are great for mathematicians because in their imaginary world of intellectual perfections these things matter. Not only do they matter, they are everything.Whether these 'obsessive' mathematicians actually exist or not, the idea that 'lowest average distortion' over the course of an entire side is better than 'lowest distortion where it's most distorted' is a questionable notion.