Feel Silly Asking This Question Alignment Parameters
I feel silly asking this question, but here it goes. Most of the arms I have owned over the years have came with proprietary protractors, and certain ones like the SME are really just overhang gauges. For other ones I have bought custom generated arc protractors for the specific arm. I will probably do so again with this Origin Live arm. However in the mean time i decided to set up using their provided protractor.
When I went to install a cartridge on the table, I found I was not wild about using their protractor, so I decided to generate a Conrad H arc protractor till I made an order for an Accutrak one. What I found odd is that Lofgren A had the longest overhang at 16.8 mm and Lofgren B at 16.3mm. The Origin Live shows 17.5 mm. Is the Rega type alignment that much different than Lofgren or Stevenson? I also noticed with the OL alignment that cartridge offset in the headshell was noticeably greater.
What is also noticeable is the sonics of each alignment is different. To be honest, I like the overall sound of the OL alignment, but I also have this nagging feeling that it does not track as well.
I always felt at this stage of my audio journey I knew how to align a cartridge. I have been doing it since I was in my 20's! Now I have a large degree of uncertainty of which alignment to choose, and what the implications are if i choose wrong. This arm is a long term keeper for me, so its a matter of wanting to get this set up optimized.
Any insights you might pass along is greatly appreciated. Do have a good chuckle at my expense as it seems that I get into these moments of self doubt, and trying to find the way out of the forest of audio can be quite comical.
I prefer Lofgren B. Lofgren B generates less distortion across the bulk of the record than any other alignment accepting at the very innermost area where distortion rises sharply. Modern records avoid the innermost area of the record. You might see some old classical records with only a centimeter runout area, but that is about it.
It is not easy to align a cartridge perfectly. Most people are only ball parking it. The most accurate and versatile alignment protractor is the SmarTractor. Its etched mirrored surface and very effective magnifier makes it much easier to get that cantilever perfectly parallel to the lines. The stylus actually fits right into a small pit in the surface. The SmarTractor does Lofgren A and B plus a few others. It is pricey but you have spent enough money on your rig to validate it's purchase. GET ONE, I promise you will never regret it.
@neonknightIf you can actually hear and remember the difference between the various alignments I think you might have a lucrative second career in turntable and room set up. You would fall into an elite group of super listeners. I'm not suggesting that you can't/aren't hearing those differences just that the overwhelming number of audiophiles can't and only imagine that they can. It is much more likely that, even if you are hearing and remembering differences between alignments, the cause is more likely to be inadvertent changes in zenith, azimuth, and VTF than the geometry used.
I like the arc protractors this site generates. https://alignmentprotractor.com/arc-protractor-generator. They generate a useful chart that you can use to see what the distortion is across the surface of the record. I believe that Baerwald is the same as Lofgren A. All you need to know is the pivot to spindle distance and choose the alignment you want it to generate. It is totally free and very accurate although the protractors you generate obviously don't have the mirrored surface the expensive protractors use. Do make sure you put smooth glossy tape over the paper to prevent the needle from sticking and the cantilever possibly breaking if you accidentally move the paper back.
Personally, I like AlignmentProtractor.com's argument for their proprietary alignment and I use that but I would never suggest that I hear any difference.
The overhang difference between 16.8 mm and 16.3 mm is inconsequential. Even 17.5 mm is not critical. I doubt you can hear the difference from any of these.
Whether you can hear a difference or not, even an 0.5mm error or greater in overhang, provided you don’t also alter other standard parameters, certainly CAN make a drastic difference in locating the two null points, or even whether you actually get two null points anywhere on the playing surface of an LP. This has been demonstrated, probably by Dave Slagle, but I can’t find the reference.
@lewm Makes the most reasonable post. No other post explains the reason behind a 17.5 mm overhang. I must be missing something but this does not match any geometry for an arm with a spindle to pivot of 222 mm.
I don’t think I explained it so much as I was trying to point out that if you change recommendation for overhang, you have to change other parameters like headshell offset and P2S, if you want your two null points to lie anywhere in the playing surface of an LP. That’s not a trivial exercise. Hearing it is another matter entirely.
