Feickert analogue protractor....Owners impressions

All,

Quite a few points to touch on here as this thread continues ...

I. Graham Alignment Technique

Please note that I've not played with the Phantom. My experiences and comments relate to with the 2.2. I believe that the Phantom sets up identically to the earlier Grahams. In any event, consider this to be at a minimum, comments on versions 2.2 and before.

The Graham setup jig, while brilliantly simple in concept and use, is predicated on one step which is difficult to achieve the highest level of accuracy with - setting the pivot to spindle distance. If you pay attention to your technique in this step, you can do quite well. If you don't, then a casual setup with a two-point protractor will be superior.

The great part about the Graham technique is the fact that you use parts machined into the actual tonearm to perform your measurements (the hole drilled in the headshell). What could be better? Well, the answer lies in keeping the unipivot bearing from tilting when you perform this operation. If you can do this, then your pivot to spindle distance will be spot on and life is good.

I've thought about how achieve precision in this step. One method would be to develop some sort of "U" shaped stabilizing part to support the main body of the tonearm so that it doesn't tilt, and thereby distort your pivot to spindle setting. Something so simple as some pieces of cardboard stacked up to the right thickness would likely work fine. I don't have an arm on hand, and thought about this after my 2.2 left my house, so I can't advise you on its construction beyond these passing comments.

II. Feickert

As far as the Feickert is concerned, I got to play with one for the first time this weekend. It provides a nice method of getting a starting point for spindle distance. For the price of the Feickert, you can get three dedicated arc-style protractors from Mintlp. Anyone who has shelled out $250 for a Feickert is obviously serious about their setup, and I'm puzzled why they don't try to compare their results against an arc-style protractor.

Perhaps the promise of the nicely machined parts lends the impression that you can't do better. Well as I've written many times about things analog (as have others), the tool with which you relate to best is the superior tool. Perhaps many relate to the Feickert. I can understand the appeal of a precision machined tool.

III. Arc-Style Protractors

My take on the very critical parameter of pivot to spindle distance is that all non arc-style protractors (including the Feickert) help you to set the pivot to spindle distance in the neighborhood, and nothing more. With the Feickert, you can get to perhaps 0.25 mm. An arc-style protractor will increase your precision in this regard irrespective of your starting point - whether you begin with a .25 mm error or 3 mm.

The way arc-style protractors work can drive you crazy until you understand them, because small changes in pivot to spindle distance (when measured at the record spindle side of the arc) will be multiplied dramatically at the lead-in groove side of the arc. 0.25 mm error at the record spindle side of the arc will translate to about 5 mm at the lead-in side. Therein lies it's beauty, precision, and frustration potential for arc-style protractors.

Palasr (who first pointed me to the Mintlp protractors) articulates the remainder of the argument in favor of arc-style protractors very nicely (as do Tim, Narrod, and Dan_ed), but rather than debate all of this, why don't you all try this out instead of discussing something without having experienced it.

IV. Take the Challenge

I'll tell ya what ... I'll reduce your risk to maybe a buck, and we all know how much that buys on the international market these daze.

I'll send the first 5 people who e-mail me an arc-style protractor made of card-stock material for your tonearm (Baerwaald alignment).

As long as we can establish the effective length of your tonearm, I can make one for you. Please note, that many Japanese tonearms specify weird numbers and we might have to work a bit to get one made for you.

Please e-mail me using this link from the Galibier website (instead of the Audiogon mailer) if you're interested:

http://www.galibierdesign.com/contact.html

Be prepared to send me an 8.5" x 11" envelope with the proper postage on it. If you don't want the postal service to bend it, line the envelope with a piece of cardboard. Again, this applies to the first 5 people who e-mail me.

If you like it, you can order one from Ken Willis or Yip at Mintlp. I'm not interested in being in the protractor business and don't have any financial interest in recommending these products.

The card-stock protractor (as Dan_ed mentioned) was merely a proof of concept experiment, and I supply them with all tonearms I sell, along with a recomendation to contact Yip at Mintlp for the real deal.

V. Fixed Headshell Mount Tonearms (SME)

Oh yes (Smoffatt), you have a challenge in using an arc-style protractor. You'll need one protractor for each cartridge you use, which can be quite expensive. Swampwalker touched on this point with respect to his Schroeder as well.

I believe I went into it in depth on another thread on this forum, but in case I haven't, you can read about it as well as quite a few comments from Palasr, Dan_ed, and Salectric in depth on my forum in this thread:

http://www.galibierdesign.com//phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Thanks for the feedback on the Phantom, Downunder. I really need to play with this fine tonearm. I hope my earlier post wasn't taken as a negative one, but rather as one to describe how to increase the precision on the very fine method that Bob Graham has designed for his earlier tonearms.

