Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Genesis168, despite what some here on Audiogon did say past early winter in a deleted thread, the original Dennesen Soundtraktor is 100% Löfgren A / Baerwald IEC.
"My" calculation for the FR-64s has nothing to do with Stevenson.
The original manufacturers specs weren't all that bad ( they are close to Stevenson but did put the 2nd null point even closer to the label - apparently Isamu Ikeda did have a lot of Mercurys and early DECCA SXL in mind when he choosed that alignment ...;-) ....) , but they did not do the geometry of the FR-64s any right.
It is not enough to find the white papers and the alignment calculator in Vinylengine - it is more about understanding what is actually important in a calculation curve for a stereo record ( and yes, - it has more and slightly different requirements compared to a mono record) and where to position the 2 null-points to get the best performance.
As said before - the "common model" we find everywhere is a bit simplified and takes too little into account that we are dealing with a 3-dimensonal stereo groove here - not mono.
At least - not me.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, to avoid any misleading info here, let me state that "my" calculation for the FR-64s gives - even with VE calculator ...;-) ..... - for the last 66% (i.e. 2/3 of the grooved area) of the record an average of 40% less distortion than Baerwald/Löfgren A IEC.
The maximum distortion with my calculation is in the lead-in groove where is is about level with Stevenson IEC.
That is about all what my calculation has in common with Stevenson........
The average "unweighted" distortion is right in between the figures of Löfgren A/Baerwald and Löfgren B.
Being very close to Löfgren B for most of the time and with approx. 45% less distortion compared to Löfgren B in the last 8-12 mm of a given record.
I "have" 5% lower "average" distortion compared to Löfgren A IEC/Baerwald and 20% less maximum distortion compared to Löfgren B (and his maximum is in the inner groove and my is at the lead-in groove).
I am perfectly fine if someone doesn't "like" my approach, but I know why I chose it and the results (if properly re-calculated in VE) do proof my idea even in simple graphs.
In any case - my approach is justified just as well as Löfgren's, Baerwald's or Stevenson's.
What a simple graph can't show, is that a distortion figure in the 1st third of a record is a completely different thing compared to the last third of the same record.
So finally I urge everybody to muse about the ever decreasing radius of a LP and what that means for the stereo-stylus.
This topic was discussed in the 1980ies and 1990ies in Germany and Japan (if I remember right ... in Japan even earlier) - the fact that you don't find any white papers about this in the web doesn't mean it wasn't done. There is a lot of information about many more core audio topics missing in the web.
Cheers,
D.

Raul,
When I changed to the 231.5mm spindle to pivot dimension and 14.5mm overhang, I changed the off-set angle to compensate correctly at the null points.
Halcro

Well, I wrote in in the FR Thread - which was deleted - to someone who wrote about 65x about "distortions".
Based on some hyper prosecutions about distortions (you-know-from-whom) with Fr-64s+Dennesen+231,5mm P-to S I used my Graham Phantom II, which has an alignment System from B. Graham to adjust the cartridge precisely to a point (which one) and the alignment from cantilever is also possible.
The result was identical. Spot on.
For those who live in a rubber cell it is probably not easy to understand, but it is boring and a waste of time to repeat it over and o

Ready to Go for Mercury Living Presence

Dear Dertonarm: Please show the graphics where any one can attest what you are writing.

Taking " your " numbers ( I'm not against your approach or your numbers, I'm only questioning your statement of lower overall distortions over Löfgren A/Baerwald or LÖfgren B that till this moment you don't prove it in anyway. ) and like you say " even " with VE tools this is what we have ( graphics on the VE site. ):

I repeat that the pivot to spindle distance is 231.5mm and overhang 14.5mm ( as you stated and Halcro " running ". ), well for these numbers could fulfil we need to move a little the most inner-groove distance ( we have to select " custom " and introduce this input data in the VE calculator instead IEC or DIN. ) as follows:

for Baerwald: that distance must be: 53.82mm, this fulfil those numbers and the calculator gives it with an offset angle value: 20.967°

for Löfgren B: that distance must be: 52.39mm and in this case the VE calculator set the offset angle at 20.967°

for Stevenson: the distance must be: 59.305 ( Between IEC and DIN numbers. In the other cases the distance is sligthly lower than those standards. ) where the calculations fulfil the PTS and overhang stated with an offset angle: 20.967°.

Any one can confirm this and can confirm through the garphics not only where Baerwald or Löfgren has the lowest distortions but that that 66% of " lower distortions " from your numbers ( that like it or not are almost Stevenson. ) does not exist even that you states we can " see it through VE ".

Again: where are the graphics where any one of us can confirm what you said it? where? where?, well maybe your " body " and marketing manager could shows here one of those great pictures with those unknow graphics: could you Syntax?, I assume that your " boss/master " already shared with you that information or is that you are like a few persons that: " take it with out ask ".

As I said it I'm not against your approach and I don't want to know the foundation of that approach what we need is to see those graphics where any one can see and confirm what you posted here and that's all.

My statement is that it does not matters what you change the Baerwald/Löfgren equations are not only the only one equations out there but gives the best solutions ( are optimized solutions by mathematics and based in each criterion used. I already explained in deep somewhere in the thread.) for lower overall distortions. If some persons like " this or that " is other " game " and been a subjective one has no " weight " on this pure Objective subject because 2+2 is still 4.

Instead of following " creating " different confusion levels and even if you don't " win " nothing try to help all the people ( me in and Syntax included. ) that's reading the thread and show those graphics. Could you? , everyone is waiting for.

The other subject is that if it's true that your approach/equations can be confirmed/viewed by those graphics then maybe not only works with FR one but could works with any other tonearm and if all these is true and confirmed then all of us ( I'm sure ) IMHO will give you our in deep appreciation for that!

Btw, what you don't know because " you don't find any white papers about this in the web " is that " Graeme Dennes along the VE people had a meeting in Mars ( last year ) with the greats and better scientifics from Jupiter to analize this critical cartridge/tonearm geometry set up and the conclusions of this meeting you can read it on the VE site where they shared all the information with all of us.

" So this is the latest " technology " to cartridge/tonearm right and knowed geometry set up solution/equations.

I don't know why you was not invited because some of those " Japanese and Germans that participated on that meetings you talked where there. ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.