Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Jazzgene: Of course you can make the set up at random by ears only, at the begining of some of us on analog ( very old times. ) many of us that have cero know-how on the subject always made this set up almost by ear! so this is not a new menaing.

But ( always exist those " but ". ) that kind of ears set up has several disadvantages like: ears has no Universal " sensitivity ", the ears/mind are biased for what we like or not and that could be far away from real/true, it is almost imposible to make by ears set up a set up with low distortions, a cartridge/tonearm set up must works in any audio system and how could this be when you make the " voicing " in a very limited number of audio systems and audio items?, etc, etc.

Now, I can tell you that VPI was not made it ( set up geometry parameters ) only using ears at random overhang/offset angle. IMHO what he did was using known geometries and adjust by ears what he likes and that's all, changing some of those mentioned three input data. So in reality was not 100% by ears, the posibilities that you can be " there " by ears at random are infinitely low.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Interesting. I'll take out the VIP jig again and check it out. Currently, my Grado Statement1 is set up with the Mint protractor. By the way, I emailed Yip about my question asking if he might have a better alternative than his 10x loupe and he refuses to get back to me. Kind of not what I expected as when I was in the process of purchase, he was quick to get back to me.

I noticed with the VPI jig that it is easy to fool your own eyes. Because of the white lines and the black jig, you can trick yourself depending on the position you take in front to view. The parallax effect, is it called? It is easier to check it from above but then again, you never can know if the cantilever is exactly perpendicular to the body front... I am starting to think that exact and precise is not in the cards for cartridge adjustment. The stylus might not even be exact to the cantilever, right?

Dear Jazzgene: VPI designer is a " weird/curious " person:

+++++ " VPI has conducted careful listening tests and determined that every
tonearm we tried sounded better with its mechanical anti-skating
disabled and the tracking force very slightly increased. "
++++

++++ " I did it by ear on my system, not by math on a computer. If you go by distortion you would never use tubes, only solid state " +++++

++++ " OVERHANG ADJUSTMENT:(FIG. 2 AT END OF MANUAL)
Do not go crazy over this adjustment. You do not know if the stylus is aligned
properly on the cantilever. You are also facing a constantly moving
target when playing a record. " +++++

yes, but he take it the work to build a protractor/jig to his customers where he states:

++++ " This adjustment will yield the lowest distortion in the last third of the record, the hardest to track, when playing a typical 12" record " +++++

Certainly not at random and fully by ears.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

OK, Harry listens & then tunes his tonearm.
But Daniel doesn't do listening tests, 'cause he doesn't have all these arms in his hand !
This example of VPI arms, proves the value of an alternative curve other than the standard Lofgren A or B or Stevenson, but Daniel do it on paper! just after knowing the dimentions & angles of any particular tonearm !
IMHO this is extremely interesting & arises questions about real new findings concerning the arm's body (shape-form-contour) construction, as designed & manufactured from it's inventor. Not bad at all, to accept & adopt a formula based on Physics and then apply the mathematics. Maybe this scientific theory could help tonearm designers to build better examples that serve & accommodate this demand from the begining of the production, by having the right shape.
Unfortunately this method remains still a secret and the validation by anyone could happened only by listening tests, after purchasing the UNI-PROTRACTOR with the requested special template.
I apologise if I haven't any clue about this, or even worst, if I don't getting the whole theme right and I've just improvise for the rationalization of these templates.

Dear Genesis168, sure enough Stevenson was not stupid - nor for certain is Harry Weisfeld. Both knew/know what they are doping and why.
BTW - Stevenson did in his calculation put the 2nd zero tangential error point ("null point") right at the DIN - respective IEC - cutting limit (i.e. innermost grooved area).
So the tracking distortion due to tangential error is always zero at the theoretical innermost groove.
This is per Stevenson's definition.
At this very same point Löfgren A is approx. 600% (6x) more distortion and Löfgren B is approx. 1000% (10x) higher distortion ( based upon that Stevenson is still say 0.1% tangential error distortion and not really zero ).
Löfgren did "sacrifice" the the inner groove for lower distortions between the 2 zero points.
This works especially well with shorter tonearms (9") and with records with long lead out groove.
He did not took into account stereo and did not dream about what wide-cut LPs some record companies would put out in the late 1950ies and 1960ies.
Many japanese audiophiles with 12" tonearms do align to Stevenson and for - again - very good reason.
With increased effective length of a given tonearm (especially so if the tonearm gets really long .. 11" and more) the Stevenson alignment's curve get's better and better vs Löfgren A (Baerwald) and Löfgren B.

In mountaineering you can usually choose between several routes to climb a mountain. Depending on your skills, periphery conditions, preference and experience. Each route has it's benefits and trade-offs.
Some do accept only the first, old and marked route and some do look for new routes.
Same here.
Cheers,
D.