Feickert analogue protractor....Owners impressions

As long as we're talking about tonearm alignment in general, I'd like to bring up the experience of my oldest audio friend (both in years of friendship and age). I went to his house to help him set up his new Dynavector Karat 17D3 in his Well Tempered Reference tonearm, using my Turntable Basics protractor, which I think falls into the category of an "arc-style" protractor. The experience was very stressful, because the platter of the WT tt will not stay stable without the drive belt to hold it up, because the WT tonearm is fixed in position by a very difficult to access nut underneath the table, and one must loosen that nut to adjust stylus overhang, because the WT tonearm also has only two holes in the headshell for cartridge mouting with no provision for fore and aft movement of the cartridge, and finally because the DV Karat seems to have an unusually short stylus-to-mounting hole distance. Every time I thought I had the DV stylus tip sitting in the right place, the act of tightening the nut under the table would inevitably twist the vertical shaft at the pivot end and throw out the alignment. We achieved some semblance of success after about 2 hours, but the combo sounded horrible, IMO, because I think the alignment was not good. He subsequently bought a Feikert; I don't know how that works, but he just told me that the alignment on the WT table and tonearm cannot be done with the Feikert, either. I think his frustration is due to the fundamental design of the WT and perhaps the unusually short cantilever on the DV Karat, but it points up the problems that can arise.

Downunder,

I'm not sure if you mean "difficult to get right" to refer to making or using an arc-style protractor. I doubt you are interested in making one, so I'll assume you are talking about using the protractor.

I don't find an arc-style protractor any more difficult to use than my 2-point style protractor. In fact, I find the arc style easier to use and much easier, for me anyway, to get alignment right.

Using any protractor is an iterative process if done correctly. That is, once you get your second point adjustment you really should go back and double check the alignment on the first point. This is also true of the arc-style, with one big exception. With the arc-style nothing is moved except the arm and cartridge. There is no re-aligning of the protractor for the first point. Unless one can do this re-alignment of the protractor with the exact same precision every time, this change in position of the protractor introduces error.

With the arc-style, you find the correct position for the protractor by locating the position in which the stylus lands exactly on the arc at a point near the spindle and a point near, preferably beyond, the outside edge of the platter. BTW, this can't be done unless the P2S distance is right for the specific arc. Once you have this the protractor is fixed in position. Now when you start the process of aligning the cantilever you are only concerned with that alignment and with keeping the stylus on the line. This alone makes the arc-style much easier for me to use.

Now as for how much time and effort one wants to put into the iterations, that is where the difficulty comes in. But this is true for any method or tool one wishes to use to do alignment. How close is close enough becomes a personal choice. My experiences lately with fine tuning cartridge alignment has shown me there is a huge reward for increasing the accuracy. This is no revelation to LP playback, we all know this. Some of us have found a tool that works even better for us to get cartridge alignment even more precise. Others may have a different tool that does the same for them. As always, YMMV.

Yea Dan, I was talking about using the protractor and paraphrasing Thom.

I have used a wally for some time with my JMW. When I upgraded from 12.5 to 12.6 - worked fine. from 12.6 to 12.7 the P2S distance changed - can't use the wally anymore.

Me I might be joining some of the folks here and getting a Mint. The Friekert for me seems to offer nothing.

cheers

Thanks for the feedback on the Phantom, Downunder. I really need to play with this fine tonearm. I hope my earlier post wasn't taken as a negative one, but rather as one to describe how to increase the precision on the very fine method that Bob Graham has designed for his earlier tonearms.

Yes, if the magnetic mechanism keeps the unipivot from wobbling during the alignment process, then you are correct and the problem is solved. As I mentioned, the fact that you're using the actual tonearm for the alignment process is a wonderful thing.

For those not familiar with the Graham alignment technique, a small nylon step-down adaptor is fit onto the record spindle. It tapers down to fit into a hole drilled in the headshell. This procedure needs to be done once - at tonearm mounting time, and before the cartridge is fit onto the headshell.

The object of the game is to fine-tune the pivot to spindle distance (using the built-in play in the arm mounting holes) until you can swing the arm over the record spindle and engage the hole in the headshell into the spindle adapter.

The other brilliant thing about the Graham technique is that the remainder of the alignment work is done with the jig which snaps onto the headshell - work which can be done on a well lighted desk.

Turntable Basics, Well Tempered Experience, Dyna 17D3 ...

Regarding the Turntable Basics protractor, it’s the two-point protractor of choice - for those inclined to using a two-point protractor. I'm guessing that you were trying to use the alignment line to aim at the tonearm bearing pivot.

This likely drove you batty and is not recommended. Small errors in aiming are magnified, and I know of no one but Frank Schroeder who can use this technique - whether with the aid of a thread or not. You're welcome to try.