Right, @ Lewm is on it. All you care about is the cantilever being perfectly tangent to the groove at two points on the record as dictated by your preferred alignment. To get that tangency you have to juggle the variables of overhang, offset angle and pivot to spindle distance. Pivot to spindle distance is fixed as long as the tonearm is mounted correctly. There are tonearms like the SMEs that have an adjustable bases, but most do not. This leaves overhang and offset angle. To set these accurately whatever alignment tool you are using has to index the stylus so it can not move and it has to clearly indicate tangency in such a way that it is easy to get the cantilever perfectly coplanar by eyesight. Magnification is mandatory if you really want to be accurate.
@pinwaThere is a significant difference. Most people do not notice it because they are listening to tonality which does not change. What changes is the image focus. I can demonstrate this on any system that images at or near the state of the art just by twisting the cartridge in the headshell a few degrees, making before and after recordings then ABing them.
@macg19I have several Wally Tools and they are great, JR also knows what he is doing. However you need to be able to do this yourself. All you need is a SmarTractor, a WallySkater and a Wally Reference. With these tools you can be just as or more accurate than anyone.
Mac, I think you’re referring to adjusting the cartridge (not the tonearm) for zenith error, which is worth doing but has nothing to do with setting overhang. OTOH, Wally can probably advise on how to alter headshell offset and P2S, if you’re using a non-spec overhang.
With these tools you can be just as or more accurate than anyone.
True statement, without microscopy analysis.
The analysis gives you the data to account for azimuth, SRA and zenith errors and the tools and a custom shim to correct them, as well as tonearm adjustment and anti-skating.
PS. 2 of the 3 main suppliers of stylus/cantilever assemblies publish zenith error tolerances of +/- 5%.
This is why I am an alignment nihilist and now very fond of an underhung tonearm that has no headshell offset angle (or significant skating force) to worry about. All that’s left to worry about is zenith error. Even a 1 or 2 degree error in zenith, if ignored, will cause problems with alignment, no matter how otherwise precise.
Mijo, you are probably correct about image focus, but when you do twist the cartridge in the headshell, then you are putting unequal forces on the cantilever (up and down motion of the cantilever is not in line with up and down motion of the headshell and bearings at the pivot). I don’t know what that does sonically, but it may do something we hear.
Dear @neonknight : If you have to stay with that 222 P2S distance and at the same time you like that overhang be 17.5mm you can get it with Löfgren A alignment making a change in the most outer groove alignment .
You can use the VE calculator that permits you to change almost any input calculation parameter and in your case you only has to choose instead than the default IEC most outer groove distance you will use 148.5mm ( custom choice ) and you achieve 17.51mm, then you are there:
@lewmI should have been more specific. Twisting the cartridge just a few degrees in the headshell is enough to blur the image. There are always unequal forces on the cantilever. A few degrees one way or another is not going to matter. Shoot, there are people who will swear their cartridge sounds better without antiskating and if you look at their cantilever it is skewed 5 or 6 degrees towards the right channel.
I check SRA and Zenith and the best cartridges are beautifully constructed. Azimuth is easy to see on the SmarTractor, you look for a symmetrical reflection and SRA is right when your arm is parallel to the record surface. If a cartridge is off it is usually easy to see. The last defect I even picked up with the naked eye. a cartridge with a SRA of 89 degrees. The manufacturer replaced it immediately. He had just started using a new adhesive and it was not setting up as fast and the stylus was drifting forward. I have yet to see a cartridge with a significant zenith error. I'm sure they are out there. I just got a Shure V 15 V MR body and ordered a Jico SAS/B for it. It will be interesting to see how accurate it is. I will post pictures of it.
@mijostynI think you are talking about hearing errors in alignment which I totally agree are easily audible versus differences in the geometry you choose to align to.
But I am curious about your statement about "twisting the cartridge in the headshell a few degrees", by which I think you mean the zenith adjustment. I have yet to find any information about how you can tell in which direction and by how much your zenith is in error. Most of us simply align the cantilever since we have no way of aligning the diamond but as @macg19points out and JR at Wally Tools has asserted the zenith error in how the stylus is mounted to the cantilever can significantly exceed the generally small errors that occur when carefully mounting the cartridge to the tonearm.
Other than randomly twisting the cartridge back and forth and listening is there any way know in what direction and by how much the zenith error (including the error in the stylus mounted to the cantilever) is? And I mean without paying Wally Tools $500 for their cartridge analysis service.
@neonknight : I don’t know from where have you those overhang distances in the OP because the normal calculation for that P2S distance puts you almost there and at the end is that with the calculated Löfgren A overhang you have not any trouble with the null points:
" its a matter of wanting to get this set up optimized. "
There are several ways to optimize a tonearm/cartridge alignment set up at the one with lower traking distotion/error is the SAT tonearm alignment that any one can use.
Dear @mijostyn : " I prefer Lofgren B. Lofgren B generates less distortion...."
For many years my way of thinking was exactly yours till you fall in count that those tiny differences ( we can see in all those VE links I posted. ) and everything the same no one including a bat can distinguis in between no matter what and the best trade-offs per sé is Löfgren A.Everything the same how can you detect a difference in tracking distotion between Löfgren A and B when the measured groove to groove at each mm. change at lower than 0.01%? Changes is so tiny that we accustom to thozse changes with out detect that tiny changes.
Makes sense to you? because all of us have big imagination.
@neonknight : " This document is reproduced here by kind agreement of Mark Baker at Origin Live. "
" Rega arms and Origin Live arms require mounting dimensions such that the centre of the platter to the centre of arm hole is approx 223mm plus or minus 2mm tolerance and the hole diameter for the arm is 24mm to 25mm. "
At P2S 225 distance L¨fgren B gives you 17.53 that has no consequwences in your 17.5 desired overhang.
You can read OL uses Löfgren A. I gave you the calculations for in one of the links.
In the other side it's easy to ask OL which kind of advantages gives its alignment against other normal alignments, I think you need to know and evaluate if is what you need or could not makes a differences.
@rauliruegasAbsolutely, the difference is probably not easily audible. It is a technical superiority. These technical issues do add up over an entire system, looking at 100s of small issues like this.......in theory. I do have a rather fine sounding system....I think.
@pinwa No, that is not Zenith error, twisting the cartridge ( cantilever) is induced tracking error. Zenith error is the stylus twisted in the cantilever. Frankly, I have yet to see an example of this, although given the errors I have seen I am sure it happens. You need very strong magnification to see it which most audiophiles do not have. It is great for JR's business, the ghost in the machine. The cartridge is stupid in this regard. As long as there are two contact patches in contact with the groove the cartridge will make music. If you study the geometry of the stylus tip there would have to be a huge zenith error before it would interfere with tracking. The phase error might interfere with proper imaging, might. The cantilever out of alignment is a far more serious issue.
@neonknightI forgot to mention. The most common mistake I see when setting up a cartridge is the technician does not neutralize the antiskating mechanism before setting the overhang and offset. This will substantially angle the cantilever when you set the stylus down. The cantilever should never change angles from its resting position even when playing a record. If it does something is wrong.
" Professor Erik Löfgren [6] of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, and is the earliest work known to the author which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. Löfgren provided mathematical equations to the distortion model developed by Olney, and undertook a Fourier analysis on them. The results confirm the relationship postulated by Olney, which translates into the distortion being proportional to the tracking error and inversely proportional to the groove radius. The tracking error divided by the radius has become known as the Weighted Tracking Error (WTE). Löfgren then sought to minimise the tracking distortion by minimising the WTE. Löfgren developed an optimisation method which involved applying the minimax principle (as used by Wilson) to the WTE. The maximum level of the distortion is then represented by the slope of the tracking error graph rather than by the level of the tracking error. This method results in less tracking error at the inner grooves where the wavelengths are shorter. The introduction of this inverse radius weighting complicates the analytical solution, and Löfgren uses an approximation method which relies on the error angle being small. This is a reasonable mathematical approach, and incurs very little error. An interesting feature of the optimisation method is that the null radii will later be shown to be the same as those provided by the later authors. The optimum solution from Löfgren provides for an offset angle and overhang which minimises and equalises the three resulting WTE peaks across the record playing surface. This three-point, equal-WTE solution has continued to be applied to the present day, and I refer to this as the ’Löfgren A’ solution.
