Ikeda IT-407 tonearm geometry

Over and over again, every year, oh my god.
No one can HEAR it, Japanese tonearm designers continue to use Stevenson. The one who claimed to hear it (M.Fremer) is using SAT tonearm that received tons of criticism on here because of is geometry.
People contradict to each over, some people contradict to themselves.

Normal people continue to enjoy music with whatever alignment (Baerwald, Lofgren or Stevenson ... or maybe something new like Uni-Din).

I will add more frustration:  Rigid Float/Ha , a very short 7” inch tonearm !
HOW ABOUT UNDERHANG  5~20mm ?

@chakster 

Yes. It got a little off track. I’ll have to get a protractor for Stevenson and give it a try. You said your short  ikeda lined up properly without having to twist The cartridge in the headshell. Using Lofgren I have to twist my cartridge quite a lot in my long ikeda.  So much so, that I’d be surprised that Stevenson would be much different. But I haven’t tried yet so I can’t say for sure.


As I said in my opening question, I did speak with the USA distributor and never got clear answers either. He did say that many people preferred a longer p2s. And he uses a longer measurement than recommended too. Then Raul gave his recommendations for it407 and his p2s was shorter than recommended. I was just hoping for a more general consensus. I will get a Stevenson protractor and hopefully have a better understanding.

Steve.

Steve, with your name you must get Stevenson
sorry, it was hard to resist :) 

Seriously, always try first what manufaturer recommends, Ikeda-San is the legend in High-End world. 

You can ask @halcro for his FR-66s PS distance, it must be the same as Ikeda 407. 

Dear friends: I posted that any one of us can manipulate in any tonearm any of the input alignment calculations and this means that each one of us can have a self " designed "/dedicated propietary alignment.

That’s what the SAT tonearm did it when he refused to use the input parameters of the standard inner/outer groove radious and that’s why the SAT tonearm must be aligned by the seller/distributor. Has any advantage what he did it? not really because we can use Löfgren A/B there and evertthing will be fine.

It does not exist any NEW alignment as that DIN that an Agoner posted. What the gentleman down there did it was a manipulation of the input most inner groove radious. He took 54.00mmm for that distance and use Löfgren B alignment and that’s why in the analog planet link appears those null points values.

Here an easy calculation about where any one can corroborates what I’m saying:

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=307&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=el&a2lv=307&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=el&a3lv=307&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=el&a4lv=307&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=cus&igv=54.0&cal=y&submit=calculate

any advantage?, no only higher error. Btw, I have not a LP that been recorded at 54.00mm inner groove radious. So that data manipulation is futile and useless for say the least. Vive le IgnoraCE ! ! ! ?

Obviously that due our normal low knowledge levels on this alignment specific subject those kind of data manipulations looks as something new/invention. Those gentlemans are taking advantage of our ignorance levels about and nothing more.

R.

dEAR @sdrsdrsdr : """ Then Raul gave his recommendations for it407 and his p2s was shorter than recommended. I was just hoping for a more general consensus. """

YOU HAVE A TOTAL MISUNDERSTOOD ON ALMOST ALL WHAT i POSTED HERE.

It’s normal your misunderstood when M.Fremer ( in those times. ) had a bigger misunderstood on the overall subject and this is what I’m talking about and why I posted what I posted in your thread: for we can understand it and seems to me you did not yet.

This is what I posted on the 407 and I took the manufacturer effective length specification ( one of input alignment calculations. ), I did not change it. The P2S is only one of the calculation outputs achieved by difference in those calculations using Löfgren A and is not  my recomendation but a result of the calculations:


""""""" P2S: 293.718 . I used and use Löfgren A. Many years ago I used Löfgren B. Before I learned my tonearm set up always was made according manufacturer specs, not any more.

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=307&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=el&a2lv=307&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=el&a3lv=307&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=el&a4lv=307&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate """"""""




Got it? That alignment can be use exactly for the FR66 too following the manufacturer EL spec.

Any thing different down there is only input/output number manipulations with out foundation but any one can do what any one wants it. Anyway, Ikeda-san is an ignorant on the overall alignment subject and its advantages/disadvantages. Period.

R.