Feickert analogue protractor....Owners impressions

OK, I see I had the wrong number (233.15) as the pivot to spindle for the SME Iv.vi, it's actually 215.35, 233.15 is the effective length suggested by SME. I got the calipers out and find my cartridge stylus looks exactly at or very close to this effective length. I just contacted Ken Willis for a protractor based on these numbers. Now I can see if the SME gauge is close.

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

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Thom,
The Series III is a totally different critter than the 309. The specs for the Series III are:

pivot - stylus: 229.0
bedplate center - spindle: 215.4
offset: not specified

Narrod,
Can you give me Ken's contact info?

The Ken Willis protractor has provisions for all three geometries (sp?). Right now I have my Audioquest PT-6/Denon DL-160 set up for Stevenson feeling it sounds better than Baerwald. I have not tried Lofgren. I echo the positive comments about this thread. It's the epitome of information sharing without the messianic tone of trying to convert posters as so many threads seem to do.

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

Excuse me if this is redundant. What about those of us that have an older SME arm that uses the Stevenson geometry? Is it possible to use an arc protractor for these? Aren't most, if not all based on Baerwald? I ask because I just installed a Grado Reference Master on my SME Series III arm. Set the VTA and VTF on a 150 gram LP. Checked and double checked the alignment with a new SME alignment protractor (cardboard, single point). Checked and rechecked VTA/VTF. I notice some sibilence at the beginning of the record. Towards the end, it sounds great. From what I've read, this would make sense due to the Stevenson setup. Is there any way, without changing arms, to more closely "mimic" the Baerwald?

And I agree with Smoffatt, this is a great thread.

I am using WallyTracktor Universal and it delivers the results needed for precise tone arm setup. Most arm type arcs are included in the design. A group or club of analog heads could make good use of this fine phono arm tool.

This post to date is approaching 2,200 views, someones reading it.
Here's an opportunity to drive home, AGAIN, this subject of proper set up and enjoyment of vinyl playback.

There is helpful guidance for the novice and some veterans of this hobby.

Stay tuned....

Hi all, this had been one of the better post i have seen in a long time.
Very unbias. No "war". No "ditch your SME it's crap and buy a Phantom or ditch the Phantom and buy a Triplanar".
Congratulations to all and most particularly Thom Mackris at Galibier.
As far as overhang adjustment with the SME, you must move the base to adjust it and as a result, you are changing the spindle to pivot distance. DON'T SWEAT IT. This is how ARA designed it and there is no other way around it, unless you want to take a hacksaw and "chisel" slots in the headshell of a $5000.00 tonearm. Again, this is an awesome thread.......

Tim,
Proper setup is probably what sounds good on the SME and as pointed out by Thom your effective length probably matches what the spec should be. "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"
I just thought I'd bring up some other points as food for thought. I have not yet decided which way to go for a set up tool.
One other point, I think some of the changes we make are so small as to not be detectable from one to the other by using the arc, even with a magnifying glass they might look the same, so probably sound the same.

Mike

Wouldn’t you be defeating the purpose of a custom protractor by changing the spindle to pivot distance as an adjustment?

My admittedly limited and possibly flawed understanding is that pivot-to-spindle distance + overhang = a spot on the arc of a protractor designed for a specific pivot-to-spindle distance, 233.15 on the SME V. The way to adjust a cartridge in an SME V/IV is by moving the entire arm via its sled. If by moving the tonearm via the sled I cause the stylus to perfectly trace the arc on a protractor designed for the tonearm, doesn't that equate to proper setup? If I follow that method, is my cartridge not aligned correctly? (Genuine question, not rhetorical).

Tim

"So, maybe the 233.15mm spindle to pivot recommended by VPI"
Sorry, SME not VPI

Consider this, the gauge that comes with the SME arm is driven by the effective length and you change the spindle to pivot to dial it in. So, maybe the 233.15mm spindle to pivot recommended by VPI is not cut in stone but a starting point, if that is the case maybe a a protractor based on the effective length is best for this arm.
Mike

So, if one wants a custom-made arc protractor, shouldn't one supply to the maker the ACTUAL spindle to pivot distance, rather than the optimal theoretical one, which may not pertain to the arm for which the protractor is to be used? Forgive me if the question is redundant.