"An objection that could be raised against the [Löfgren A] calculations is that the three maximum values of the parameter δ/r (ie, WTE) are not of the same importance. A greater importance should actually be attached to the maximum at r* than to the maxima at the inner and outer recorded radii r1 and r2, first because δ/r changes only slowly in the vicinity of r*, while in contrast δ/r changes very rapidly at r1 and r2. Secondly, the inner and outer radii r1 and r2 are not necessarily utilised with each record. Because of this consideration one should permit somewhat larger values of δ/r at r1 and r2 than at r*.". Clearly, Löfgren was concerned with the extended period of slowly-changing distortion between the null radii. Thus, the central WTE (and distortion) peak should be lowered, while allowing for short periods of higher WTE (and distortion) at the inner and outer groove radii. "
In any standard calculator you can read these:
Maximum error always be: Löfgren B , Maximum distortion always be Löfgren B and Average RMS Distortion always be Löfgren A by around 0.04% that has no consequence in what you listen.
You know that there is nothing perfect and only trade-off choices. You prefer B no problem.
Although it has been over a decade since I last aligned a cartridge, I am curious about how AlignmentProtractor.com accounts for the errors induced by the printer, its settings and the media you print on? I spent my career in the print industry and there is always some amount of stretching or distorting with any flexible media such as paper.
I downloaded a "printable ruler pdf file", set my printer to print at 100% and over a 9" length there was a little more than 1/32" of stretching. Oddly, the print was accurate up to 5", but in the next 4" it gained 1/32+".
I assume that a deviance of around 1/32" might alter the expected sonic results.
Actually @rauliruegasI prefer tangential tracking, or as close as you can reasonably get. The two arms that have my attention are the Reed 5T and the Schroder LT. I have specific requirements in a turntable that few tables meet in total. Sota is re-designing the Millenium. My current plan is to take a Millenium, strip it of it's suspension, mount a Reed 5T on it and place the whole rig on a Minus K platform. I may also mount an LT. The Millennium's stock suspension can not handle the weight of the 5T and the LT is so long it will require an outrigger of some sort. Nothing like a science project.
@tony1954The Alignment Protractor that is generated includes 190 mm vertical and horizontal distances that you measure after printing and then you adjust the scaling on the web page and generate another protractor and remeasure etc.. I have had no problem getting them within 0.1mm which is a negligible error over 190mm.
@tony1954And if there is any distortion within the page I haven't seen it but I don't think there is any way to adjust for that. But honestly, 1/32nd of an inch over large distances doesn't seem like a concern to me. If there was that much distortion in the "grid" that is printed I imagine that would be visible and it isn't.
I have an aluminium Dr. Feickert protractor that I only use to measure spindle to pivot distances but now I wonder if I should worry about how much it expands and contracts with temperature changes LOL.
@mijostyn : Good but we are not talking on LT tonearms.
Returning of the kind of alignment you prefer next is what an expert about ( no ofense to your knowledge level in anyway ) :
" Löfgren suggested an alternative alignment in his 1938 paper, which calls Löfgren B, but its raison d’être is different. It gives the result shown in fig.11, from which you can see that it lowers distortion over the middle portion of the disc at the expense of higher distortion toward either groove extreme, particularly the end of the disc side—an approach that just doesn’t make sense to me: "
That fig. 11 is similar to the graphs in VE calculator.
@rauliruegas Appreciate the numbers from Vinyl Engines calculator. I used to have an account there, and then one day I could not log in. Never could reestablish access to it, nor make a new one.
The arc protractor program I used was Conrad H one, as it is reported to be an acceptable one. The system only allows input of spindle to pivot and the print ratio is 1.0
What is odd is the numbers do not match up. For Lofgren B as example the overhang is 16.8 mm, but the inner and outer nulls are slightly different. 57.4 and 114.8 and an offset angle of 22.4 If the program is using the same calculations I would not expect such a variance in numbers.
With what the Vinyl engine calculator shows, I think I will order an Accutrak arc protractor for this arm.
At P2S 225 distance L¨fgren B gives you 17.53 that has no consequwences in your 17.5 desired overhang.
