Dear Raul, the Dennes paper is very good indeed. Its a great classic since 2 decades. However - it too does only deal with the "2nd" geometry. Baerwald, Loefgren, bauer, Stevenson etc. - this is all about the geometry of the stylus in a given tonearm. Thats why the mounting distance is not taken into consideration at all - it is not needed in those calculations and it taken as any fixed parameter.
These calculations do not deal with a specific tonearm - they deal with the ALIGNMENT OF A STYLUS in an - already mounted to its individual geometry - given tonearm. All these papers do not deal with the basic geometry of the given tonearm.
Maybe we have a big missunderstanding here - I mean there is:
A) a basic geometry of the tonearm itself. This is an individual geometry of a given tonearm.
B) then there is the geometry of the stylus in a GIVEN (= its individual geometry already fullfilled) tonearm.
This - I would like to call it "individual" or "secondary" - geometry is kind of universal. It applies to ALL cartridges and have several options to calculate and align the tracking arc and its zero-error points and maxima and minima derivations from the arc.
These calculations do not deal with a specific tonearm - they deal with the ALIGNMENT OF A STYLUS in an - already mounted to its individual geometry - given tonearm. All these papers do not deal with the basic geometry of the given tonearm.
Maybe we have a big missunderstanding here - I mean there is:
A) a basic geometry of the tonearm itself. This is an individual geometry of a given tonearm.
B) then there is the geometry of the stylus in a GIVEN (= its individual geometry already fullfilled) tonearm.
This - I would like to call it "individual" or "secondary" - geometry is kind of universal. It applies to ALL cartridges and have several options to calculate and align the tracking arc and its zero-error points and maxima and minima derivations from the arc.