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

Tim,
"The fine gradient movement of the SME's sled makes small adjustments simple to dial the stylus in the arc across its length"
Wouldn’t you be defeating the purpose of a custom protractor by changing the spindle to pivot distance as an adjustment? If you order a protractor for SME isn't the arc based on the 233.15 spindle to pivot distance, the distance you change to adjust? I bring this up because you mention that the Wally is the best method for SME alignment(IMO), I'm not sure it or any arc protractor is unless the cartridge one uses produces the correct effective length for the 233.15 arc. I just mounted a SME IV.Vi so I'm looking for feedback also. Now, if I measure the effective length and back into the spindle to pivot measurement and it's not the SME suggested 233.15, I wonder if it would be better to order a protractor for the SME suggested 233.15 or order one based on the spindle to pivot number derived from the actual effective length? HMMMMMMM.

Mike

Smoffatt - the best way to get a cart aligned in an SME V, imo, is with a Wallytractor. I haven't seen the Mint, but if its the same design and quality as a Wally, then it will work as well. For me, the arc style protractor is much easier than a two-pointer, but those can work. (Say what you will, Wally deserves a boatload of credit for bringing his mirrored arc style tractor to us audiophiles - like many others on this forum, he's a generous contributor to our hobby.)

The fine gradient movement of the SME's sled makes small adjustments simple to dial the stylus in the arc across its length - much easier than manually shifting the cartridge in head shell slots and then tightening the cartridge bolts without changing anything. This, imo, is one of the design's real strengths. Once the tone arm is mounted, the sled makes pivot-to-spindle distance somewhat of a moot point.

If your cantilever (and ultimately your stylus) is at right angles to a line drawn through the headshell bolts, then there should be no need for cartridge adjustment to hit the proper offset on the protractor's grid lines. Otherwise the soft head shell metal makes it simple to *very slightly* enlarge the holes in the headshell enough for minor adjustment. (I did this turning a drill by hand - let me know if you need the bit size, I've got it somewhere in my notes at home.)

Tom - thanks for the follow-up!

Tim

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 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

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

Tom - I'm probably gonna display my ignorance here so kindly bear with me regarding the SME, ... if the stylus perfectly traces the arc in a Wally or other arc-style protractor, why does it matter that you can't change the overhang because of no slots in the headshell? With my SME V on a Teres I can set up different carts with the same Wally.

(And SOA may be a lifestyle choice for some, but its still a Gartner product living out its own cycle of hype - one man's abstraction layer is another man's pot of beans. :-)

Tim
 

Typo - I meant to type 206.5 on the table\arm that needed 210mm.. It's late..goodnight.

Joe

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

This is an excellent thread.
It is a good chance to exchange advice, experiences and views.

I have been using the Feickert, and I find it easily accurate to 1/10th of a millimeter, and able to do things that none of the others can...to explain..

I needed the Feickert on a table\arm combo that called for 210mm pivot to spindle distance. The problem was that this particular cartridge had a short stylus to mounting hole distance.. so you could not slide it far enough out in the slots for the proper overhang. (Pivot to spindle distance can be changed of course, but you have to compensate everywhere else.)

I went to 106.5mm to get a nice fit on this combo.
If I had tried to use an arc protractor made for 210mm pivot to spindle distance, I would have been out of luck - no good at all. Instead I set up the Feickert for exactly 106.5 mm.

Until I used this protractor, I did not realize just how accurate the Feickert is. Read this paragraph completely and then CLICK HERE to see a composite picture showing the Feickert accuracy. You will see that you can get a perfect setup for any combination of arm and table, with this one being setup for 222.8 mm. (make sure to view the pic full size to see it clearly)

In picture 1 you will see that it is extremely easy to center the rod over your pivot. (& get a measurement that is exact..not just close, but perfect.)
Rulers will not get near this kind of acuracy.

In picture 2 you can see that the measurement markings are crystal clear and easy to read the exact distance..(this one is 222.8mm - if it were 223 you would see half of the next black line)

In picture 3 you can see exactly where the stylus needs to meet the line on the platter for the perfect overhang.

Do you think anyone would order an arc protractor for 222.8? No way... but you just did a perfect setup with the Feickert.

