Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment


Looks like Dertonarm has put his money where his mouth is and designed the ultimate universal alignment tractor.

Early days, It would be great to hear from someone who has used it and compared to Mint, Feikert etc.

Given its high price, it will need to justify its superiority against all others. It does look in another league compared to those other alignemt devices

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtnrm&1303145487&/Uni-Protractor-Set-tonearm-ali
downunder
I agree that accuracy is very important and should not be sacrificed by ease of use.

I'll set up using Uni-Pro's Baerwarld IEC and then recheck with my Mint protractor which is also Baerwald IEC and see if they are spot on or any differences.
Geoch

As Dertonarm has avoided the issue yet again, (he only seems to respond to posts on which he feels he can appear to be right) and (if your question was genuine and not to provoke) perhaps I can help.

You said

I have a question for you (and it is a genuine one, due to my ignorance) :
The Talea, Schroeder, Clearaudio Satisfy are designed with adjustable arc on their rudimentary headshell. The Simon Yorke has circular headshell which does not shows any preference in cartridge angle. Moreover, there are some circular cartridge bodies also! How does the Newton's law applies there?

Newton (the famous hifi enthusiast), said that to all forces there is an equal and opposite reaction.Bear with me if you are familiar with the following, but I will say it for those that are not.

The friction of the stylus against the moving groove causes a force which is aligned along the groove and reacts against the arm mount. The resultant would pull the arm inwards and out of the groove, were it not for a force reacting against it, so a counter force needs to be applied in some fashion. VTF supplies some of this force and the remainder usually as an antiskate device of some sort near the pivot.

As you correctly state, Geoch, this force has to increase as the arm approaches the centre, because, while the overhang is constant, the radius decreases, therefore the inward force varies in proportion.

All good arms have antiskate/bias, adjustable in amount and in degree. Longer arms need less antiskate, as they have less overhang. (There are arms with zero or negative overhang (underhang). These have very small skating forces, but, unless fitted with a mechanism to maintain the cartridge parallel to the groove, will have large tracking errors.)

Whether a cartridge is cylindrical, cuboid, flower-shaped or whatever, is neither here nor there. It does not affect antiskate if correctly mounted.

The bottom line is that there is only a vector towards the pivot from the stylus, and a vector from the stylus along the groove, These result in an inward rotation of the arm.

It has nothing to do with cartridge offset angles, except inasmuch as the stylus contributes more or less to the frictional force along the groove, (eg elliptical versus conical) and certainly nothing to do with the cartridge body shape. I could explain further, but for now that is enough.

So, the question of round headshells, rotating headshells is all baloney in terms of antiskate. The arms DT mentions may well not have a specified offset and therefore provide a facility for adjusting whatever offset is desired, which is a good thing (although the way they do it doesn't look as smart to me as he seems to see it, as none of them apply the rotation at or around the stylus where it would be most useful (and where, should I ever (no! no!) design another tonearm, put it - (there's a hint for DT if he's designing an arm...god forbid)

Other stuff:

About weird shaped cartridges (in my opinion the result of designers /stylists who have more interest in being different, than in good, practical functional design)
Dert says
they avoid a pre-determined offset angle and thus are much easier to adapt to different alignments (calculations) without trade-offs due to the alternation of a "pre-determined" offset angle by a cartridge's body aligned in a different angle.

Well, he would say that, given his commitment to arc protractors: the more weird shapes there are, the harder it is to align using anything else. Cartridge manufacturers must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of being able to mount generators and cantilevers any old way...

Dertonarm says
Circular bodies further reduce the problem,
which problem? he doesn't say, for it isn't antiskate.

but - unless they follow the Ikeda or DECCA/London cantilever-less principle - there is still the line of the cantilever which should be in line with the offset angle.

I hope every reader out there (with a Decca (or otherwise)) sees this error for what it is.

The Decca does not have a cantilever in the accepted sense, but has the equivalent nevertheless - the armature - it is just not visible. So it must be aligned like any other cartridge. If it wasn't cantilevered one could mount it reversed - try that with your client's Decca, Dertonarm, and you'll probably get a slap round the ear for being so stupid...

Also when we talk about cartridge offset angle, that term is usually accepted as encompassing the generator, cantilever and stylus, which ideally should all be in line. Errors here are an issue for cartridge designers and manufacturers. By all means line up to a cantilever, but that doesn't mean either the generator or stylus are lined up with the cantilever.

Geoch, Dertonarm shows his ignorance and arrogance by his response to you. Instead of explaining something he asks you for your ideas, perhaps because he is not truly clear in his thinking, as in the case of SME arms.

I realise your wisdom in avoiding getting too involved, but avoidance of bullying, for that is what it is, can lead to unwanted and unpleasant consequences, both here, in a small way, and, in the greater world, in a big way.
Dear Jazzgene,
wow, did not know you are in the professional music field. great! i just received "The Recordings Of The Beatles" . You get a feeling how enthusiastic and technical advised those engineers were in these days. Long forgotten. Therefore the quality of many products of today are somehow ... I received the manual yesterday and I do think it is very helpful. Not many developers take care as Dertonarm did. On the other hand for such a product it might be absolutly mandatory.

I remember tonearm developers not being able to produce some good words on their own product. nevertheless not every developer needs to be a good marketing guy of course.

I received my EMT JPA66 and I am playing around a little with my FR-66s arms. Good to have a Uni-Protractor when you need to change carts. IMHO The discussion in this thread goes a little backwards and many positions are repeated. I would like to hear some critics or experiences others have with the tool.

Best & Fun Only -Thuchan
@John,

You state all good tonearmas have anti-skating. The VPI 12.7 and 10.5i does not. Are they bad tonearms from your experience? The 10.5i sounds really good to me. I did try the VPI after market anti-skating and it made the sound worse. So I went back to what Harry recommends which is to not use any anti-skating with the 10.5i arm. The music sounds much better this way to me.

Certainly sounds better than my Thorens table which has anti-skating.

Jazzgene,

I have not heard your arm, but if you tell me it's a good arm and you prefer it without antiskate, I believe you.

From the manual it appears that VPI recommend using a higher tracking force than might be otherwise used. In my post I mentioned that downforce contributes to antiskate.

That the wiring can supply some antiskate, depending on how it is dressed, is mentioned too, in the manual. I don't know if you use this procedure, but these are methods of counteracting the skating force, without a specific antiskate device, so in that sense the arm has the means to do it, but you can choose not to use it, as with any arm.

Being longer than a 9" helps to an extent and the specific construction of the arm, being a unipivot, might lead to compensating forces in the rotational mode. The skating force is always present, though.

But if all the above mentioned things together mean you can do without a dedicated mechanical device to supply the antiskate, (spring/ string and weight etc), then that's a good thing, and the designer is to be commended.