Over the last 40 years I have owned 3 turntables. An entry level Dual from the '70's, a Denon DP-52F (which I still use in my office system) and a Rega P3-24 which I currently use in my main system. All of these turntables have had straight tonearms. I am planning on upgrading my Rega in the near future. Having started my research, I have noticed that some well reviewed turntables have curved 'arms. My question: What are the advantages/disadvantages of each, sonic or otherwise? Thanks for any input.
Dear @lewm : What you like it is not the main subject here, as I pointed out before.
In the other side I already posted all the facts around Stevenson A alignment. Useless to repeat again.
Higher quality performance levels mainly depends to mantain the audio system distortions ( every kind. ) at minimum. Stevenson A preclude to achieve that critical target but is up to you.
Raul, After posting, I saw your earlier question to me, up the thread. The chosen headshell offset angle and the suggested P2S distance do give a clue as to the intention of the designer regarding alignment geometry. If you are willing to twist the cartridge (in the horizontal plane) in the headshell, then you can achieve almost any geometry with any tonearm, I agree.
Raul, I respect your opinion, but I don't necessarily do everything as you would do it. For my 505, I do not use the Dyna spec; I use Stevenson. Stevenson allows the cartridge body to be parallel to the long axis of the headshell and seems to sound fine. Unlike yourself and apparently some others, I do not sit around fretting about tonearm alignment once the set-up is completed. I just listen. Some few years ago, I wrote on this forum that when I set up the 505 according to Lofgren/Baerwald, and as you must know too, the cartridge cannot be aligned with the long axis of the headshell (it must be twisted toward the spindle with respect to the headshell axis), and I heard some distortion that was troubling. When I then re-aligned with Stevenson, to me it sounds better and the distortion I heard is now absent. One must be careful about assigning cause and effect, but there was certainly a correlation between alignment and an audible distortion, in my case, in my system, to my ears. I don't know why Clearthink is prone to hysteria, either.
Dear @lewm : In all japanese vintage tonearms and even today the set up specifications are jus totally non-accurated. Dynavector is a clear example on that when states 15mm. for overhang and even that is near Stevenson A calculations is out of it as is too the offset angle stated by them and it’s does not matters if we choose IEC or DIN for the calculations.
Obviously that these kind of facts tell us that if we are following the tonearm manufacturer set up specs then we are totally wrong and what we have are higher distortion levels. Of course that’s not our fault to follow the manufacturer instructions. We assume that what they tell us is what we have to do.
I already check all the information from the manufacturers on all the japanese vintage tonearms and no one is accurate about.
All those facts along the " terrible " misunderstood on the subject by that reviewer ( MF. ) confirm that " people " ( including audiophiles. ) do not cares seriously about and maybe they did not because they do not understand the 1938 Löfgren great mathematics studies, its premises and critical importance.
Again, accuracy is the name of the game in TT/tonearm/cartridge alignment with any kind of tonearm design.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
lewm, I don’t know if you remeber that I told you that for my 505 set up I used Löfgren alignment with better results than whit the Dyna set up specs. Well, there are very good facts/reasons about.
All those facts can tel us that maybe don’t exist two analog rig set up that gives same distortion levels using same TT/tonearm/cartridge with the same alignment type due to those inaccuracies on the overall set up. Where differences in set up means different quality performance levels.
"It's no surprise for me that I found out these kind of non-accurate tonearm set up numbers in almost all japanese tonearms and only confirm what I posted here and that in the " old times " there were a not very clear of the importance of accuracy in the tonearm/TT/cartridge overall set up alignment."
That is funny Raul that you keep repeating this silly made-up "fact" when I have already proven to you in this very thread that this claim is wholly mistaken and yet you feel a need to keep repeating it as though you are some visionary who has brought the importance of proper tonearm alignment to the world of audio and that we should all be so grateful to you for sharing your wisdom with the group. I guess real facts aren't necessary when your world of "facts" includes such funny fantasies I suppose this is the nature of "fake news."
