Fidelity Research FR64s Headshell dilemma

Dear @dover @cleeds @lewm : Dover/Cleeds I see that both of you don’t get it:

" when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure. ""

That’s why is useless till you can convince each single tonearm manufacturer as SAT, Schroeder, Triplanar, SME, Durand, Origin Live, Rega, Technics, Reed, Ortofon, EMT, Acoustic Signature, Brinkmann, Graham, Kuzma, Linn, Roksan VPI, etc, etc. that all are wrong and that no one will buy their tonearms till they manufacture the underhung ones.

Got it why is useless.?

Lewm, I owned the RS Labs that I bougth several years ago and that certainly is not a discovery because exist a lot information on the issue by many many years ago. I had that tonearm just when appeared in the market.

Dover, maybe I don’t know how to lead a scientific issue but certainly I´m not interested to participate in a dialogue on something that is futile because the audio industry will not makes changes about only because 6 audiophiles commented in " scientific " way on the underhung tonearm subject. You can be sure that all of us will been dead and the tonearms will stay just like today.

Dover been you a scientist/especialist in the subject I'm sure that you already made the changes in your system where your " mouth " is and today  you have mounted only underhung tonearms. Rigth?  I don't know if Lewm made it too. 

As I said, useless/futile.

R.

@lewm  : Sorry, your post is useless, for say the least, when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure.

So, ? ? ?  ! !  ? ? ? 

Obviously you can post what ever you want it and my post is not for you or any one else chime on it. But it's a free world.

R.

Dear @ct0517 : "" based on the design of this tonearm, did not think that a couple of millimetres either way, was that important ? ""

your whole statement posted and coming from you has no real sense because the design of any pivoted tonearm just not takes in count a comment like that.

That designer statement only confirms his very low/poor knowledge levels of the implications of 1mm-2mm differences in the overhang set up.
Yes he said it that way ( it comes in the instruction manual. ) the question is: why did it? when any pivoted tonearm can’t be designed for that 1mm difference in overhang can't makes a difference at all even with his ST choosed alignment.
Always will be a real difference that maybe we can’t detect it the quality level of what we listen of what that difference makes in tracking error and tracking distortions but are there.

Do you know which is the only difference between Löfgren A/Baerwald and Löfgren B alignments? the only difference is: around 0.5mm on the calculated overhang ( obviously that because are two different kind of alignments the null points calculated are different but with no relationship with the overhang calculated. ).

The FR designer not break the rules on the alignment issue it’s only that he just can’t understand it. His overall tonearm design has a lot of faulty/mistakes in what cartridge needs and asks to the tonearm for that cartridge can shows it at its best.

Everything is important in the cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment and its implications in the quality level we will listen with but the more important and main subject about is that we pivoted tonearm owners can understand it the true behind and the reality behind the overall tonearm alignments. This is the reall issue.

Chris, for my part I don’t care per sé about those alignment measurements I’m trying only to explain those important an critical implications.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

As a stupid man follows talking it's obvious that the posibilities to tals more stupid " things " goes higher and higher:


"""  who cares about that Baerwald ? Who would buy those tonearms if they are not good ?

Remember Swedish SAT tonearm ?  ""

It cares the people that understand the overall alignment subject that provided Löfgren A/Baerwald solution and Löfgren B solution. As a fact the extremely expensive SAT tonearm designer choosed Löfgren A/Baerwald.

Btw, almost all tonearm buyers buy their tonearm taking in count many characteristics on its design, many but the kind of alignment choosed by the designer because almost any of them know they can use what ever they want it.

R.

This is incredible and in the stupidity land for say the least.

In the page 2 he promises:

"" I’m really tired of this pointless thread, you can continue without me, thanks. ""

"" I want to quit from this discussion..""



obviously he not even can honor his words. After that:


""" I don’t read Rauls posts, not interested. """


Really? and follows posting about ! ! ! ? ? as I said in the stupidity land world. Some like to live there all their life. Pity.

In my country people say:

"" a talk-talk-talk man falls down before a cripple one ""


R.

Dear @lbelchev : A tip for your calculations and with 245mm. on EL. At recorded LP surface 80mm. position the tracking distortion Löfgren B is 0.350% and Stevenson 0.735%. Difference: 0.385% higher on ST. At 90mm. is over 0.25%

If you know what to look for those differences levels are detectable and helps too that over all the recorded LP surface the ST tracking distortions are higher too.

Of course that each one of us can take any choice we want it. What we can do is limitless and only " stopped " by our each one common sense. Now, through the time to comes " things " could change and we can take different choices to the ones we choosed today Everything is in constant movement and we can't know for sure what to expect in the audio future especially with analog/LP.

R.

You have to made your home work. The data you posted are average or the maximum not at a specific groove position as my examples between Löfgren A and B. I know I can’t detect 0.09% or 0.13% differences in tracking distortions. I can detect a little higher than those values.

So, make your job and you will answer that question.

In the other side is a lot more easy to know/detect the Stevenson distortions against any other kind of alignment due that over the 99% of the recorded LP surface always exist/has higher level of tracking distortions. You not only can measure but can listen if you have a good overall bullet proof evaluation/comparison process along high resolution room/system and experience on what to look for. If you have all those ( self training. ) you can do it but the more important is that you make your self example with mesurements about and compared vs Löfgren B. We can’t learn and understand it in other way. Well maybe be you don’t need to learn and already do it and if it’s the case then sorry for my kind of answer. So let me know about or:
please do the job and come back to share your findings and you will know that does not exist " hidden " distortions.

