Correct alignment for Fidelity Research 64fx/SPU?

While we're at it, since you brought this 6-year-old thread to the fore.  Jeff1225 said (in 2014) that he had "zero tracking error" using his Mint Protractor with his FR or Ikeda tonearm.  THAT is a feat, indeed, unless he turned his pivoted tonearm into a linear tracker and then had the high skill level and luck necessary to set it up perfectly.  The point being that all of this business with aligning a pivoted tonearm is about compromise or preference. All algorithms admit tracking error; it's only a question of where on the LP surface and how much.

The problem by integrated headshells is that one can't move the
stylus to ''optimal position'' as is the case by ''ordinary headshells''.
Even the FR -7 kinds have different cantilever length which imply
different stylus to pivot distance . So the only way to get correct
geometry is to move the arm in its base to correct distance in
the sense of stylus to pivot distance. 

Dear @edgewear:  ""  you get perfect alignment with the Stevenson geometry. This set up has the convenience to also operate SPU's without having to change the S2P distance. ...... but my SPU's have 51mm and fit the FR64 perfectly. No tracking errors....""

No tracking error? seriously? because Stevenson alignment is the worst kind of alignment due to its very high tracking error all over the LP surface but at the last 3mm. Is the worst of all kind of alignments.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@rauliruegas  I should have expressed myself more accurately. Obviously there are tracking errors with any pivoted tonearm. In response to @montesquieu  I should have said "no nasty tracking errors". You see, I don't hear audible distortions using Ikeda's specified 230mm S2P distance for the FR64 in combination with the FR7 cartridges, which were designed to be used with this arm (and the FR66). The same goes for using the FR64 with SPU's: no 'nasty' tracking errors. 

I know you hate the FR64, but I happen to admire Ikeda's designs and I have no reason to doubt that he knew what he was doing when he chose the Stevenson geometry for his products. As far as I'm concerned the sonic results speak for themselves. If you happen to think differently, that's perfectly fine. I couldn't case less.

Dear @edgewear : "  I know you hate the FR64.."

maybe my several posts about through the time give that  conclusion but the FR main subject I don't recomended it ( even that I own it. ) is that it's a non-damped tonearm design.

The tonearm looks really fine but any tonearm needs to " fullfil " the cartridge needs and one critical need on a cartridge is precesily to damp so many kind of resonances/distortions developed in between the LP/cartridge/tonearm.
I know that the FR as SAEC tonearms likes to almost all people because one characteristic is that is so alive as the live MUSIC.

The kind of nice distortuions developed through FR/SAEC tonearms are just that: nice distortions and I prefer more clear MUSIC information with lower " nice distortions ".

This FR/SAEC tonearms example is in some ways similar on why we like more analog than digital or tubes over SS electronics.

So, everything belongs on what be our room/system main targets and mine is try to stay truer to the recording and one path that puts me near to that target is try to leave all kind of distortions generated by the room/system at minimum elsewhere the room/system and a well damped tonearm designs helps a lot to achieve that target.

R.