Dear @lewm : Even that is out of my mind and that today makes no sense to me ( but I can be wrong and that's why I ask you about. ) that a tonearm design be designed around a specific kind of alignment type y found out that the vintage Japanese tonearms stays around Stevenson A alignment and why mI said " around " because things are that the alignment numbers they gave are non perfectly accurate but only near the precise/rigth alignment calculations. I think only the SAEC 8000 is near LÖfgren A calculations but non-accurated one.
So, seems to me that they did not took enough care about and this kind of fact only says that tracking distortion levels are higher that what you could think.
It's no surprise for me that I found out these kind of non-accurate tonearm set up numbers in almost all japanese tonearms and only confirm what I posted here and that in the " old times " there were a not very clear of the importance of accuracy in the tonearm/TT/cartridge overall set up alignment.
Dear @lewm : "
I tend to use whatever alignment was in the mind of the person who designed that particular tonearm.. "
Lewm, sorry for my ignorance and if you can please explain me the direct relationship between tonearm design and choosed alignment. How that choosed alignment can helps to stay with overall lower tracking distortions against other alignment type?
Knowing you it has to exist something extremely critical that you are aware of and that I'm taking in count and always is a learning day and as always I'm willing to improve my ignorance level.
One internet guru who refrains from posting here these days gave a qualified recommendation for Stevenson alignment, as follows: If your LPs are "vintage", meaning original pressings from the golden era of the late 50s and 60s, he saw a merit in using Stevenson based on the idea that those LPs have grooves nearly all the way to the label. Whereas he thought Stevenson might be avoided, if you are primarily listening to later production LPs, where there is on average a wider empty space between the innermost groove and the label. I don’t even know for sure that his assumption is correct, but there you are. For myself, I tend to use whatever alignment was in the mind of the person who designed that particular tonearm. So, for vintage Japanese tonearms that I own, I use Stevenson. Otherwise, not.
The obsession with tracking angle error causing inner groove distortion is interesting to me. Many of those who have listened to the few tonearms in production that are to be mounted such that the stylus underhangs the spindle and which have zero headshell offset angle are struck by the lack of such "distortion" (read reviews of the Viv Float or the RS Labs RS-A1), despite the fact that such tonearms generate very large tracking angle errors, especially out at the outer grooves and at the innermost grooves. Makes you think maybe tracking angle error is not the cause of the perceived (and/or measured) distortion.
bimasta: I forgot other parameters that has influence on those inner groove " problems: one is how good is cleaned the LP, other the stylus tip condition/wear leavels and clean level ( this clean level of stylus tip is important because after the first 20 minutes on playing a LP side the tip has not the same clean level that when started that LP side and when arrives to the inner grooves there is a true problem of the accumulated dust at the tip in the inner grooves. ) and other is the room temperature/humidity levels.
Some f all those parameters we can think are not important but all of them has influence about and makes a difference. Example: stylus tip dust has its own distortion levels per sé, it does not matters if the cartridge is playing at the middle or inner grooves LP side but after 20 minutes of accumalation of dust at that stylus tip the problem is not only the self distortion levels but that that accumulation of dust at the tip makes that the cartridge tracking abilities goes really lower than what we could think and this facts produce higher distortion levels and mistracking.
Dear @bimasta: The whole inner grooves " problem " ( if any ) depends on many parameters where perhaps the more critical to avoid the problem or to live with are: " zero tolerance " through the TT/tonearm/cartridge alignment set up, self cartridge tracking abilities, " perfect " match between cartridge/tonearm, tonearm damping levels and tonearm bearing design.
If any one of us takes enough care on those parameters you can be sure that that problem will stay at minimum and you will not aware of its existence.
Now, there are several classical compositions/recordings withpassages recorded at very high velocities in the middle of the LPs or before it where we can listen the same inner groove problem because those paremeters I metioned are not up to the task.
Stevenson A gives not real advantage over the other alignment types ( including the Stevenson B. ) and goes against the MUSIC experience but it's up to you if you can live with 20 minutes of higher distortions levels in favor of the last 1-2 minutes, fine. As I said is up to you.
Obviously that's not my target but stay as nearest I can fulfilling all those parameters I mentioned.
