Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Nandric: Thank you, yes are the same numbers we are talking about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Der T_bone: The same happen ( original with higher distortions. ) if the common data is EL ( 246mm ) instead PTS one in either IEC or DIN standards.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Pryso: +++++ " I do continue now to wonder if Dennesen considered other alignment calculations and rejected them, or if he simple accepted Baerwald because it was the most well known? " +++++

IMHO the precise and true answer only Dennesen could have it but I think that this could been take it in count for that Dennesen designer:

Löfgren A/Baerwald is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. This seems to me a good overall compromise.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear all, "that Dennesen designer" was Francis G. Dennesen himself, together with Richard Wilson, Roy D. Toulan Jr. and Peter Madnick.
Cheers,
D.

Raul,

After this explanation, I am going to have to give up on this. I will stipulate that all the numbers you have provided above are correct. No dispute there.

I tested the original claim from many months ago (with an estimate I have labelled Dert63 above) against the original reference (245mm EL Baerwald or Lofgren). One does not, in fact, have to compare everything on a common P2S or common EL because in fact, the original claim did not.

In this thread, he made certain VERY specific and precisely qualified claims. Those claims were VERY clearly made on the basis of a certain opinion about record size (hence my use of DIN standard) and his own listening priorities (reduce distortion in the latter half of the record at the expense higher max distortion at the beginning), i.e. use a weighted distortion curve rather than an un-weighted distortion curve. Again you ask for proof. He wouldn't provide it, for what I now clearly see were good reasons not to, but I was curious, so I derived what I could based on these claims. As I have shown, each one of the claims seems to hold up when one does the math.

To my knowledge, NOBODY (not myself, Dertonarm, or anyone else) has EVER disputed the 'fact' that over a whole record, Lofgren B and Baerwald/LofA have lower average and lower equal-peak un-weighted tracking distortions than any other solutions for a given effective length. It is just math. Everyone stipulated this point long ago. Just to be safe, I repeated it.

His opinion about the qualitative aspect of tracking distortion across the record is clear. His listening priorities are clear. Based on his 'weighting', he has recommended and used something else than standard. That is his choice. As 'proven', his priorities would absolutely support use of Dert63 vs either of the Lofgrens. As you said, there are no 'absolutes' other than the math. It is some people's opinion that 'math' can be absolutely perfect in theory, and still applied wrongly sometimes.

The math stands up to support his priorities. The math stands up to support your priorities too. Everyone needs to make their own choices about priorities. I leave it there.

Kudos to Dertonarm for staying out of this. I should have as well.