Yes, if the magnetic mechanism keeps the unipivot from wobbling during the alignment process, then you are correct and the problem is solved. As I mentioned, the fact that you're using the actual tonearm for the alignment process is a wonderful thing.

For those not familiar with the Graham alignment technique, a small nylon step-down adaptor is fit onto the record spindle. It tapers down to fit into a hole drilled in the headshell. This procedure needs to be done once - at tonearm mounting time, and before the cartridge is fit onto the headshell.

The object of the game is to fine-tune the pivot to spindle distance (using the built-in play in the arm mounting holes) until you can swing the arm over the record spindle and engage the hole in the headshell into the spindle adapter.

The other brilliant thing about the Graham technique is that the remainder of the alignment work is done with the jig which snaps onto the headshell - work which can be done on a well lighted desk.

Turntable Basics, Well Tempered Experience, Dyna 17D3 ...

Regarding the Turntable Basics protractor, it’s the two-point protractor of choice - for those inclined to using a two-point protractor. I'm guessing that you were trying to use the alignment line to aim at the tonearm bearing pivot.

This likely drove you batty and is not recommended. Small errors in aiming are magnified, and I know of no one but Frank Schroeder who can use this technique - whether with the aid of a thread or not. You're welcome to try.

When using both the Turntable Basics protractor as well as the one supplied by Triplanar (made in the same shop), use it as a two-point protractor and forget about the sighting line.

Yes, the Dynavector 17D3 has a very difficult cantilever to view. Even with great lighting and a magnifying glass it will drive you nutty. I love this cartridge, and it plays well above it's price point, but viewing the cantilever during the alignment process (intentionally short - by design) is not its strength.

As far as the remainder of the Well Tempered, the wobble and such is characteristic of the design as you mention. I recommend stabilizing it in some fashion (e.g. cardboard shims under the platter at three points), because no alignment technique will obviate the need for doing so. You probably thought about this on the drive home ;-)

In general (with all turntables), it's helpful to use a piece of masking tape to keep the platter from rotating. Of course, in the case of the Well Tempered, the stabilizing shims will accomplish this.

I've not played with a Well Tempered arm, but from your description, it fits into the same category as the SME, and Schroeder Reference/DPS as far as fixed cartridge mounting - from the perspective of the stylus position relative to the cartridge mounting holes determining the tonearm's effective length. Your effective length will vary depending on the cartridge manufacturer and model. See below for further comment.

Arc-style Protractors - Difficulty of Use ...

Well, they're difficult to use in the way that any fitness coach is. They won't let you off the hook until you get it right. If you want someone to whisper sweet lies in your ears, then don't choose an arc-style protractor.

I look at the Feickert as sort of a weigh-station, on the route to using an arc-style protractor. I say this because it emphasizes getting pivot to spindle distance right to a higher level of precision than measuring with a ruler. It also has a number of alignment points for various arm lengths which means that you won't get as easily confused when you shift your attention to working at the headshell slots. This is a good thing and I applaud this effort.

I hate to come down so hard on such a nicely executed design, but it reminds me of the current trend in software design - called SOA (service oriented architecture). This design philosophy emphasizes usability and the problem that the software is intended to solve. There's more to the philosophy than that, but the point is, that the best software design in the world is not as useful as that which is designed in collaboration with the user community which ultimately has to live with it.

As far has how the Feickert works, the photos linked to here should make it quite clear. http://www.feickert.com/engl/schablone_handling.html.

The relevant point is that for a particular arm geometry (one that is defined by a pin and dedicated pair of alignment grids), you get less confused between cartridge offset angle and fore-aft adjustment in the headshell (effective length/overhang). This is a good thing.

Lastly, I find it curious that Feickert in his instructions shows us a Schroeder tonearm for his setup example, because (as with an arc-style protractor), the Schroeder Reference, DPS, and SME arms (those without cartridge mounting slots) will give you varying results depending on the cartridge and how far its stylus to mounting bolt distance varies. This would mandate (in the case of the Feickert) another set of grids and alignment pin hole, or in the case of an arc style protractor, either a different arc (on a universal protractor) or a different protractor. Of course, a universal, two-point protractor will work. I go into this in the thread I link to in my previous post.

Again, the caveat with all of this stuff is that the tool you relate to best, is the best tool. For many, this might be the Feickert.

The experience of everyone to date has been that once they go to an arc-style protractor, they find it easier to visualize the solution as well as to implement it. Most importantly, the results are audible. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean a faster setup, as the precision level will demand that you really get it right and not just approximately right.