Your numbers are wrong.
The Agile manual from Origin Live sats -
Centre of mounting hole to centre of platter should be 222mm.
Based on that the correct numbers are as I posted above
Overhang for Baerwald A is 17.3mm - offset 22.99
Overhang for Baerwald B is 17.75 - offset 22.94
@neonknight
What is odd is the numbers do not match up. For Lofgren B as example the overhang is 16.8 mm, but the inner and outer nulls are slightly different. 57.4 and 114.8 and an offset angle of 22.4
These numbers are nonsense.
The offset for Origin Live arms are designed is 23 degrees not 22.4.
The Agile manual which is available on the Origin Live website here
says the arm is designed for a pivot to spindle distance of 222.
I have posted for the second time the correct overhang for your arm.
Rauls numbers are not correct.
For the third time -
Origin live Agile ( standard 9.5" arm 239mm ) has a recommended pivot to spindle distance 222mm.
Overhang for Baerwald A is 17.3mm - offset 22.99
Overhang for Baerwald B is 17.75 - offset 22.94
If you can't follow this then I would suggest you purchase a cartridge with a conical or spherical stylus such as a Denon 103. Misalignment will be less of an issue with a conical or spherical stylus profile.
@rauliruegasIt did not make sense to him because back in the day many more records were run right up to the label. Now that is a very rare occurrence. Modern records space out the grooves a little more and resort to two discs instead of one. The main reason for this is CDs accommodate much longer play times than records and artists have become accustomed to that extra space, thus the record version has to resort to two discs anyway, but even re-releases of old material are resorting to two discs when originally there was only one. Zappa records are a good example.
You may love pivoted offset arms, but I do not. The problem is that there have not been any compromised tangential designs until recently. Both the Reed 5T and Schroder LT are brilliant designs that maintain tangency, have low horizontal effective mass and obviate the need for an antiskating device. You may want to talk about pivoted arms, an unfortunate, but necessary compromise, I would rather talk about these. Once the patent runs out on the Schroder LT there will be many more arms like it. The Reed is much more complicated and twice the price.
@doverMy apologies I missed your original post. Yes manual states 222mm and I do have the single point supplied alignment gauge. My preference is working with an arc protractor and wilL purchase one shortly. Thanks for the response.
@dover : No it’s not wrong because OL says a margin of +,- 2mm. In the other side we can change those numbers with out any negative consequence because 225 means longer EL and les distortion.
I posted the link with 222mm Löfgren A. I think you not read it not even the link of OL protractor I posted.
Origin live Agile ( standard 9.5" arm 239mm ) has a recommended pivot to spindle distance 222mm.
Overhang for Baerwald A is 17.3mm "
I’m not wrong because I only gave neonknigth different alignment choices for his tonearm.
Who is way wrong with the numbers is not only you but OL too because 222 + 17.53 is not 239 or 9.5". One of my options that I posted puts the best number nearer to that 239 with a difference of only 0.1mm instead 0.3mm.
Dear @mijostyn : It's not that I prefer pivoted against LT only that today for me is the best option, that's all.
Btw, it's useless to follow the dialogue with you about Löfgren A and B because I think your never read before the over 150 pages of the 1938 Löfgren papers where you can learn which was his main target no matters if the grooves goes up to the label or not, next again part of what I posted about:
" Löfgren developed an optimisation method which involved applying the minimax principle (as used by Wilson) to the WTE. The maximum level of the distortion is then represented by the slope of the tracking error graph rather than by the level of the tracking error. This method results in less tracking error at the inner grooves where the wavelengths are shorter. The introduction of this inverse radius weighting complicates the analytical solution, and Löfgren uses an approximation method which relies on the error angle being small. This is a reasonable mathematical approach, and incurs very little error. An interesting feature of the optimisation method is that the null radii will later be shown to be the same as those provided by the later authors. The optimum solution from Löfgren provides for an offset angle and overhang which minimises and equalises the three resulting WTE peaks across the record playing surface. "
The B solution was only a sifde line and not his main target but to understand what I said before about the LP label you need to understand in deep Lofgren A in the WP.
Btw, the comment from that expert I posted came from 2010 .
No matters where the LP label is, just after the second null point ( inner ) the cartridge task is way more complicated and where the levels of distortions goes up and up till the last inner groove. The optimization WTE in Lófgren A permits lower distortion level where it matters the more. Take it or leave it but these is the main target/issue by Löfgren and he stated in those WP.
Come on @rauliruegasyou know darn well that I have read everything. Yes, it is true that any given frequency has a shorter wavelength as the groove speed declines, but the situation does not get serious until you are inside of 65 mm. I would guess that only 5% of the records I have go inside of 65 mm. Many do not get inside of 90mm where Lofgren B shines. If you really want low distortion at the last 10% of the record that hardly anyone uses go with UNI P2S. :-)
I am struggling with ..."any given frequency has a shorter wavelength as the groove speed declines,...." That is from Mijo's post but he was only reiterating a quote from Raul. Frequency and wave length are inversely and constantly related, regardless of groove speed. For example, a 1000Hz tone always has a wave length in air of 0.32 meters. And the declining groove speed on an LP, as the stylus approaches the label, is presumably accounted for in the recording process. I am sure the text is trying to tell us something, but what? I think it's semantics. I think it means there is less groove length per second available to encode a given frequency to the point where the stylus has difficulty tracing the groove accurately. And this does not even take into account TAE.
No it’s not wrong because OL says a margin of +,- 2mm. In the other side we can change those numbers with out any negative consequence because 225 means longer EL and les distortion.
This is poor advice.
The OP expressed the desire to use an Arc Protractor.
Anyone who professes to be an expert in tonearm set up would know that an arc protractor is designed for a given mounting distance and you’re not supposed to use an arc protractor designed for a given mounting distance with another mounting distance.
If you are going to use an arc protractor, the mounting distance must be absolutely spot on.
Who is way wrong with the numbers is not only you but OL too because 222 + 17.53 is not 239 or 9.5". One of my options that I posted puts the best number nearer to that 239 with a difference of only 0.1mm instead 0.3mm.
Anyway, numbers just do not coincide.
Neither I nor Origin Live mentions 17.53
Please read my posts more carefully as I do not appreciate being misquoted.
Apparently you think its fine to set up tonearms with an accuracy of +-0.3mm despite and wrong offset angles despite claiming in your other posts that unless the phono stage used is accurate to +-0.01db over the audible frequency that the phono stage is not up to par.
I think you should rethink your priorities in how to get the best out of an analogue system.
Dear @mijostyn : That's not the issue. Again starting ( no matters what ) the second null point the cartridge tracking task goes harder to tracing as at the begening/medium distances in the LP grooved surface and for that reason Löfgren choosed that in the last third part of any LP the tracking distortion gone lower and that is why he named to the A solution the Optimal Optimization that's a better alignment that his side line solution B.
@lewm " to the point where the stylus has difficulty tracing the groove accurately. "
Even that the calculations for the P2S 222mm shows at that firstlink I posted and the EL calculations shows 239.3 for that P2S. Numbers says that's the correct EL not 239mm., numbers are numbers/mathematics.
OLsays in his site: " Centre of mounting hole to centre of platter should be 222mm (plus or minus 1mm tolerance). "
It's not talking of overhang.
Now, if the P2S distance change to 221mm or 223mm over calculations at the same time changes the overhang and offset angle and the main target for any tonearm owner is to make the tonearm/cartridge/TT alignment with Accuracy and this is what I'm talking about.
Anyway, that 239mm or 9.5" stated by OL can't be achieved with the OL information.
So other that my finger error I think I'm not wrong.
Maybe what created some kind of confusion in my posts was that my " error "I wasthinking that the OPwantsit 17.5mm as overhang.
" Apparently you think its fine to set up tonearms with an accuracy of +-0.3mm "
@dover : No it’s not wrong because OL says a margin of +,- 2mm. In the other side we can change those numbers with out any negative consequence because 225 means longer EL and les distortion.
The manufacturers specs are 222mm - you are suggesting mounting it at 225mm.
That would mean pushing the cartridge out further, significantly increasing the effective mass and inertia of the tonearm beyond what the designer intended.
