Fidelity Research FR64s Headshell dilemma

EL = effective length
The effective length is the distance from pivot to stylus.

When we move stylus in the headshell slots back of forth for different null points (Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson) we are changing EL (Effective Length). The difference is small, within few mm. Then we turn a cartridge left of right to align by the cantilever. This is it.

This is how anyone can change alignment from Stevenson to Baerwald without changing PS distance (as i said on some turntables it is simply impossible to change PS, like on Technics for example).

Anyway i’m following tonearm manufacturer method first, because in my opinion tonearm designer is the one i can trust. if i have tonearm with Baerwald i use Baerwald. If i have tonearm with Stevenson i use Stevenson (especially with FR + FR7fz series).

On my Luxman PD-444 i have armboards on the rails, i can move them, but not everyone have same armboards to change PS.

No one can change PS (Pivot to Spindle) on this turntables.
Got it ?

I’m really tired of this pointless thread, you can continue without me, thanks

I can’t hear this distortion or any problem at all with many tonearms designed for Stevenson alignment like world class Technics tonearms, Ikeda and many others. At the same time i have tonearms in use aligned and designed with Baerwald method.

My answer to the OP is a nice headshell with slots (not a short headshell with short slots), this is all we need to solve the issue, nothing esle.   

Dear chakster, in addition to ''slots in' or ''on'' headshells there are
also ''movable'' 4 pin connectors which not only allow for the
right azimuth but also  for extra extension for stylus adjustment.
Next to rigidity issue connected with used material those are
important properties of headshells. But also the distance in the
headshell which allows for carts with different dimensions as
well for headshell wire. Your ''short'' headhells are very frustrating
when one need to ''wrestle '' with them in order to get them 
connected with both : cart connectors and headshell connectors .
Add to that different  dimensions of headshell ''clips'' for the
carts as well for the headshells connectors so who would 
understand our hobby except by  masochism assumption?

''Simplicity and reality'', As Raul Kessler& Pisha start with
assumption of 3 ''simple equations'' needed for optimal
geometry. : 1. the determination of zero points, 2. the optimum
of offset angle and 3, optimum for overhang for a given eff.
length.
The reality, ''in the other side'' , as Raul is used to say,  is that
neither of 22  tonearms inspected has optimal construction.
All have sub-optimal results in the context of mentioned ''simple
equations '' . 

@chakster : " This is how anyone can change alignment from Stevenson to Baerwald without changing PS distance...""

yes, I’m not saying you can’t. The issue is that you are changing the EL with its implications and of course that with TT with integrated tonearm where we can’t move the tonearm position then we have no alternative, it’s clear.

"" At the same time i have tonearms in use aligned and designed with Baerwald method. ""

this is your real problem and total misunderstood because you are not a tonearm designer and you just can’t understand how that works: again the tonearm designer does not design his tonearm around an alignment type, through his design what he determines is the tonearm EL and when the tonearm is finished that tonearm can be used with any alignment geometry. Some designers like Löfgren A/Baerwald but this does not means in anyway that the tonearm was designed for use that geometry alignment, we can use any alignment we want.

VPI designed the tonearm as any designer but they choosed a combination of some alignments ( I think the Cotter one. ), for what lohanimal posteed Clearaudio did the same: a little different alignment, SAT too.

Almost all Japanese designers when they finished the manufacture of their tonearm choosed Stevenson alignment but we can choose a different one with any of their tonearms because Stevenson is an aberration and the worst alignment no matters what..
I think that Japanese tonearm designers never took their time to analize the charts/diagrams we can read/see in the vinylengine calculator were any one can see that Stevenson always has higher distortions(errors that any other alignment type no matters what ! ! but at the last 3mm of the LP recorded surface grooves but the LP’s that normally we own perhaps only the 1% are recorded at those very inner distance. As I said an aberration/worst and absurd along stupid to use Stevenson when we know those facts measured facts.

You can follow using Stevenson, is up to you but even if you can’t detect the higher distortions you are totally wrong and this speaks very clear you extremely low knowledge levels and your imposibility to learn to understand: that’s your brain, good for you.


R.

I do remember as story of SAEC then the first series was so condemned by alignment geometry specialists that they have changed into more normal one after 308 series. It's obvious that next series was more geometrical :)
So Japanese know about geometry for sure.