I liken this "getting it right" (in comparison to getting it approximately right with a two-point protractor) to be an order of magnitude improvement in the musicality of your analog rig - an ease (lack of distortion), delineation of musical lines, along with everything else that Dan_ed reported. Now, the higher the resolution level of your rig, the more you'll hear the improvement, but it's still a very worthwhile investment for owners of Regas and such.

Another benefit I've found with getting your setup perfect is that it is much less finicky in terms of VTA adjustment. I first noticed this in my work with the ET-2, linear tracker. For those without an easily repeatable finely adjustable VTA mechanism, this is not a trivial advantage.

I have no doubts that people can get it right with a two-point protractor, with my good buddy Frank Schroeder being one notable exception. Doug D. tells us that he can, and they're both to be congratulated for this. I'm going to send Dough an arc-style protractor to try. I suspect that he is so fastidious with his alignment process that he won't note an improvement, but it will be interesting to hear from him nevertheless.

For the large majority of us however, I think that a better tool is a worthwhile investment.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Smoffatt,

For an SME or a Schroeder (Reference and DPS), I'd use either a conventional, two-point protractor and sweat through the details, or alternatively I'd figure out the effective length for my favorite cartridge and order an arc-style protractor for that combination.

I'd obviously hope to live with that cartridge for quite some time if I committed to this solution.

Frank Schroeder has observed a statistical norm for stylus position centering around the stylus landing 9.25 mm in front of the cartridge mounting bolts (from his tonearm manuals). SME might presume a number slightly different than this to arrive at their specified effective length.

Your XV-1s cartridge comes in at 8 mm (from the engineering drawings on the Dynavector website). From SME's website, the Model V has an effective length (pivot to stylus) of 233.15 mm. We'll hang onto this number as a reality check.

I'd get my ruler out and draw a line connecting the two cartridge mounting bolts and then measure 8 mm forward of this line to see where the XV-1s stylus lands. I'd then measure the straight-line distance from the center of the bearing pivot to this stylus position I drew. This is your effective length. Perform a reality check against the 233.15 mm specification. You shouldn't be too far off from this, and likely a mm or two shorter than 233.15 mm.

Now, here's where it takes commitment (as in dollars). You're faced with ordering a protractor for this effective length. Assuming you got it right, you now have a protractor for one tonearm and one model in Dynavector's cartridge line (double ouch).

There's one other challenge with the SME V. Not only can't you change the effective length (it has mounting holes, not slots), but you can't vary the offset angle by much - only by whatever play there is in the headshell holes. Some people (another thread) have reported that they've opened up the holes in their headshell slightly - to permit some offset angle adjustment.

If it were me, I'd probably keep with the two-point affair and sweat through the process - assuming I didn't have access to a drawing tool which allowed me to try a variety of effective lengths for the cost of a few pieces of card-stock paper.

The thought of being wrong in my measurements (described above) would likely freeze me in my tracks - ordering without feeling comfortable that I measured the effective length with enough precision.

Thanks for the comments, Stiltskin. I find these conversations to be productive for all concerned. Every time I try to describe something, I think about it slightly differently and learn something. If I only had more time for this.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Tim,

I may have to check out of this thread for a few days ... The short answer is that if you trace an arc (Wally, etc.), then life is good.

A while ago, I performed an extreme-case analysis of using the wrong arc on paper. I've not yet had the opportunity to try this out. I created situation which will never occur in real life - describing three arcs for a Triplanar:

a) a 239 mm effective length - the arc created by a cantilever which is 11 mm too short - in effect a negative cantilever length
b) the intended 250 mm effective length - the nominally correct arc
c) a 262 mm effective length - an arc created by a cartridge whose cantilever is 12 mm too long

http://www.galibierdesign.com/images/Protractor_Alignment_Exercise_01.pdf

The idea was to "pretend" that the Triplanar had no mounting slots, and that the user would try to align a cartridge in scenarios "a" and "c" whose stylus positions resulted in a too short and too long effective length - changing the pivot to spindle distance (11mm closer and 12 mm farther for "a" and "c", respectively).

The owner of this nominally correct, 250mm arc protractor would try to land the stylus somewhere on its theoretical arc. In use, the only adjustment available to him would be a pivot to spindle distance compensation.

You can see that even in these extreme (and well beyond real world situations), the arcs traced by "a" and "c" are fairly close to the ideal arc. Now, we're told that you need to get to better than 0.5mm of the specified pivot to spindle distance (not the arc, the pivot to spindle distance), and in these examples we've diverged by 12 mm and 11 mm respectively.

So, the question (back to reality here) is that just because we've failed, how much better is our setup (if at all) than that which we can achieve with a two-point protractor? I suspect that our audible results in a real-world error (e.g. a cartridge which diverges by only 1 or 2 mm) would be such that most of us would achieve a better setup with an arc-style protractor (better than with two-point, but not as good as ideal).

