Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

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.

Genesis, as D. apparently learned today, the Dennesen Soundtracktor was based on the Baerwald formula, as discussed in the owner instructions. They also mention the "audible affects of tangential misalignment . . . largely ignored for many years", a point Raul reminded us on.

I've owned a metal version (plastic was also available for less $) for many years. It has provided what I have considered very satisfactory alignments -- provided the arm in use clearly identifies the exact pivot point (my Kuzma Stogi Reference does), good lighting is available, I have my hand held magnifier, and my patience is good that day. ;-)

I would not attempt to use the Dennesen on any arm which does not identify the pivot point (this is critical to the exact set-up of the Soundtracktor for anyone who is not familiar with this device).

It would be interesting to learn if the Lofgren B or Stevenson alignments were considered when Dennesen decided to utilize the Baerwald?

Dear Pryso, as D. read the Dennesen patent paper and measured the alignment spot distance to spindle center with a sliding caliper back in 1991, he knows since 20 years that the Dennesen follows Löfgren A/Baerwald IEC.
But it was certainly funny to notice that Dennesen was mistaken for Stevenson by some audiophiles.