Once you have the Pivot to Spindle distance "nailed" like this perfectly and the platter taped, the Feickert can do wonders.. and you are basically using a platter template that has ALL the arcs on it, not just one..

(I guess you can tell I like this tool.)

Thanks to all our Audiogon members contributing to this thread.

Joe

This discussion has turned out to be a very productive one.

Again ,thank you everyone.
Thom, welcome, your views are always of interest.

For those familiar with the Phantom B-44

Graham's alignment spindle adapter method and cartridge alignment jig both adjustments can be made secured in detentes in the tonearm headshell.

Puttering around with it, with my new Dynavector cartridge in it I found with a bit of dexterity and coordination that I could align the cantilever and stylus with the Baerwald position, dead nuts as Swampwalker puts it...I have not heard that line in years.

However,the engraved target lines on the cartridge alignment jig run parallel with the cantilever with a period mark to the right indicating where the stylus should end.
Thinking about it , if there were a tiny dimple where the stylus tip it self could rest into, another detente except on a minisquel level, I think this would be an improvement on an already well designed jig.

What I,m getting at, unless you know somehow , the jig and cartridge is square to your line of sight while viewing through a magnifying glass, there is room for error...Do Zeiss make magnifying glasses?

All I want to try to do is get the best performance out of my new table arm and cartridge.

I have ordered a Best Tractor from MintLp and should have it by the end of the week.

So , I have the Feikert, Graham's factory jigs and the Mint Lp tractor.
I'll let you know...

Thom, my SME V situation with the Feickert is a moot point as i will be receiving a Phantom shortly i hope (after a 6 months wait or so). I will be selling my Feickert and will likely order a MintLp. For discussion purposes here, if you had to mount and adjust an SME V to the highest level of accuracy, what type of "jig" would you use?
P.S. Cart is Dynavector XV1`s
All the best....

Dear Thom, We did use something straight and rigid (no joke intended) to extend the linear guide on the Turntable Basics protractor toward the true pivot of the WT tonearm, and I did use masking tape to immobilize the platter AND to try to keep it from flopping over. Eventually I think we did shim it. The confounding thing, along with the tiny cantilever of the 17D3, was the unavoidable tendency of the WT tonearm to twist when one tried to tighten down on the screw that holds it in place. At home with my Triplanar, I find the Turntable Basics very easy to use, but I agree with you on the difficulty of sighting down those lines toward the pivot, and on the drastic effect of a small error in sighting the pivot.

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

Yea Dan, I was talking about using the protractor and paraphrasing Thom.

I have used a wally for some time with my JMW. When I upgraded from 12.5 to 12.6 - worked fine. from 12.6 to 12.7 the P2S distance changed - can't use the wally anymore.

Me I might be joining some of the folks here and getting a Mint. The Friekert for me seems to offer nothing.

cheers

Downunder,

I'm not sure if you mean "difficult to get right" to refer to making or using an arc-style protractor. I doubt you are interested in making one, so I'll assume you are talking about using the protractor.

I don't find an arc-style protractor any more difficult to use than my 2-point style protractor. In fact, I find the arc style easier to use and much easier, for me anyway, to get alignment right.

Using any protractor is an iterative process if done correctly. That is, once you get your second point adjustment you really should go back and double check the alignment on the first point. This is also true of the arc-style, with one big exception. With the arc-style nothing is moved except the arm and cartridge. There is no re-aligning of the protractor for the first point. Unless one can do this re-alignment of the protractor with the exact same precision every time, this change in position of the protractor introduces error.

With the arc-style, you find the correct position for the protractor by locating the position in which the stylus lands exactly on the arc at a point near the spindle and a point near, preferably beyond, the outside edge of the platter. BTW, this can't be done unless the P2S distance is right for the specific arc. Once you have this the protractor is fixed in position. Now when you start the process of aligning the cantilever you are only concerned with that alignment and with keeping the stylus on the line. This alone makes the arc-style much easier for me to use.

Now as for how much time and effort one wants to put into the iterations, that is where the difficulty comes in. But this is true for any method or tool one wishes to use to do alignment. How close is close enough becomes a personal choice. My experiences lately with fine tuning cartridge alignment has shown me there is a huge reward for increasing the accuracy. This is no revelation to LP playback, we all know this. Some of us have found a tool that works even better for us to get cartridge alignment even more precise. Others may have a different tool that does the same for them. As always, YMMV.

