Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

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.

For those wondering about Dertonarm's numbers...

Using the FR-64S as a base, and the original 245mm EL, the average/peak % tracking distortion between 57.5mm and 116mm (the inner 2/3 of the record assuming a 57.5mm innermost groove (DIN standard)) using an IEC inner groove standard (i.e., setting up a tonearm for modern usage, but playing a record with a slightly closer inner groove) sampled at 1mm intervals is as follows:

CURVE Average Peak
Mfr 0.54% 0.85% (same in IEC range)
Stevenson 0.45% 0.72% (same in IEC range)
Baerwald 0.47% 0.86% (0.67% in IEC range)
Lofgren B 0.36% 1.45% (1.02% in IEC range)

If I read through Dertonarm's proposal above, using a 246mm EL and 14.5mm OH, I can come up with a number of different solutions depending on where one sets the inner groove null point (i.e. how one sets offset angle). Based on his "distortion 5% lower than average Baerwald and 20% lower max distortion than Lofgren B", it is easy to get the "5% better than Baerwald" for the whole record, but getting both that and the 20% max distortion depends on the scope of your measurement (does one measure 57.5-146 or 60-146 to find the max - it matters as the Lofgren B tracking distortion can rise a full 0.5% in those last 3mm). I will assume a DIN record but IEC setup, and offer three 'Dert' measurements, depending on where one sets the inner nullpoint.
CURVE Average Peak
Dert66 0.36% 0.98%
Dert63 0.37% 0.89%
Peaks are on the outermost groove whereas for Baerwald/LofB they are on the innermost groove (so Dert's max distortion numbers don't change much if records are longer or shorter, whereas Baerwald, and to a much greater extent Lofgren B, are much more sensitive to how small the runout is).

Offset angle for Dert66 is 20.325 degrees. Offset for Dert63 is 20.574 degrees.

On the inner 2/3 of the record, the average tracking distortion is indeed about 40% below that of Baerwald and 20% less than Lofgren B. Average unweighted distortion is where Dertonarm says it is (right between Baerwald and Lofgren B). However, I cannot get a "45% lower tracking distortion than Lofgren B in the last 8-12mm of a record. I see that the distortion compared to Lofgren B is even lower unless one counts the 60-72mm section. If one does the 57-65mm section, the distortion is 70% lower than Lofgren B.

Note that on the innermost 3mm, Lofgren B is EXTREMELY sensitive as to whether one uses IEC or DIN setup with a record which has a DIN inner groove. The inner null point moves 3mm (to be same as Dert63) from IEC to DIN, in which case the last 12mm is about 50% better than Lofgren B, which is probably close enough to Dertonarm's figures for this exercise.

Disclaimers:
1) I have not discussed this alignment, calculation thereof, or anything related to this post with anyone.
2) I simply did this to put a stop to the months of questioning. The exercise took me all of 10mins to do (given a pre-existing spreadsheet), far less time than has been spent on questioning whether the numbers come out this way.
3) I have never used this setup, but given the above results, I will certainly try.

Note: this kind of alignment should work for any tonearm to a certain extent (assuming flexibility of headshell mounting), because it is really a matter of tailoring the tracking distortion curve to the records and listening preferences one has. If one has a lot of records with a small radius inner groove and significant dynamics or significantly quiet passages in the last 10mm, this kind of 'astuce' (trick) is one which should work on many/most 'universal' tonearms (universal in this case meaning flexible mounting so as to allow significant cart movement forwards, backwards, and by angle).

Oops. I made a few typos but it appears I cannot edit my post.
1) Note: datatables are tough to read but please use your imagination.
2) In para3, it should be "inner null point", not "inner groove null point" (guess I have inner groove on my mind...
3) I left out the third "Dert60" which is like a modified Stevenson because the benefits vs actual Stevenson or the other two are terribly significant.
4) Note that doing the algebra took 10. Figuring out how to write it took a bit longer. Hope it helps those in need of "proof" that numbers are numbers.