May be flogging a dead horse here, there've already been many comments and much heat. I listen mostly to Classical; many orchestral works end in bombastic crescendi — alas, they are on the inner groove, the most difficult to track. Achieving the lowest distortion averaged over the entire record is not much use if the finale, the culmination of the musical message, utterly disintegrates. Using a linear-tracking vs pivoted arm illustrates the difference clearly — try the finale of Mahler 3.
People who don't listen to Classical may not experience this, other kinds of music have soft endings, so talk of IGD seems nonsensical — some even scoff at its existence, a view that defies Physics. I would much rather have slightly higher distortion in the earlier parts of the recording (where the music is easier to play and the distortions less audible) so that the climax holds together with all its majesty and power.
Yes it's a compromise, and many of the contributors here are absolutist in their views — my way or the highway — and become fierce when their views are questioned. I'm willing to try every approach and judge by the results as I hear them. I'll even try Stevenson, though Raul might politely call me a moron. Maybe I lack the "moral fiber" to "fight passionately" for my unalterable dogmas, and attack those who disagree with them — some of the language in this thread is quite fiery — but I have no dogmas, only questions, gray areas, and a few theories.
There's an old joke about Academia: "The reason the disputes are so vicious, is that the stakes are so small." The same could apply to Audiophilia, where the stakes are even smaller...
Sorry Raul I don't debate fools and I don't accept ultimatums so you can take your threat and do what you like with it but you are in no position to inform me that this is my "last chance" to do anything. I realize that you are a very sensitive person who's feelings have been badly hurt by the embarassments you have suffered here but you have really brought that on yourself and are in no position whatsoever to blame it on anyone else it is time you accept some responsibility for your own behavior and not harass others on this forum who are following the rules.
@clearthink: Dead silence?, well that's your privilege. Btw, you are not alone on that audio subject: at least one revier shares your knowledge level.
If you think that is my privilege why don't you be quiet and leave me alone why do you think it is my job to engage with you and when I ignore you you have the right to come in here and insult me and others? I can answer that you are immature and like many in your generation you have a strong sense of entitlement and when you are not treated in the royal way you insist on you stomp your feet in anger and preach to the group about your superiority. I expect this post in response to you will be deleted but I am telling you Raul to leave me alone I don't need your permission to act or not act as I see fit. thank you and I hope some day you can find gainful employment and move out of your mothers basement.
Dear @clearthink: In 2014 ( not in the 70’s-80’s. ) that same gentleman had these kind of misunderstood on the whole alignment overall critical and important subject ( for an audiophile nothing is more critical and important that this alignment subject in the analog experience alternative. ). Somewhere some one asks this when comparing different kind of ( Löfgren/Stevenson A and the like. ) alignments for a tonearm/cartridge:
"" I can’t see a pattern in the graphs ........ How can you the second null point be different if the first is the same unless you are comparing ... """
then he answered this:
""" Not sure what "pattern" you are looking for in the graphs. ................ Remember that each one puts the stylus tip at a different distance from the pivot point, thus producing a different "overhang". That different position produces the two differing null points. """
that is a huge misunderstood on the subject. Of course that you already know why as many of the audiophiles in this board know and I know they know because I know very well some of them. As a fact I learned from some of them.
Some time now I would like to say the same from you in this special subject.
One thing you are not taking in count that happens every day at every internet different forums is that always com,es " newcomers/roockies " that ( different from you that born with the subject knowledge level. ) just does not have any single idea not about different kind of alignments but that has not idea how to set up the cartridge/TT/tonearm set up and the audiophiles in all those boards are the ones that can help them when ask about and they ask all the time.
Dear friends: This kind of discussion ( pivoit tonearm alignment subject. ) always makes me to look over the information I have and that I learned through the years to find out if something I learned is wrong and rectify it or to confirm " things " are ok.
Well, in these kind of discussions almost always I learn something from other gentlemans and this time was not different.