As long as we're talking about tonearm alignment in general, I'd like to bring up the experience of my oldest audio friend (both in years of friendship and age). I went to his house to help him set up his new Dynavector Karat 17D3 in his Well Tempered Reference tonearm, using my Turntable Basics protractor, which I think falls into the category of an "arc-style" protractor. The experience was very stressful, because the platter of the WT tt will not stay stable without the drive belt to hold it up, because the WT tonearm is fixed in position by a very difficult to access nut underneath the table, and one must loosen that nut to adjust stylus overhang, because the WT tonearm also has only two holes in the headshell for cartridge mouting with no provision for fore and aft movement of the cartridge, and finally because the DV Karat seems to have an unusually short stylus-to-mounting hole distance. Every time I thought I had the DV stylus tip sitting in the right place, the act of tightening the nut under the table would inevitably twist the vertical shaft at the pivot end and throw out the alignment. We achieved some semblance of success after about 2 hours, but the combo sounded horrible, IMO, because I think the alignment was not good. He subsequently bought a Feikert; I don't know how that works, but he just told me that the alignment on the WT table and tonearm cannot be done with the Feikert, either. I think his frustration is due to the fundamental design of the WT and perhaps the unusually short cantilever on the DV Karat, but it points up the problems that can arise.

Okay, I've procrastinated on this long enough. Thom's post finally swayed me to purchase the MintLp arc protractor. I've used a Wally Tractor before on a different arm and while I liked it the Feickert was quite attractive to me. I'll buy some new LPs with the savings.

Thom

thanks for trying to explain this in more simple terms with the pro's and con's. due to the fact I live in Australia, I'll leave it up to some of the other folks in the US to take advantage of your kind offer.
just a few comments/questions

- Graham - you set the pivot to spindle by using the actual arm and attaching it to the spindle adaptor - should be then perfect. with the magneglide on the phantom - no unipivot wobble.

- Feickert - Exactly what does this tool do, except to align pivot to spindle distance very well. Or can you adjust the overhang like Joe said above.

- looks like arc protractors like Wally / Ken / Mint are the best but most difficult to get right??

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

If you use the Mint, there is no need for the Feikert since the Mint is manufactured specifically for your table/arm combo. You set spindle-pivot distance with a ruler to get is approx. correct and then get effective arm length dead nuts on by adjusting overhang til it hits all points on the arc specifically made for your rig. Then you go to the two null points to set the alignment. Its mirrored and has a very fine alignment grid. With my Schroeder its not easy because there is only one bolt in the cart carrier, so when you loosen it to adjust alignment you can easily change the overhang and vice versa, but you can also easily see that you botched it on the Mint. With a more conventional headshell, I would think it would be pretty straightforward with the Mint. The only downside is that if you change arm or TT you need a new one. But as is usually the case, "one size fits all" usually doesn't, while a custom item from a quality supplier does the job very well. Disclaimer- I've never used the Wally or the Feikert, but I find the Mint much easier to use than the TTbasics mirror or the cardstock protractor supplied by Schroeder. No surprise, really; its 3 or 4x the price of the TT and infinitely more expensive than the cardstock one Frank Shroeder sent me.

So, Out of all this great discussion. I am more confused than ever.

Is there a best way to set your arm and cartridge up to minimise groove distortions, generally sound the most musical and leave it resonably easy.

Or is a combination of eg Feikert and Wally/Mint specific to your tonearm the best way to go.

Good read....

Hi Again..

I just wanted to explain how I get my overhang with the Feickert. (there seems to be some confusion about needing additional tools or protractors, and multiple arc points)

1. Set up the Feickert measurement tool to measure your spindle to pivot distance. (put it in the correct hole for your length)

2. Now set the spindle to pivot distance to the arm mfg's exact length in mm using the tool..(different procedure for every turntable)

3. Now - Do not move the platter. While keeping the Feickert measuring tool exactly centered over the tonearm pivot point at the correct distance, TAPE the platter with masking tape so it cannot move at all. (After taping you can remove the tool or leave it there)

4. Now swing the arm over the platter. Adjust the cartridge so the stylus touches the only available arc at the exact mm setting from before. That is the perfect overhang for that distance. The sylus will only cross the arc at one exact point. (not several)

5. After the overhang is set, untape the platter and use the 2 grids on the Feickert to fine tune the offset angle by slightly twisting the cartridge clockwise or counter clockwise as needed.

6. Go back and double check the arc and 2 grids.
If all 3 are good you are done..

I have been getting good results this way..

Joe

I'm finally out of that stage. As long as it sounds good I don't worry about it. I'm not one to use a 6 step, 15 minute process to clean a record either. It's simply not worth it to me. Ken's is the easiest protractor I've ever used. The MintLp certainly warrants further investigation but, unless, I can hear the difference it is a moot point.

I think Dan has touched on several key points: accuracy and obsession. My own quest for alignment accuracy started many years ago when I too struggled with making sense of "universal" two point protractors (db systems, dennessen, et al). When I tried my first Wallytractor seven or so years ago (when I owned my Linn), I knew I had found the ever-elusive path to the holy grail of alignment. When I got my Triplanar a couple of years ago, I tried in vain to get another Wally, and eventually used several printed card-stock arc protractors with varying degrees of success. I think Yip's (MintLP) protractor raises the bar even on the venerable Wallytractor with regards to precision for the reasons outlined above by both Dan and myself. The only failings I can see of the MintLP protractor comes from the user's end - bad magnification, bad lighting and poor eyesight (pick your order) ;-))

I think those of us who have invested substantial sums of money in both hardware and software (I've been collecting LPs since I was 11 or 12 and now have around 4500 or so) want to pursue analog to the lunatic fringe. And yes, it can become obsessive, but that's what being a hobbyist or enthusiast is all about, whether it's audio, coins, knitting, model airplanes or your dog. We're all about extracting maximum pleasure from our investments (and ourselves with regard to our hobbies).

So yes, obsession is part of the equation, and if struggling with the minutae - accuracy of measurement, parallax and overhang seems like too much of a PITA, then that's why there's both "close enough" and the compact disc. Good listening,

-Richard

Narrod,

sorry if I missed your point. I think Palasr and I have pointed out the short-comings of printed protractors. I bow to Palasr as he's way out in front of me when it comes to evaluating a large number of protractors. I personally find the arc-style protractors more user friendly.

To your question, I found the largest improvement came when I first used Thom's protractor. I found that all notes, instruments, and voices were more articulate and clear. I did a few iterations of adjustments but didn't really attempt to optimize further. The improvements I heard convinced me to take a little risk and order the MintLP. It's more accurate so the results should be better. Right, I thought.

When the MintLP arrived I spent just 1/2 an hour improving the alignment I had from Thom's protractor. Here the improvements most notable was the way notes began to hang in the air much longer. At this point I'm starting to get increased details, articulation and harmonics. I believe I have finally unlocked my lp playback.

After getting to this point I sent an email to Yip, owner and manufacturer of the MintLP protractor. To generalize his response, he kind of yawned out "I'm not surprised" and then proceeded to gently lecture me that if I had only spent 1/2 hour there was no way my alignment was as close as it could/should be. (I understand that his personal protractor has even finer lines, but he won't market that because one would have to be completely nuts to try for that kind of accuracy. I want one like his even more, but I might change my tune once I tried to use it.) This response made me laugh with joy as I realized that there is even more magic to unlock. So I've tried to spend some time each weekend just attempting to get the alignment even better. Did I mention that this is bordering on obsession? :-)

Dan ed, I'm not challenging your opinion. I just want to know. I prefer Ken's to the Feikert. Both of which I bought. If the MintLp is actually, not just theoretically, better I will have to buy one. Most importantly, is there a difference in sound after a setup with each? $90 is a good price.

Narrod,

I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. I'm just sharing my experience. Ken's protractor is fine, I'm sure, and if you are happy with it who cares what anyone, including me, says. Other people whose opinions I greatly respect and value are perfectly happy with their 2-point, one-size fits most, protractors. I do have a KWILLIS protractor file that Palasr sent me, but I have not printed and tried it out for reasons I'll explain below. If Ken would like to send me one that he designed and made for a TriPlanar VII I'd be more than happy to compare it to my MintLP protractor. ;-)

If a protractor is not mirrored there is a good probability of user error due to the parallax effect that Palasr posted about. If it is printed out on what ever printer one has to use, the thickness of the lines vary from user to user. This is another source of error. Perhaps Ken has a means to produce lines with a thickness of around .008". If so that would certainly boost the accuracy a user could achieve by using a protractor that he printed for them.

These issues also exist for the protractor that Thom sent around to some of us to try, which is also a printed out protractor. I doubt that Ken's is anymore accurate than what Thom designed. Perhaps Ken can print much more accurate lines. Even with these issues I was still able to get better results using Thom's printed protractor than with the mirrored protractor supplied with my TriPlanar. Still there is that parallax issue.

So for another $35 over the cost of a KWILLIS protractor, I chose to purchase a protractor that addresses both of these issues by offering more precise lines and a mirrored surface.

I see this as just a comparison between tools. I freely admit that this is getting into the realm of obsession over cartridge alignment. Even so, there is no disputing that the more accurately you can get the alignment, the more you will be rewarded from the sound from your cartridge.

My apologies to Stiltskin if I've helped steer too far off the subject of his thread.

Narrod,

I've compared the two. Ken's protractor is an excellent one to be sure. The MintLP protractor is the same essential concept, yet constructed on plate glass mirror (a big advantage for parallax reduction) and has extremely fine lines to better facilitate accuracy. While Ken's protractor will certainly get you extremely close, we're dealing with the LP groove here and ANY device that facilitates even better accuracy is worth it. I'd estimate the line pitch on the MintLP protractor to be about 5-8 times finer than those on Ken's unit - when microns are the unit of measurment, this can make a substantial diffference.

-Richard

Dan ed, have you compared the Ken Willis to the MintLp to KNOW there is a difference? If you have I will have to consider buying a MintLp protractor. If not, Ken's protractor is a bargain at $55

Stiltskin,

The Galibier protractor (not really, it was just one Thom Makris printed out to show people how an arc protractor works) did work. The difference, and I think you got this from what you read, is that the protractor Thom sent as well as the KWILLIS (that's the AA moniker to look for) are printed out on any home printer. The thickness of the lines and the inaccuracy of the printer does leave a larger margin of error.

The MintLP protractor is made for your tonearm. You provide the effective length and pivot-to-spindle distance specified by the tonearm manufacturer. (You also give the spindle hole diameter of your table.) So you are setting P2S and overhang very accurately when you use the protractor. There is really no need to use a ruler or anything to measure P2S. For me, the MintLP has been the best tool I've used to setup my cartridge. YMMV, IMO, IME, etc.

Smoffat......MintLp.com ,product Best Tractor.

Dan ed ,Using the Best Tractor.

I read on MintLps site ,you were able to further dial in your cartridge resulting in note able improvements over your Tri-Planers protractor including Galibiers.

A highly accurate device, more so then others.

Others on Mints site have similar stories to tell.
For anyone interested, read through the entire site.

I punched in Ken Willis on Audioasylum members search, no results.

You still need to find the spindle to pivot distance, whether you use a Freickert or some other brand.

I arrive home today, I'll check the Feickert out.

Unless i've missed it here on this thread, where/how do i get the MINT LP tractor. Who sells it?
I find the Feickert too "finicky". I adjust my SME V with it and check again with the cardboard protractor that came with the SME and there is no difference in the adjustments. One must ask how precise it is.
Anyway, i'm intrigued with this MINT LP tractor.......

So take the Ken Willis, or any printed out arc protractor, and increase the accuracy several times. That is the MintLP tractor. The difference is in the method and fineness of the arc and alignment lines. You will need at least a 6x magnifier to see properly. And, as Palasr posted before, it gives the added benefit of the mirrored surface. It's $90 and you will get it within 3 weeks.

I have been using the protractor that came with my Triplanar for several years. This is also a mirrored protractor that is very much like the one offered Turntable Basics. It is very good and works very well. The first time I used the MintLP protractor I was floored at how much that extra bit of accuracy made in my LP playback. Everything was more articulate, from the lowest to the highest frequencies. And I know the change was much less that .5mm in length a just a nudge here or there.

Sorry to get carried away. I have to interest in the MintLp other than to be a very happy owner of one. And I need to add thanks again to Palasr for introducing this protractor to me.

I've owned the Feickert and and Ken Willis' arc protractor.
I sold the Feickert.