Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Downunder, you are right. Baerwald IEC isn't always and a priori the best calculation curve for every tonearm. It is good for a 9" tonearm designed according to Baerwald IEC ( that is it's off-set angle ) and tracking mostly records cut following IEC standard ( means: long lead-out groove ).
There are good reasons why there are other calculation curves too.
Cheers,
D.

I actually spent some more time and effort in using Grahams's geometry and it does indeed sound better and more musical to my ears

Spot on. Exactly that's the reason why Graham owners can listen to the most demanding records without any distortions in the last 2 tracks. The second Nullpoint is not in the middle of a record, it is later calculated. Of course, when the main listening to records is with those after 1985 with narrow grooves and Limiters in the Mastering/cutting process it don't matter so much. But when listening to the full swing records from the Golden Age of Vinyl...
Bob Graham is a good example for doing it right.

Very true Syntax and I thank you for getting me back to this train of thought.

I was getting OK but not brilliant results with the Phantom / dyna XV-1 in the last qtr of the LP using MintLP Baer version. I thought my Dyna XV-1 was almost worn out due to mistracking on some LP's.

I then read one of your comments an another thread when you indicated that the Graham alignment was not B,L or S but his own geometry and you are not hearing the magic until you align it correctly.

I re-thought my approach to aligning the Phantom and spend some time getting it right (or as right you can with Bob's tractor) and my XV-1 has never sounded better. It breezes through the last 3rd without any tracking problems.

People aserting that the MintLP tractor or similar B geometry is the best out there is flawed and fundamentally incorrect depending on the tonearm and its design geometry.



thank you

Hi Dertonarm,

will there be an individual template for the Raven 10.5 tonearm? Otoh, a Löfgren B template is provided with the Uni-Protractor...

Thank you.
Blam!

I've heard about the special alignment that Derto suggest for FR64S and now ... the Phantom requires another one !

Can someone please explain to me about :
"the specific geometry" of an arm ?
What are the individual parameters ?

In my case, I've just bought the SAEC WE-308 SX .
The first thing that you can see, is the insanely small Offset Angle : 11.984 (the Eff. Length is only : 9.448")!!!
I've search & copy from the VA :
"This arm was the result of research by Sansui Co. to determine the optimum pivot position from a kinematic point of view, with the mass of the arm, the location of the center of gravity and the moment of inertia around the system's center of gravity taken into account to solve the problem of resonance. It is designed for dynamic balancing across multiple axes of rotation for stability against resonances. Any change in the arm geometry will change the resonance of the system "
The recommended by SAEC Overhang (for it's 240mm Eff. Length) is only 5mm
The IEC Baerwald equivalent for 240mm Eff. Length is 17.241
The difference between the Pivot recom. by SAEC (235mm) & the Pivot that resulting by the IEC Baerwald alignment (222.76mm) is huge !
The guys who tried the SAEC suggestion they confused so much with the distorted performance, that are convinced for this was the reason why SAEC arms did not make a success in their times. So, they rotate the cartridge on the headshell by another 10.93` to find the right Offset Angle of 22.914` and then they proceed by the IEC B alignment.
Why they choose the Baerwald ?
Is is wise to give a chance to every other known alignment geometry ?
How can any one determine the right method of alignment for a tonearm, IF the Offset Angle does not match with any known geometry ?
Can you advise specifically about my WE-308 SX ?

Thank you.