Dr. Feickert Protractor

Raul, You equate tracking angle error with audible "distortion".   I am skeptical that this is a valid assumption.  (The key word is "audible".) If you are so sensitive to tracking angle error, why are you even bothering with pivoted tonearms?  You should be using linear trackers, exclusively.  Even so, I don't know where you get the evidence for your claim that the Stevenson geometry sacrifices the first "20 minutes" of an LP.  

I am sorry to learn that your system is not accurate enough to allow you to perceive the obvious distortion that I heard when I set up the DV505 for Baerwald.

I am joking, of course. But why would you say such a silly thing? Any alignment geometry that gets you two null points on the playing surface of an LP is as valid as any other that does the same. It’s impossible to argue with you intelligently, because you do not read the responses; I did not say that Stevenson was superior to any other, just that it is not per se inferior to any others. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but please do not dismiss my observations simply based on your own. Most likely we were using different cartridges. A high compliance cartridge, for example, might be more sensitive to the aberrant force vectors generated when you twist the cartridge with respect to the long axis of the headshell (and to the single possible plane of the arc of the vertical bearing of the DV tonearms). No one else gives a damn about this discussion, so let’s bag it.

My one experience is with the Dynavector DV505, which is unique, as you know, in having two independent pivots, one for horizontal and one for vertical motion of the arm wand.  The DV505 was designed for the DV alignment, which is very close to Stevenson, if not identical.  When I aligned the very same cartridge by Stevenson and then by Baerwald, in the DV505, I actually heard gross distortion with the latter alignment that was ameliorated by going back to Stevenson.  Please notice that I DON'T claim that this would be a general observation applicable to conventional pivoted tonearms.  I have written about this experience many times already.  

My hypothesis to explain my observation is that twisting the cartridge with respect to the long axis of the headshell, as one must do in order to achieve Baerwald in any tonearm designed for Stevenson, was placing some aberrant stresses on the cantilever (novel force vectors would be created) that might be more severe, and therefore more audible, with the DV tonearms than with conventional ones, because of the very short pivot to stylus distance with respect to vertical motion.  Persons who own other vintage Japanese tonearms might want to consider this issue, but I have no idea whether the problem would occur with those that pivot conventionally at a single point in both planes.  Further, I never claimed that inner groove distortion was either increased or decreased; I merely stated that for LPs with musical information close to the label, Stevenson makes some sense to try, especially if your tonearm was designed for Stevenson.  In other words, I do not dismiss Stevenson a priori, as you advise.

Actually, I really don't give a hoot what anyone else does; I'm just putting out my experience, just as you are doing. With my modern tonearms, I do use Baerwald, regardless of the LP.  But just because you have written something over and over again does not mean that I have to accept it.

If you're concerned with only one tonearm, then I agree with Raul that the Mint LP protractor, which you have to order specifically for each tonearm and each different alignment algorithm you may want to try, is more cost-effective.  However, if you're a devoted vinylphile who is likely to own several different tonearms over time, then the Feickert (and many other similar expensive options) makes a lot of sense, too.  If you are in the latter category, you made a great choice.

I don't agree with Raul's out of hand dismissal of the Stevenson alignment.  Some LPs, especially LPs pressed in the late 50s and 60s, contain musical information right up to or very near to the label; in other words, the run out grooves comprise a very narrow band near the label.  For such LPs, Stevenson is worth considering, because its inner null point is closest to the spindle of all the commonly used algorithms.  Also, many vintage Japanese tonearms were designed for Stevenson, in that the headshell offset angle is most compatible with Stevenson.  For such tonearms, some believe it is best to adhere to the Stevenson alignment. (This is controversial, I admit.)  

The best that ANY alignment algorithm can do is to give you two null points on the playing surface of an LP.  Where those null points will lie is to some degree be determined by the choice of algorithm. There's no reason to rule out Stevenson, unless you are consistently playing LPs with a very wide run-out area, where the innermost of the two null points afforded by the Stevenson alignment would be wasted.