Mint LP a no go – now what?

Thom-

No, the JMW arms are not easily adjusted at their mounting position on the plinth. Thankfully, it's easy-at least, as easy as any arm-to measure spindle to pivot. Pulling the arm reveals the pivot point, and believe me, it's a 'point'-the greatest threat isn't an inaccurate measurement, it's the potential to draw blood on that thing.

An extensive study on the JMW arm geometry was done on VinylEngine

http://www.vinylengine.com/vpi-tonearm-geometry.shtml

which showed relatively conclusively that VPI uses a proprietary cart adjustment geometry. Not necessarily a bad one, depending on what you're seeking sonically, but definitely not a Baerwald or Loefgren. Incidentally, this all came about because J. Elison could not get HW to cough up the math that he used to generate the VPI mounting jigs. Not the lengths or distances, mind you (those are available on the VPI website, for all arms other than, oddly, the 12" arms) but the math.

For the record, the VPI alignment does, as it seems to be intended, deliver a bit less distortion on the inner grooves, but since switching to Baerwald I'm much (much) happier with the sound over the entire record.

BTW, I agree that this info should be easily available, for *all* the JMW arms-why it's not is mystifying. Frank Schroeder sure wouldn't pull this crap. Can you imagine HW helping diy-ers mimic his arms, the way that F.Schroeder so generously does? Guess it's a personality thing.

WOW! Those are wild null points in the Vinyl Engine writeup. It's an interesting analysis, and raises an interesting question. Is this an alignment with great merit, but implemented with an inferior tool?

I suppose it's HW's call as to how his turntables are heard. He's obviously invested in his geometry, and thinks this is how we should hear his 'tables.

I think there's a better way to sell your prejudice than by merely refusing to divulge a fairly readily available number (p-s or eff. length, or both).

In fairness to Harry, he's a helpful sort, but I think he's not a numbers guy. I had to fabricate a custom armboard for a 12.5 a few years ago.

When I asked for the mounting pattern, Harry was good enough to send me an old acrylic mounting platform with the marked position of the 3 holes.

If asked the same question, I'd send someone a .PDF copy of the drawing. I think it's a matter of how Harry views these problems rather than any reticence on his part.

As an aside, there are quite a few alignments used by various Japanese manufacturers - alignments for which we Westerners have no name.

Plug for example the effective length of the Dyna DV-507 into Ellison's spreadsheet and you'll be surprised at how it varies from both Loefgren and Baerwaald.

Cheers,
Thom

I own several SAEC knife-edge tonearms, and though the workmanship is gorgeous (watch-like in a way) the called-for alignment strategy is off the charts, and not in a good way. Fortunately, they can be returned to Planet Earth by changing the prescribed spindle to pivot distances. I've heard that when these were available new, they weren't highly thought of, and I wonder if the cart alignment was the reason-to me, they sound like a more accurate SME 3009, which I'm sure they were copying.

*" Is this an alignment with great merit, but implemented with an inferior tool?"*

Perhaps, but as I said, I prefer the Baerwald. The VPI jig is clever in that it eliminates sighting a straight line between the spindle and pivot point, but sadly, the grid lines are too thick to be very accurate, and the black surface color(at least on mine) makes observing the cantilever virtually impossible.

*"In fairness to Harry, he's a helpful sort,..."*

Indeed. On more than one occasion he's been kind to me. But if he smells any possibility of negativity concerning VPI products, he's gone. Which is probably what happened with Elison-he can bring that derisive tone in spades.

Thanks for your help in determining effective length. Maybe the OP and I will get a Mint protractor someday after all.

"Plug for example the effective length of the Dyna DV-507 into Ellison's spreadsheet and you'll be surprised at how it varies from both Loefgren and Baerwaald"

The tonearm parameters given by Dynavector for the DV-507 are for Stevenson's alignment. From what I've read Elison doesn't think highly of Stevenson's method so it's not included in his spread sheet.

Hi JohnBrown,

I have had great experiences with a well implemented Baerwaald alignment as well. The distortion profile of the JMW did however catch my attention.

A note to owners of DV-507's and other unconventional mounts when implemented on a fixed mount plinth. Even though you may have a fixed mount, you can likely still achieve a Baerwaald alignment.

Your protractor of choice will guide you. In the case of an arc protractor, it will take some messing with the Ellison spreadsheet, because you need to derive a new effective length that is consistent with your pivot to spindle distance.

First, verify your pivot to spindle distance. Then, iteratively work through the Ellison spreadsheet to find an effective length that yields your (non-moveable) pivot to spindle distance.

Finally, verify that you can achieve this effective length - that you don't run out of fore/aft adjustability in your headshell slots. Use the method I propose above to determine the effective length.

Note that a difference of .5mm pivot to spindle distance will drive you nuts. As long as you can verify your pivot to spindle distance (or there's a enough play in the mount to compensate), you'll be fine.

Fun with geometry ;-)

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier