Mint Protractor. A Pretty Nice Alignment Tool

Dear @neonknight : " The Mint protractor is built specifically for this arm. "

NO, that’s where you misunderstood strated and belongs because the MINT LP protractors were made not for an specific tonearm ( this does not matters. ) but for an specific P2S distance.

Look, the name in cartridge/tonearm alignment is accuracy and the MINT LP protractor is totally accurated for that specific P2S distance that each owner ask for.

Example of that accuracy and your misunderstood, differences in the alignment A and B in Lófgren are this way:

same linear offset for both A/B, different null points at each one, same offset angles, different tracking distortion and error levels and different overhang by only 0.8 mm and obviously different P2S distances.

Compared any of the A/B Löfgren alignments with Stevenson all parameters are way different ( this is the worst kind of alignment but one choosed by tonearm japanese designers. )

R.

I ordered two Mints from Yip way back in the day when I was using VPI decks. As Raul has noted, P-S was a critical measurement for Yip. He would not provide his custom protractor without it. He also needed to know the ID of the tonearm.

Now that said, is the Mint "pretty nice"? Well dayum, "pretty nice" describes a lot of things, even the mediocre. The Mint is very difficult for those with so-so vision or who have brains that for whatever neurological reason do not perceive paralax very well. And all for an alignment method that favors classical music with crescendos at the innermost grooves.

I’ve said this so many times that I am embarrassed to say it again. One can literally slam the cartridge to the very front of the head shell and if you nail the tracking force, VTA, and zenith you will get very good sound. With microline and similar stylii there is a fair bit to be gained by further optimization. The point of this is that minimizing arc-induced distortion is so incredibly overrated-it is like how you choose to set your broken watch so that at least it’s right two times a day.

@rauliruegas is absolutely correct. Most tonearms are not at their specified spindle to pivot distance. They are off by several mm which throws the Mint out the window. There are way too many ways to create error when drilling for the tonearm. SME took this into account when they created their famous tonearm base.

In order for a protractor to be as accurate as possible the lines have to be vanishingly thin and there has to be a little divot to place the stylus in. The SmarTractor is a great example. It also gives you a choice of alignments, Lofgren B being the best for modern records.  The SmarTractor also allows you to accurately measure the spindle to pivot distance. So, if there is room for adjustment you can get it right on target. 

Mijostyn, is it really true that most tonearms are mounted incorrectly regarding P2S distance? I would have thought that overhang was the most common error. The very first and really only important thing to do when mounting a new tonearm is to get P2S as precisely as possible to the recommended distance. After that, setting overhang is a piece of cake. So why assume that the same tonearm mounted on the same TT in two separate instances by two different operators, will exhibit a difference in P2S? Bear in mind that I’ve never seen a Mint protractor, let alone used one. I guess what Raul is saying is that P2S for Stevenson is different from correct P2S for either of the Lofgren alternatives. Therefore, one ought not to use a Mint protractor to achieve a perfect Lofgren alignment, unless the Mint was specifically created for Lofgren A or B.

I sheepishly agree with fsonic on the minimal benefits of being anal regarding alignment.

Dear @lewm  : Not exactly that. What I'm saying is refered to how the MINT LP protractor was/is made it where ( independent of the type of alignment choosed ) the manufacturer takes the P2S distance as his protractor reference to build it.

R.