The comment from genesis 168 ( refering to Stevenson A alignment. ):
"""
Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track..... """
I gave an answer to that and the answer came in that precise moment:
way before the stylus tip hit the first LP recorded groove Stevenson A approach tell us its inherent high distortion levels on those grooves against Löfgren approaches where the Stevenson A and Löfgren equations solutions are what numbers says with a zero tolerance in the overall cartridge/tonearm parametrs set up .
That's what mathematics says but is almost impossible to make any of those set ups with zero tolerance and this fact means that " things "/distortion levels always will be higher that what the solutions says and we have to remember here that distortions generates harmonics too and that over the LP play exist IMD too.
For years I posted here the critical importance of accuracy in the cartridge/pivoted tonearm set up subject and now is more clear why.
That accuracy level ( ideal: zero tolerance. ) is even more important because all the imperfections of the LP it self as in the cartridge too and because of the different recording velocities recorded over the LP surface.
As you know my target is to be/stay nearer tothe recording but as you know what is in the LP recorded surface is not what is in the recording, far away from there.
In theory we can have what is in the recording when the phono stage applys the inverse RIAA eq. where the magnified set up " errors " ( non-zero tolerances. ) during the LP play along the distortion levels of each kind of alignment are magnified again on that inverse severe eq.
Taking all those in count Stevenson A is the worst of those kind of alignments and seems to me with out today facts that can justify it use for many audiophiles in the world as some of you in this forum.
The alignment cartridge/pivoted tonearm has to live inside of what is surrounded with and not only taking in count the inside grooves alone as and island in the earth because exist a whole relationship with all what surround the overall analog alternative.
Stevenson A approach is an extreme approach with extreme consequences due that he puts the inner null radius ( zero wte. ) at r1. I already explained the " terrible "consequence about that for me preclude the use of this kind of alignment or similar one.
Now, I can be wrong and if I'm I would like that some one of you clarify this subject for me. Thank's in advance.
Dear @clearthink: Unfortunatelly you are wrong in your assumptions of what I posted. Maybe becfause English is not my native language. am I confused, how?
I and you can ask to audiophiles ( even today professional reviewers ) in this board what were their knowledge levels on the precise and critical understanding the different cartridge/pivoted tonearm alignments in the middle of 60's early 70's.
Which kind of true accurate protractors were they using and what level of accuracy had the own tonearm pick-ups? and not only that but in how many of those vintage protractors they read a precise explanation of the importance of accuracy on that st up or the type of alignment the protractor showed or in the case of tonearm manufacturers that explained it along the protractor accuracy its protractor had?
In which of those protractors came perfectly explained that what the audiophile has to align is the cantilever and not the cartridge sides?
Even in 2015 M.Fremer when was " talking " of the tonearm cartridge importance of precise set up posted ( somewhere. ):
"""
If you buy a ‘table that’s been pre-drilled and fitted with a secondary manufacturer’s arm, it’s a good idea to check the P2S distance either by using a protractor that has a measuring beam (Feickert, Dennesen, etc.) or if you don’t have one of those, by using a ruler marked in millimeters....................................................................................
Fortunately, there is some room to compensate for P2S distance error here in the form of head shell slots........ """"
imagine how good could be the today clear understanding on the subject by us audiophiles ( not you. You are an " expert ". ) when MF has that kind of misunderstood and in this thread there are clear examples of different kind of misunderstood by more than one gentleman that posted here.
Of course that for you is very clear where is that MF misunderstood, rigth?
Anyway, I re-read twice your two posts here and just can´t find out your " expert " level on the alignment pivot tonearm subject.
You only post part of stereo recording history but you did not shared nothing on the pivot tonearm alignment subject, that's what I'm talking in my last posts.
So, what are you talking about? what do you want to prove and where are precise facts that can prove what you think (?) can prove?
Please show us who you are ! ? ! ? ! ?. Every day is a learning day.
