@intactaudio : " manipulated numbers without disclosing the manipulation to justify someones choice."
" your proposed alignment simply "
and way before you posted the graphics I posted to you:
" that is the SAT tonearms alignment. "
Btw, was ridiculous/false/untrue/lie that in your graphic instead to write SAT use it my name when the alignment came from SAT and I posted to you before that graphic and you knowed.
" I do not believe he would fudge the inner groove radius to 75mm in the calculations "
that’s only your ignorance because you showed with this kind of statements that your knowledge level on the SAT tonearm is near zero. Your problem not mine.
""" Everyone is allowed their own choice of compromise """
Yes, that’s why exist the custom key in the calculators.
@optimize thank’s for your expert explanation.
Btw, intactaudio you posted that with the SAT the distortion level goes at 60mm to 2%. Well could be that your speakers goes even way higher that that figure and no compliant about. The phono stage you are using ( I think you are using it ) develops a huge distortion level with that high swing of 3db deviation in the RIAA inverse eq. and I can understand with out compliant because it’s what you are using and that makes more harm that the SAT alignment. Incredible that you made a " film of drama " on this issue.
In the other side all SAT owners are fully satisfied with Mark tonearms. I listen 3 times to the SAT and it’s really good and I think that @mijostyn did it and like it too.
I think that if your main undisclosed attitude is to hit me then you are wrong in that specific alignment issues that as I told you I’m only using it and whith not the kind of critics like you other than exactly the same opinion that @optimize about Stevenson A alignment.
So I appreciated if you take off my name in your posted graphics due that no belongs to it.
R.