When using both the Turntable Basics protractor as well as the one supplied by Triplanar (made in the same shop), use it as a two-point protractor and forget about the sighting line.

Yes, the Dynavector 17D3 has a very difficult cantilever to view. Even with great lighting and a magnifying glass it will drive you nutty. I love this cartridge, and it plays well above it's price point, but viewing the cantilever during the alignment process (intentionally short - by design) is not its strength.

As far as the remainder of the Well Tempered, the wobble and such is characteristic of the design as you mention. I recommend stabilizing it in some fashion (e.g. cardboard shims under the platter at three points), because no alignment technique will obviate the need for doing so. You probably thought about this on the drive home ;-)

In general (with all turntables), it's helpful to use a piece of masking tape to keep the platter from rotating. Of course, in the case of the Well Tempered, the stabilizing shims will accomplish this.

I've not played with a Well Tempered arm, but from your description, it fits into the same category as the SME, and Schroeder Reference/DPS as far as fixed cartridge mounting - from the perspective of the stylus position relative to the cartridge mounting holes determining the tonearm's effective length. Your effective length will vary depending on the cartridge manufacturer and model. See below for further comment.

Arc-style Protractors - Difficulty of Use ...

Well, they're difficult to use in the way that any fitness coach is. They won't let you off the hook until you get it right. If you want someone to whisper sweet lies in your ears, then don't choose an arc-style protractor.

I look at the Feickert as sort of a weigh-station, on the route to using an arc-style protractor. I say this because it emphasizes getting pivot to spindle distance right to a higher level of precision than measuring with a ruler. It also has a number of alignment points for various arm lengths which means that you won't get as easily confused when you shift your attention to working at the headshell slots. This is a good thing and I applaud this effort.

I hate to come down so hard on such a nicely executed design, but it reminds me of the current trend in software design - called SOA (service oriented architecture). This design philosophy emphasizes usability and the problem that the software is intended to solve. There's more to the philosophy than that, but the point is, that the best software design in the world is not as useful as that which is designed in collaboration with the user community which ultimately has to live with it.

As far has how the Feickert works, the photos linked to here should make it quite clear. http://www.feickert.com/engl/schablone_handling.html.

The relevant point is that for a particular arm geometry (one that is defined by a pin and dedicated pair of alignment grids), you get less confused between cartridge offset angle and fore-aft adjustment in the headshell (effective length/overhang). This is a good thing.

Lastly, I find it curious that Feickert in his instructions shows us a Schroeder tonearm for his setup example, because (as with an arc-style protractor), the Schroeder Reference, DPS, and SME arms (those without cartridge mounting slots) will give you varying results depending on the cartridge and how far its stylus to mounting bolt distance varies. This would mandate (in the case of the Feickert) another set of grids and alignment pin hole, or in the case of an arc style protractor, either a different arc (on a universal protractor) or a different protractor. Of course, a universal, two-point protractor will work. I go into this in the thread I link to in my previous post.

Again, the caveat with all of this stuff is that the tool you relate to best, is the best tool. For many, this might be the Feickert.

The experience of everyone to date has been that once they go to an arc-style protractor, they find it easier to visualize the solution as well as to implement it. Most importantly, the results are audible. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean a faster setup, as the precision level will demand that you really get it right and not just approximately right.

I liken this "getting it right" (in comparison to getting it approximately right with a two-point protractor) to be an order of magnitude improvement in the musicality of your analog rig - an ease (lack of distortion), delineation of musical lines, along with everything else that Dan_ed reported. Now, the higher the resolution level of your rig, the more you'll hear the improvement, but it's still a very worthwhile investment for owners of Regas and such.

Another benefit I've found with getting your setup perfect is that it is much less finicky in terms of VTA adjustment. I first noticed this in my work with the ET-2, linear tracker. For those without an easily repeatable finely adjustable VTA mechanism, this is not a trivial advantage.

I have no doubts that people can get it right with a two-point protractor, with my good buddy Frank Schroeder being one notable exception. Doug D. tells us that he can, and they're both to be congratulated for this. I'm going to send Dough an arc-style protractor to try. I suspect that he is so fastidious with his alignment process that he won't note an improvement, but it will be interesting to hear from him nevertheless.

For the large majority of us however, I think that a better tool is a worthwhile investment.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Dear Thom, We did use something straight and rigid (no joke intended) to extend the linear guide on the Turntable Basics protractor toward the true pivot of the WT tonearm, and I did use masking tape to immobilize the platter AND to try to keep it from flopping over. Eventually I think we did shim it. The confounding thing, along with the tiny cantilever of the 17D3, was the unavoidable tendency of the WT tonearm to twist when one tried to tighten down on the screw that holds it in place. At home with my Triplanar, I find the Turntable Basics very easy to use, but I agree with you on the difficulty of sighting down those lines toward the pivot, and on the drastic effect of a small error in sighting the pivot.