"
In this alignment on pivoted tonearms audio critical subject at least two gentlemans ( genesis 168 and clearthink ) decided no additional coments, yes this is their privilege"
I did not respond to you because it is patently obvious that you don't know what your talking about and when confronted with facts you respond in a way that clearly denies the facts that are readily apparent to literally everyone who reads this board. For example you wrote that "Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the professional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. " You admitted that you didn't care about alignment and even claimed that no one else did either but as I showed you in my response that is completely false it is only true that you did not know about it and after you discovered the importance of proper alignment you now want to instruct everyone here on your special knowledge of alignment which has actually been generally known for decades as I previously pointed out to you. So there is no point in responding to you when you are confused and pretend you know everything there is to know about this subject that you just learned about relatively recently in time and yet you take credit for enlightening everyone here about the matter as you shout that we should enjoy the music and not DISTORTION.
Dear friends: Almost all the time when I ask to other gentlemans that enrich or provide/contribute with real information that can help us in the subject we are under a dialogue those gentlemans ( that posted a critic or not so good opinion in the subject. ) just disappears, no additional post in the subject only " dead silence ".
Make no sense to me that kind of attitude because if I come to any audio subject dialogue is because I have something not to say but something that can help or enrich our learning level.
In this alignment on pivoted tonearms audio critical subject at least two gentlemans ( genesis 168 and clearthink ) decided no additional coments, yes this is their privilege.
Btw, Stevenson A alignment solution today is totally out of question. It gaves NOTHING to improve the quality performance level on any cartridge or any system or any tonearm. Similar alignment approaches today helps to NOTHING. Stevenson maybe works in the old times but not today, contributes only to listen way higher distortions due to its inherent higher tracking distortions level.
@larryi gaves very good reasons about and you read information ( not just an opinion. ) I posted here and through the years in other treads.
So make your self a favor and a favor to the MUSIC: staying out of STEVENSON alignment. Of course it’s up to you.
Dear @g_nakamoto: Who can't remember it? when The Zero ( for zero tracking error. ) was and still is a TT design with a truly extremely special pivoted tonearm with " zero " tracking error that when designed in the 70's was " thousands " of years a head on pivoted tonearm designs even for today top designs.
rotaries If the azimuth cannot be fixed by the limited headshell adjustment, you really need to return the cart you bought, you have a cartridge problem not a tonearm problem.
The headshell provides more than enough adjustment. Unfortunately the difficulty and time it takes to merely come close to the accuracy of the Well Tempered tonearm as determined by the Fozgometer is laughable.
On the other hand if one doesn't notice the difference in azimuth then close is good enough.
Dear @clearthink: """
This is absurdly incorrect and misleading although it is revealing because it shows that raulruegas discovered the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a Music Reproduction System fairly recently.... """
totally wrong assumption. Way before no one in this forum ( that I remember. ) talks in deep about the different alignment solutions I posted several times on that critical audio subject y through the time along other audiophiles we discuss in deep the overall subject.
"""
he now portrays himself as an expert on the matter when it is actually clear that he is confused ... """
first than all I never portrays as an expert on this issue. Through those years I posted where came those solutions for overhang and offset angle in the cartridge/tonearm set up. I don't want to repeat what I posted several times years ago ( not recently as you assumed. ) and only for your records and way before those linear tracking tonearm you name it was in 1908 when Harsanyi touched for the first time the subject on pivoted tonearm designs, Wilson followed him in 1924 and Löfgren in 1938.
You just came here trying to hit me in anyway but as many other gentlemans you just failed.
Instead of that why don't share to us why I'm wrong and with out know-how as you said. Please prove it not only post it with out true foundations or precise facts. Please enrich not only my ignorance level but the knowledge level of all other audiophiles.
"Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the profesional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. No one cares about and the " trouble " for some cartridges at the very end grooves was magnified."
This is absurdly incorrect and misleading although it is revealing because it shows that raulruegas discovered the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a Music Reproduction System fairly recently and now that he has made that startling to him discovery he now portrays himself as an expert on the matter when it is actually clear that he is confused and I am being polite by using that word. The importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a
Music Reproduction System goes as far back at least as the earliest stereo records that employed the Westrex 45/45 system and early ariticles about the amazing Westrex 45/45 system almost always included information about the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment it is not a new or recent idea at all! In fact it was concern over not just proper alignment but that the problems caused by tracking error that the earliest linearly tracking arms/turntables were introduced. Rek-O-Cut made a linearly tracker in the 1950's and the Truline also dates to the 1950's and of course in the 1960's you had the original Rabco linearly tracking arms so to suggest that the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment is recent and that "no one"cared until lately is a patently false claim. Raul is way behind the times here and clearly lacks the experience and knowledge he professes in this group and the claim raises questions about the techniques he employs to measure the "DISTORTIONS" that he seems to always be shouting about in this group.
