Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment


Looks like Dertonarm has put his money where his mouth is and designed the ultimate universal alignment tractor.

Early days, It would be great to hear from someone who has used it and compared to Mint, Feikert etc.

Given its high price, it will need to justify its superiority against all others. It does look in another league compared to those other alignemt devices

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtnrm&1303145487&/Uni-Protractor-Set-tonearm-ali
downunder
Dear Genesis168: +++++ " What I have a problem is that there is no absolute. Raul is preaching absolutes. That s my problem. We have choices. " +++++

in mathematics and geometry is part of it there are no place for " subjective ", in our world: 2+2 always gives 4 and this is what I'm talking about. That you or any one want or would like that 2+2 could be 6 has no sense in the whole cartridge/tonearm set up geometry subject.

For you can understand what I posted in this thread you need to read and learn on the white papers by Graeme F. Dennes that you can find out in the net or download here:
www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854

Read it one and again till you fully understand what you read and then come back on that " absolute " subject because right now ( with all respect ) seems to me that you don't have any idea on the real subject.

For we can have a productive discussion at least we have to be in the same " channel " because if I'm talking of apples and you don't have any idea what's an apple how can we agree on nothing?.

Do it a favor, please read those Dennes white papers and I'm sure that the " ligth " will shine for you or any one that read it. As a plus you will learn that the idea DT try to " sale " here about " especial " tonearm set up due to very " especial " tonearm geometry is totally false. Please remember that you need only three known parameters to make a cartridge/tonearm set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle: nothing more.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Nandric, neither Löfgren nor any of the other (Baerwald, Bauer, Stevenson et al) did "set" the inner limit of grooved area at 57.50 mm or 60.00 mm (distance to center of spindle hole).
These were determined by the record industry and the AES and were NOT inevitable and fixed standards, but merely "suggestions". We have many examples, where the groove went even past the DIN standard.
Löfgren, Baerwald (Löfgren A), Stevenson et al tried to give a "general" calculation.
Each of them did value different aspects of the calculation different.
Each of them has had his reasons for doing so.
Löfgren's - as well as Baerwald's - first calculations (pre WW II !!!!) were many years before microgroove record was launched and several decades before a fine line or micro-ridge stylus was first introduced.

Löfgren tried to minimize distortion over as large an area of the record as possible. He did so at the expense of the last and most critical inch of the groove, where the distortion level of his calculation sky rockets.
Very very dangerous and with devastating sonic results for the last 2-4 minutes, if your records have a long groove - i.e. run close to the label.
Take one of your examples with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B DIN is here way over 2% tracking distortion - for example THREE TIMES the distortion level of Stevenson DIN at this point !
And that happens at the most critical point, as the difference between inner and outer groove angle becomes ever wider with reduced diameter creating and awkward situation for a modern stylus.
Löfgren B is only great for records which do feature a rather short grooved area - i.e. with records with long lead out groove.
So - sorry - generalization in pivot tonearm alignment isn't really smart.
Unfortunately the world isn't crowed only with DMM-pressings, but there are Impulse, old Verve, Mercury SR, RCA LSC and DECCA SXL too.
Then there are different tonearms from a SME V or SME 3009.
This is an audio world full of variations and derivations from standards.
It is part of the game.
Cheers,
D.
Dear Thuchan, 'reducing the complexity' means to me not being able to deal whith it. If the result of this reduction is the reduction of 'çognitive dissonance' then
this is even worse. From your statement or hope:'there is
no need for a war' I may conclude that you are a nice person and a very optimistic one as well.

Regards,
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B is here way over 2% tracking distortion " +++++

I don't know where you take or calculated that 2%, could you tell us?

in any of the net calculators ( enjoy the music, Vinyl Engine ) in a normal effective tonearm length of 258mm with an inner most groove at 45mm the distortion is lower than: 0.3% at the inner grooves with 0.67% between null points and with an average of 0.55% a lot better than what you states.

Dertonarm, everyone is asking here for your precise answers about especially those " special " set up with some specific tonearms.
If those " special " set up for specific tonearms comes with the same criterion you used on the FR then all we have to wait that those set ups have and gives us higher distortions a lot higher that anything else ( Including Stevenson. ), so what's the advantage to have higher distortions?

Don't you think that these higher distortions makes no sense?. The problem with all this is that you only " talk and talk " proving nothing, even that 2% you states comes from nowhere ( ghosts everywhere. ) till you shows. You goes around around around and till today ( for years. ) you never stop and put the finger right on " focus ".

Here in México people say: " in blind land the one-eyed is king ", unfortunately in this forum there are not so many blind persons as you thinked.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
My mistake. If we take a effective length say 260mm and the inner groove at 50mm ( 5cms. ) Löfgren B calculation gives 1.3% and Löfgren " A " 0.8% and this is an extreme case at inner grooves that we don't find very often.

Now, if we change the data input to force better " figures " at inner groove that could be in detriment of higher distortions in the other 90% of the remaining LP grooves. Our today LOMC cartridges are better trackers than many vintages and the MM/MI ones are champions on this regards so I can't see that " dramatic problem " you states because I just tested a recording with almost no blank grooves at the end and with the XV-1s I can't detect a higher distortion level and neither with the 20SS .

To much " cream on your bananas ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.