Dertonearm,
I'm extremely interested in this topic, as my owners are beginning to ask me about your new tool.
My first reaction is to have them buy one for me (for my Durand Talea, thank you) and I'll experiment with it and let them know. All kidding aside, I applaud your herculean efforts and the beautiful photos of the exquisite machining. My concern however is only with results. Any advantages of your tool fall into one of the following:
1. The precision with which this geometry can be implemented - can superior results can be achieved, or alternatively, can equivalent results can be achieved more easily. Easier is important to some, and "better" is important to everyone.
2. The superiority of your chosen alignment geometry
This is what I will base my recommendation on.
Before delving into the above questions, let ask you the following, on behalf of a customer who owns a Schroeder Reference. Can you confirm the following for me:
1. The protractor is "programmable" - coming with a set of some 30 templates to be used for common arms. Any arm not on the list requires a template costing $69. Is this correct?
2. Implication for Schroeder Reference owners. If the above is correct, then my customers with Schroeder references will need a template for each cartridge they use, due to non-standard stylus to cartridge mounting hole center. Is this correct?
-----
As I read through threads on the Mint LP protractor, I note how some of individuals struggle with viewing the stylus using the supplied loupe.
This issue is one that touches all alignment techniques involving one's having to view the stylus. It's not specific to the Mint LP, except perhaps because the Mint (like all arc protractors) tells you in no uncertain terms when you are off (by magnifying your error as you attempt to trace the arc). An addendum to the instructions would be helpful - telling you that there is no universal loupe, and that experimentation might be in order.
So, if you have freed individuals from having to use magnification to view the stylus, you have broken new ground and I applaud you.
Now this thread has gone off track with the discussion of the ideal alignment geometry. Of course it's important, but it needs to be kept distinct from the tool used to achieve it UNLESS, you have arrived at an alignment you deem to be proprietary. If this is the case, then the perspective purchaser has only one way to implement that geometry - by purchasing your tool. I'm fine with that. Your research deserves to be rewarded.
So what's my advice to my customer base? In plain and simple language, "it's your money and you take your chances".
Now, if you'd like to prove to the world that your methodology is superior - that someone can achieve better results with your tool over a well implemented arc protractor like the Mint LP (irrespective of geometry) - then I would propose one or both of the following experiments.
Experiment #1: Tell us the geometry you'd use for a world-class tonearm like the Durand Talea. We'll have Yip make up a protractor using this geometry and see which one best serves the music over a broad collection of records. The problem with this experiment is that the Mint LP might do a better job of implementing your geometry better, but we might not like the geometry.
Experiment #2: Implementing Baerwaald, Loefgren, and Stevenson with both your protractor and the Mint. This has the chance of giving us the broadest view - separating accuracy of implementation from geometry preferences.
Ultimately, all four geometries should be tested with both protractors, but I separated the experiments as I have, since I don't know your intellectual property considerations.
-----
If I appear to be holding your feet to the fire in this post, you are correct, but please realize that this is because I take my recommendations to my customers very seriously.
My initial impression of your beautifully made tool is that you have possibly selected a superior geometry - at least for individuals who listen to a large percentage of records that extend into what is today, the lead-out section. I've never been a fan of favoring inner groove performance at the expense of having higher distortion over the bulk of the stylus' path. One that further looks to bias the alignment beyond Loefgren's equations by extending the LP inward is something I'd be wary of.
There's no free lunch other than a linear tracker, of course, and even that's not "free" except from a geometry perspective.
Now, I would love to be proven wrong - that you have both (a) created a better mouse trap, and (b) that you have selected a superior alignment.
Lastly, now that you are a manufacturer, what is your real name and what city are you based out of?
Good luck in your new venture.
Regards,
Thom @ Galibier
I'm extremely interested in this topic, as my owners are beginning to ask me about your new tool.
My first reaction is to have them buy one for me (for my Durand Talea, thank you) and I'll experiment with it and let them know. All kidding aside, I applaud your herculean efforts and the beautiful photos of the exquisite machining. My concern however is only with results. Any advantages of your tool fall into one of the following:
1. The precision with which this geometry can be implemented - can superior results can be achieved, or alternatively, can equivalent results can be achieved more easily. Easier is important to some, and "better" is important to everyone.
2. The superiority of your chosen alignment geometry
This is what I will base my recommendation on.
Before delving into the above questions, let ask you the following, on behalf of a customer who owns a Schroeder Reference. Can you confirm the following for me:
1. The protractor is "programmable" - coming with a set of some 30 templates to be used for common arms. Any arm not on the list requires a template costing $69. Is this correct?
2. Implication for Schroeder Reference owners. If the above is correct, then my customers with Schroeder references will need a template for each cartridge they use, due to non-standard stylus to cartridge mounting hole center. Is this correct?
-----
As I read through threads on the Mint LP protractor, I note how some of individuals struggle with viewing the stylus using the supplied loupe.
This issue is one that touches all alignment techniques involving one's having to view the stylus. It's not specific to the Mint LP, except perhaps because the Mint (like all arc protractors) tells you in no uncertain terms when you are off (by magnifying your error as you attempt to trace the arc). An addendum to the instructions would be helpful - telling you that there is no universal loupe, and that experimentation might be in order.
So, if you have freed individuals from having to use magnification to view the stylus, you have broken new ground and I applaud you.
Now this thread has gone off track with the discussion of the ideal alignment geometry. Of course it's important, but it needs to be kept distinct from the tool used to achieve it UNLESS, you have arrived at an alignment you deem to be proprietary. If this is the case, then the perspective purchaser has only one way to implement that geometry - by purchasing your tool. I'm fine with that. Your research deserves to be rewarded.
So what's my advice to my customer base? In plain and simple language, "it's your money and you take your chances".
Now, if you'd like to prove to the world that your methodology is superior - that someone can achieve better results with your tool over a well implemented arc protractor like the Mint LP (irrespective of geometry) - then I would propose one or both of the following experiments.
Experiment #1: Tell us the geometry you'd use for a world-class tonearm like the Durand Talea. We'll have Yip make up a protractor using this geometry and see which one best serves the music over a broad collection of records. The problem with this experiment is that the Mint LP might do a better job of implementing your geometry better, but we might not like the geometry.
Experiment #2: Implementing Baerwaald, Loefgren, and Stevenson with both your protractor and the Mint. This has the chance of giving us the broadest view - separating accuracy of implementation from geometry preferences.
Ultimately, all four geometries should be tested with both protractors, but I separated the experiments as I have, since I don't know your intellectual property considerations.
-----
If I appear to be holding your feet to the fire in this post, you are correct, but please realize that this is because I take my recommendations to my customers very seriously.
My initial impression of your beautifully made tool is that you have possibly selected a superior geometry - at least for individuals who listen to a large percentage of records that extend into what is today, the lead-out section. I've never been a fan of favoring inner groove performance at the expense of having higher distortion over the bulk of the stylus' path. One that further looks to bias the alignment beyond Loefgren's equations by extending the LP inward is something I'd be wary of.
There's no free lunch other than a linear tracker, of course, and even that's not "free" except from a geometry perspective.
Now, I would love to be proven wrong - that you have both (a) created a better mouse trap, and (b) that you have selected a superior alignment.
Lastly, now that you are a manufacturer, what is your real name and what city are you based out of?
Good luck in your new venture.
Regards,
Thom @ Galibier