Dear @genesis168 : All we know the Stevenson reasons but thank’s to confirm it.
Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the profesional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. No one cares about and the " trouble " for some cartridges at the very end grooves was magnified.
Today thinks changed and almost no one has true problems at the end of inner grooves and when they have it’s only that the set up is not accurate. Every thing is continuous movement/changes and for some reasons I can’t understand we never change and stay sticky to very old " fashions " that only goes against our hobby that is MUSIC. My advise is to change and try to live in 2017 and next year in 2018. Is up to each one of us.
Many of those gentlemans with that kind of trouble bougth the great MINT LP protractor and the tracking trouble just vanished and MINT LP use regulary Löfgren alignment.
I have several LPs with very hard/high velocity grooves to track it and not only at the inner groves but at the first third part of the LP grooves and I tested all those tracks ( that are part of my personal test process. ) using those 3 normal kind of alignments and if you try it you will listen very clearly what Stevenson alignment in those " easy " ( this is what you said or I understand from your post. ) begining grooves shows you against either Löfgren alignment and what you will find out is higher distortions/colorations.
But I tested too with LPs at inner grooves and in specific the Telarc 1812 where MC and MM cartridges makes its works with no dificult at all and tested these tracks with those 3 alignments and through Löfgren you can’t hear any additional coloration/distortions.
To be sure about we have to experience it making those kind of tests.
Now the measured tracking distortion levels of those 3 alignment solutions stay always if the alignment is " perfect "/accurate it does not matters the cartridge. Those numbers are the ones that always we have but because there is no perfect set up those distortion numbers goes up. So, it’s really important accuracy and try to have the lower distortions as we can in the major LP surface.
At least for me is critical, numbers speaks for it self. I always want to be nearer to the recording and Löfgren puts me nearer way nearer than Stevenson.
The sellers that are behind those inner grooves alignment in reality are only sellers.
I agree with you that any one can choose whatever he wants.
Now, the ones that are using 231.5 P t S value and have 246.324 as the effective length of the FR that kind of numbers means are using Stevenson alignment and the ones that have 248.135 as effective length are using Löfgren A ( Baerwald. ). Obviously with thr rigth offset angle figure for each kind of alignment solution.
Btw, that's why what you posted is wrong:
"""
Nandric, you are correct. """ The P to S distance does not define a kind of alignment.
It’s clear that the gentlemans that are sticky to Stevenson or similar are unaware of the higher distortions are listen it and they like what are hearing. Maybe are unaware of it because they did not tests against other kind of alignments with a rigth test overall process. I know that people do not likes I tal about distortions but again and again the posts confirm that many of us like higher DISTORTIONS ! over lower ones. That goes against MUSIC.
When I learned about those kind of alignments and its real importance along accuracy on it my set ups were and are around Löfgren solutions. No more Stevenson A or something similar.
As a rough generalization, older records tended to be cut with grooves that went closer to the label. As mastering engineers got better at altering groove spacing to match the groove modulation, more music could be packed into any given space, so the necessity of cutting close to the label went down. Also, narrower profile styli (e.g., Shibata, van den Hul, other line contact) and other cartridge developments have made inner groove tracking less problematic. That means that the issues Stevenson alignment addresses is less of a concern these days.
For the record, I wasn't once on "that" post talking about the FR tonearms or the 231.5 PS point or the alignment on my system. Only talking about the Stevenson alignment in general that it made sense for what it was designed to do.
Nandric, if you read my comments near the end I mentioned that I'm not for any type of alignment. I urge users to experiment themselves and not just look at numbers. My post was not that Stevenson was the only way to go but that Stevenson method did make some sense hence it was adopted by certain tonearm manufacturers. That was it.
There is a reason why the Stevenson alignment exists. Yes it is universally known that the Lofgren had a lower overall distortion figure across "most of the playable surface" on the LP. Have you asked yourself why Not only use Lofgren then? We all know the most difficult part of the LP to track is the inner grooves. The outer and middle parts of the LPs are relatively "easier" to track compared to the inner tracks. If you look at the graphs Lofgren vs Stevenson the distortion figures at the inner grooves are way lower hence making it easier for the arm to track. Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track so if you need to choose your compromise then I'd rather take the lower distortion on the most difficult parts to track.
Also, for those who listen to large scale classical music, the crescendo almost always falls at the end of the side. So huge dynamic swings at the most difficult part of the Lp to track. That's why Stevenson works.
I guess everyone has heard of inner groove distortions and not outer groove distortions so that explains something. Inner groove=difficult to track.
I am not for or or against any type of alignment. They all work. Stevenson did do his homework and made his compromise. Try it and decide. No sense listening to second hand talk from others. BTW, there is this "new" curve called the Uni-DIN which I like. There is nothing new about it but just a set of compromises taken at the different points just like all the other alignment curves.
Lastly, there is no use plugging numbers in speadsheet and trying to make sense at distortion figures and curves. Numbers don't usually tell the whole story. Numbers won't tell you what will sound good or bad. It's just a guide. If you like numbers you should all go and buy some Japanese home theatre receiver.
Dear friends: Stevenson made two different alignment solutions, one was A and the B that coincide with LÖfgren A ( Baerwald. ).
Almost all Japanese tonearm manufacturers choosed Stevenson over both LÖfgren alignmente solutions because they want that distortions at inner LP grooves goes lower and audiophiles took it at the " best " alignment when IMHO it's not and makes no real sense.
Stevenson A reduce distortions at the very end inner grooves but in the other 9/10 of the LP grooves distortions goes a lot higher than both Löfgren solutions. For some of you this makes sense and that's what you like and is the way you are using the FR.
My take here is: why and how is it that any one could likes higher tracking distortions ( 9/10 of LP. ) ( this is a fact a measured fact not an opinion. ) than overall lower distortions with both Löfgren alignment solutions?
Any one can put some ligth about? @lewm@genesis168 or some one else?
@lewm / @genesis168 , a little help to understand: both of you are using 231.5 on P to S distance. The overhang that you are using is: 14.8 with an offset angle : 21.15°? or these parameters are different?
Dear Nandric, Should I dip it in only the finest olive oil from Don Corleone? I am loathe to disassemble precision devices that I may not be able to re-assemble properly. In other words, my inclination is to let well enough alone. I went through this dilemma with the L07J tonearm from my Kenwood L07D. I was determined to upgrade the wiring and to create a continuous run from cartridge to phono stage, but I could not get the vertical piece of the arm structure to disengage from the horizontal piece, so as to get behind the one-of-a-kind Kenwood DIN plug and access the internal wiring. I got it loose, but the two pieces would not give up their death grip on one another. Rather than to risk total destruction of an irreplaceable item (as the bearings go rolling across my basement floor), I gave up. Discretion is the better part of valor, they say. Instead, I plan to run the new wire outside of the arm tube, totally bypassing the internal wiring.
Re position of the lateral counter-wt on the FR64S: I think I do have a copy of the owners manual, but I never consulted it as regards the lateral weight. I will do so now.
Dear @genesis168 : When you change the P to S tionearm distance ( in any arm. ) you are changing too the effective length and between some limit range on that alignment parameter number what you are doing is to increment or lowering the tracking distortion figure and tracking error too.
Using Löfgren A ( Baerwald ) and going from 245 ( FR spec. ) to 248.13 ( 231.5 ) means that you have a little lower distortion levels but you can play with those parameters and test for example: 256 on EL and this again will gives you lower tracking distortions figure and any one can do it. Obviously that we can do it between some limits due that the tonearms has a limited length and headshells too, so it’s only to make some tests to see where you can go with better results and I repeat you can do this for any tonearm that permits it.
We can do that it does not matters if we are using Löfgren A or B or Stevenson alignments.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