I've been planning on verifying this by making up two arc-style protractors for my Triplanar to mimic the SME/Schroeder situation - a stylus whose cantilever is, say 2 mm shorter as well as 2 mm longer than anticipated for the arm's specified effective length - yielding effective lengths of both 248 mm and 252 mm (vs. the 250 mm for the Triplanar).

I'll report back on this, but it may take some time. It will take some long-term listening to get the grok on any differences. Unfortunately, I can't measure the distortion, so this would be a subjective experiment which will take some time. My guess (to be verified) is that these errors will result in less than perfection, but somewhat (on average) better than most of us can do with a two-point protractor (Frank Schroeder and Doug Deacon notwithstanding).

It wouldn't hurt to perform a visual check with a two-point protractor - to see if (upon adjusting with the "wrong" arc protractor) whether we'd consider the setup good enough if we were using a two-point protractor. I suspect that most of us would.

Yes, SOA ... yet another three letter acronym which makes me want to retire to a cabin in the woods (with, of course, Solar PV panels to run my hi-fi with). I think the usability question is a good one of course. All too many geeks in both IT as well as hi-fi lose track of the problem they're trying to solve and get lost in their egos - building more and more complex mousetraps.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Joe55ag,

Basically, you stepped back analyzed the problem, and came up with a workable solution. Good for you!

Take note of how Joe approached this problem.

You bring up the very good point that, just because a manufacturer specifies certain paramaeters, you are not limited to this and can create your own.

Stated another way, if you're "stuck" with a certain pivot to spindle distance because of tonarm mounting circumstances beyond your control, you may well be able to still achieve (say, Baerwaald) alignment by adjusting the position of the cartridge in the headshell (fore and aft as well as offset angle).

Of course, in your case you ran out of headshell slot, but your approach was still one of "what set of parameters will work if I'm stuck with one that I can't change?".

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Oh yes ... a quick follow-up to Joe.

Yes indeed, someone could easily order an arc that resulted in a 222.8 mm pivot to spindle distance.

Typically, you work backwards from effective length, but if you use John Ellison's wonderful spreadsheet and set the precision level to 4 decimal places, you can (using binary search techniques) derive any number you need in 5 or 6 tries.

Once you have an effective length, tell Yip (Mintlp) or Wally what you need and in 3 weeks (Yip) or ??? (Wally), it's in your mailbox.

It's all just computers and numbers and one number (222) is as good as another (222.8).

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Mjglo,

Your question is indeed a valid one. Every effective length has one and only one correct pivot to spindle distance and offset angle.

Tim is adjusting for a change in effective length with the pivot to spindle change (and likely adjusting offset angle slightly with his oversized screw holes).

I suspect he's getting such good results with a Wally because his cartridge's stylus position closely matches SME's design assumptions, and therfore his tonearm's effective length is close to specification.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi 04rdking,

Looking at the specs for the 309 on SME's website:

Effective Length: 232.2
Pivot-Spindle: 213.4
Offset angle: unspecified

From John Ellison's great spreadsheet (free stuff on Enjoy the Music website ... also linked to from my support page):

Baerwaald predicts (for 232.2 effective length)

Effective Length: 232.2
Pivot-Spindle: 214.33
Offset angle: 23.73 degrees

Loefgren predicts:

Effective Length: 232.2
Pivot-Spindle: 213.83
Offset angle: 23.73 degrees

So, assuming your cartridge (stylus position) is consistent with SME's ideal, then your effective length is indeed 232.2. You might try fiddling with the pivot to spindle distance (increasing by about .9mm for Baerwaald and .4mm for Loefgren) to get to Baerwaald and Loefgren approximations.

Perhaps you can lay a piece of masking tape on the base to measure this small change.

If the overall distortion level drops, you can always drop a few coins on either the van den Hul protractor or the TT Basiscs one.

Yip (Mintlp) and I have been positing (not yet verified) that tracing the arc (getting pivot to spindle and effective length right) is more critical than the offset angle.

You certainly won't ruin any records doing this.

Cheers,
Thom

Ah ... you're talking about the vintage, 3009 then? The same analysis would apply.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

All,

Don't worry about published pivot to spindle distances with arms like the VPI (whose p-s distance can be easily compensated for).

For these tonearms as well as "fresh mounts" (where you're not stuck with a given p-s distance), work from the effective length (bearing pivot to stylus).

The Baerwaald equations will derive the correct pivot to spindle distance and offset angle.

This thread (I believe) as well as several others have described how to measure the effective length of your tonearm with a plain ol' ruler. If you have slots in your headshell, you will be plenty accurate.

At a minimum, use your measurement to verify against published specs. If you're wildly off (e.g. 3 or 4 mm), contact the manufacturer.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier