Makeshift tonearm for under $800

Dear Geoch, You have obviously 'something' with the SAEC
I have 'something' with the FR-64s. While my reason is
aesthetic your's is probable mechanical in the sense of
craftsmanship. Many Japanese are known caraftsman but qua
modern technical education their first and second generation engineers are educated in Germany. This may explain the 'mechanical part'.
Kessler and Pisha wrote an article with the title 'Tonearm
Geometry and Setup'( Audio,January 1980) in which they
stated the following about the WE-308 SX: 'SX arm design is based upon research done by the Sansui Electric Co. The AES preprint 1390 (D-5) derived the optimum pivot position from a kinematic point of view,with the mass of the arm ,the location of the center of gravity, and the moment of inertia around the system's center of gravity.Resonance was the the engineering problem beinf solved. For this particular arm, it is not advised to optimize the geometry, or the resonance of the system will change to such an extent that the arm will not track properly.'

Regards,

Dear Nikola,
I've allready reprint this article over 2 times here.
After making 2 armboards on my TD124 II one for the SAEC recommended alignment and a second for the Baerwald, it is clear the superiority of the second. If you put the SAEC's values for overhang & offset angle to the VE comparator, the curve of the plot does not make any sense. Daniel (Dertonarm) things that the particular geometry indicates some compatibility only for 7" vinyls. Allen Wright also twists the cartridge at the headshell, and the Shun Mook team who uses the WE-308SX doing the same. A local friend of mine who has the WE-308 he demonstrates to me an excellent behaviour on several test LPs, by using the standard SAEC recommendation! (if you see the plot of it below, this is unbelievable!!!)
I think that the superiority of the sealed double knife edge bearing is such that trascends the trackability problems made by a default alignment.
The tracking Distortion plot, can not include the resonance problems of the particular tonearm, but the listening tests go hand in hand with this curve. At times many debates appears in analog forums about the SAEC recommendation and even if most of the users prefer the Baerwald alignment by twisting the cartridge at the headshell, I can not say that the sound is unacceptable with the SAEC recom. alignment. It just don't suits my LPs.
Maybe you have to use a greater value of antiskating force if you twist the cartridge at the headshell, but I don't see any fault by doing this. After some strong discussion full of controversies between Daniel, Raul and me, (in his thread refered to his protractor) I can't be persuaded -neither John (Odyssey tonearms)- and therefore I proceed with my usual prefered customised alignment the plot of it indicates a curve in between Baerwald & Loefgren B (you can see it below as the "original" in which I'm only change the offset angle from the Baerwald values).

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_comparator.php?m_el=243.2&m_oh=17&m_oa=22.35&compare=i&submit=calculate

And here you can see the SAEC's recommendation designated as "original"

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_comparator.php?m_el=235&m_oh=5&m_oa=11.987&compare=i&submit=calculate

Unfortunatelly the prefered Pivot to Spindle distance of (230mm) does not permitted by the big heavy weight threated stabiliser underneath the armboard of my TD124 II neither it was possible to reach the corresponded Effective Length of 246.736 hence the customised 243.2 that is the maximum Ef. Length permitted by my headshell (since some milimeters of length have been losted by twisting the cartridge).
I've test with SAEC recom. align. & Baerwald also but while the SAEC overhang (only 5mm!!!) looks OK in the eye [according the WE-308SX geometry], the Baerwald's overhang (17mm) sounds really better. If you use the Zonotone Z-Shell 10 headshell which has a circular front surface, the twist of the cartridge is almost out of sight.

Anyway as my friend Tuchan advices me, I find naturally easier the recommendation of the 12" WE-506 model for someone who is in doubt. Me, I have had allready in my possesion the WE-308SX model when this matter of alignment came up and I was forced to investigate the whole story.
But I don't have any regrets for this tonearm ... only wish to find the SAEC WE-8000ST someday.

Dear friends,
Have no fear to improvise upon your beloved tonearm's geometry.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1309722499&openusid&zzGeoch&4&5#Geoch

My additional note:
It is way better to stay away from designing on paper your own special 2 null points if you don't have the gift of drawing with absolute composure, uttermost tranquility and total discipline. It is necessary to really love what you are going to do.
In any other case, you must :
Choose any permitted (by your armboard, armbase and headshell) value of Pivot or Eff. Length & Offset Angle that gives you the better results on the VE plot, but strictly on the Baerwald plate, providing of course that you have on hand your 2 point and/or your arc Baerwald protractor by which you can :
Set the Pivot point of your tonearm, reach the corresponding Eff. Length at the stylus tip, align the Zenith of the cantilever at the Baerwald null points, and check for the apparent Overhang with care & precision.

The point is : Whatever you are going to do regarding your tonearm alignment, must primarily approved by your observation (and proper modification) on the VE plot.
Don't get fooled by anything if you don't understand it's method and especially if you don't comprehend fully the result.