It's no wonder you have suggested your 1980's CD player is more accurate than your turntable system.
Given that you have been trying to build your own tonearm for the past many years, perhaps you could now focus on a design with an effective length of 48 inches - according to your theory that would sound fantastic - even lower distortion. Pity the poor cartridge though, trying to cope with such vast effective mass whilst navigating eccentric records.
Dover, I’m not quite sure what the argument is really about but my calculations suggest that a change in EL from 222mm to 225mm would increase effective mass by only about 2%.
@dover : It's curious/negative that you took from my posts only what ssome way or the other you can use as a weapon.:
Iposted this information that came from VE but maybe you don't read it or let pass on purpose:
"
" This document is reproduced here by kind agreement of Mark Baker at Origin Live. "
" Rega arms and Origin Live arms require mounting dimensions such that the centre of the platter to the centre of arm hole is approx 223mm plus or minus 2mm tolerance and the hole diameter for the arm is 24mm to 25mm. "
So that's not my information, I only pasted and used.
Dear @neonknight : According the OL information you can make the alignment with that 9.5" El and this is what you can get and could be the best orthodox alignment shot:
Dover, I’m not quite sure what the argument is really about but my calculations suggest that a change in EL from 222mm to 225mm would increase effective mass by only about 2%.
As I pointed out earlier, changing the effective length means a different ARC protractor will be required. This is likely lost on many readers.
Unfortunately for many readers who struggle to understand how to set up a TT properly, arbitrarily changing the pivot to stylus distance outside of the manufacturers specifications could lead to disaster in terms of reasonably accurate set up.
You might be quite comfortable with this because you have many years of experience setting up TT's. Unfortunately most don't.
The whole purpose of the OP's question was to address concerns that he had on set up. The word and numbers salads tossed up in this thread - encouraging others to ignore manufacturers guidelines - is a recipe for disaster.
Whilst you might be happy with this, because you enjoy intellectual debate, the reality is, for newbies, confusing them often leads to frustration and disappointment.
Consequently we lose another turntable enthusiast.
Why do we care about folk losing enthusiasm for turntables - well, in a dwindling market, prices rise, the market shrinks further and eventually innovation declines and the market dies.
Have a look at the declining numbers on this forum.
Therefore as you and I and some others on this thread have over 30 years of experience in setting up turntables - it is incumbent on us to help folk with their turntable set up advice by keeping advice simple, accurate, and explain in a way that is easily understood.
I agree with all you say above, but I just wanted to point out that increasing (what I thought was EL but my in fact be P2S) from 222mm to 225mm has little effect on effective mass, which of course has nothing to do with alignment per se. If we are actually talking about P2S, then the net effect on effective mass of the commensurate increase in EL would be even less than 2%. But for EL, if effective mass was 20g at 222mm, it would be ~20.4g at 225mm. (This is very inexact, just comparing the square of the two numbers, which is directly proportional to effective mass.)
Looking back on my nearly 50 years in this hobby, I would unashamedly say that there are some things I did wrong for 40 of those years, some other things that I did wrong for 30 years, and some more unknown things that I am doing wrong even now. (Not speaking only of tonearm alignment.) For the uninitiated or newbies, they should know it's a marathon, not a sprint to get to audio Nirvana. But such is our capacity for self delusion that one can enjoy the hobby from the get-go, just keep an open mind and hope to get better at it.
Dear @lewm @wrm57 : MINT LP disapeaed of the market and was one of the first protractor with dedicated turntable/arm, specific . Was really inexpensive.
The dedicated, one only, alignment hasd a way high limtations for the owner and for the cartridge against universal pro-tractors as the Feickert protractor.
If I will live for ever with that tonearm/TT alignment maybe no problem ( just maybe ) but it does not gives any single advantage over the universal protractors that gaves us to achieve the best quality level performance for any cartridges and tonearms combinations and or different kind of aligments. Ar the end we have try that the cartridge can shows at its best and a dedicated protractor can’s do it, probably at random but who knows.
Newcomers must know that could be a big mistage to get married with that kind of protractors and that the best " road " is a Universal alignment protractors. In the other side the OP posted that he wanted to optimize about and maybe he does not achieve it.
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.