R.

Btw, this is what I posted here before:


"" Perhaps some of us can’t detect those distortions levels ( any ) but exist and are affecting the cartridge signal quality levels. We have to remember that in all the links room/system are developed several kind of distortions/noises/colorations and the like, this is that exist an accumulative distortions levels all over that chain. So if we can put at minimum the ones developed through the cartridge/tonearm alignment set up this means we are in the rigth " road ".

and I have to add that our mind/brain will be or stay more " calm " because we have lower distortion levels and more detectable MUSIC information that with higher distortions that " hidden " part of that MUSIC information or made it a little imprecise.

Seems to me that instead to coloborate/help or enrich the overall subject you are looking where I’m wrong or something like that: am I rigth/true to think that way?.

Now, I will try to understand your attitude behind your post. If you are not looking for where I’m wrong then could means that you use Stevenson alignment: do you?

So, there is no better cartridge/alignment geometry but we always listen differences when we make changes and those differences are present because the inaccuracies between the cartridge overall set up parameters at each alignment changes. Does not exist exactly the same accuracy level at each time we do all those.

Example between LÖfgren A and B in that same tonearm at 130mm recorded LP surface position:

0.210% vs 0.274% on tracking distortion with a difference: 0.064%. You just can't detect it.

R.

Dear friends: The whole cartridge/tonearm alignment subject is really important to understand it to stop that after market items follows taking advantage of our low level knowledge and I say that because that's exactly the history of after market protractors and " developed " better " kind of alignments " when in reality that does not gives true advantages.

SAT comes with its own kind of alignment, VPI the same, already looks SAEC, all japanese tonearms, uni-din and many more.

All that diversity only makes to us things more complecated when we don't understand in precise way the whole subject and we can look at the thread list in this forum and we will found out " hundred " of threads asking on that alignment subject and looking for the best.

In reality does not exist the best, in any kind of alignment exist compromises. 
No one of us needs something different to Löfgren A/Baerwald or/and Löfgren B ( of course that the stupid Setevenson one is totally out of question if we are serious on the main subject and really cares about MUSIC. ). All the other alignments can't gives us a true advantage that we can detect.

Please read this where I show what is happening with tracking distortion levels inside Lófgren alignment. I took LP grooves information away of null points because as a nearer we are of null point is totally and extremelly imposible to detect any differences between recorded information in the grooves. This is only and example with a tonearm with EL 254mm.:

tracking distortion between 90mm. and 100mm ( 1cm. of LP surface recorded area. ) is 0.12%.
Maybe some of you can say: hey I can detect that tracking distortion level difference !. As I said maybe, I know I can't do it.

Now, that level of distortion is at 90mm-100mm but when playing an LP the cartridge rides the grooves with continuty: one after the next and so on.

The difference in tracking distortion level between 90mm and 91mm. is 0.008% that's the difference between: 0.553% and 0.545%.

Now, whom of you can detect 0.008% tracking distortion levels differences?. Obviously NO ONE CAN.

It's not only that the differences are so low but that the MUSIC we are listening are pércieved by us in a continue way what makes impossible to detect those kind of tracking distortion levels.

So why we oftencan post something like this: that the SAT alignment sounds better that in the same tonearm we align it with Löfgren one or uni-din or Cotter or VPI/Cotter or Clearaudio are better alignments when in reality are not.

And exist other issue when we are trying to make evaluations/comparisons between those kind of cartridge/tonearm alignments:

each time we change from one alignment to other at least we need to change the cartridge position and after that we need to res-set all cartridge/tonearm parameters: VTA/SRA, VTF, Azymuth, AS and the like and is imposible that with the new cartridge alignment the tiny stylus tip parameters will coincide with the precise and exactly same accuracy that before the change to the new alignment.

That's why I say that Löfgren A/Baerwald or/and Löfgren B is all what we need no maters what.

Don't you think? or exist something that I'm not seeing because ceratinly I can be wrong but today this is my take and invite you to think about and post your thoughts on the overall subject.

So wich protractor need we? I think that MINTLP is more than enough and with the need it accuracy for a tonearm, if we own more than one tonearm then we need additional MINTLP protractors: each for each tonearm. Why sped more money for any other protractor? makes no sense to me. Of course that we can use the self tonearm protractor if is totally accurated ( at least at the MINTLP level. ) and no Stevenson there.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Of course, no diagram/graphics in teh vinilengine calculator because the null points are inside the LP label not in the usable LP surface.

R.

Using other calculator it confirms that SAEC made it a " deep " manipulation with the must inner/outer groove radius.

In this other calculator I used 37.4mm and 66.9mm and the off set angle and overhang coincide with SAEC specs.

So manipulations/combinations of both equations groove radius will change everything and we can be " everywhere " doing that. Go figure.

R.

Dear @bukanona : please correct me if I’m wrong. I just finished to analize what SAEC did it for the cartridge/tonearm alignment on each of his models and I took as an example your 308SX.

Thank’s that you brought out here the SAEC tonearm alignments finally I think I understand what they did it, at least with your model and my 8000 one.

For me is an was not so easy to discern this unique tonearm alignment data " novelty "/manipulation and maybe it’s the same way for almost all gentlemans here and elsewhere.

Now what they did it, that seems to me with out be totally sure ( only SAEC people of those times know about. ), with your 308SX is in the next link. I took as EL 240mm, overhang 5mm and offset angle 12° that are SAEC specs, I hope is rigth. Ok. they took both: must inner groove radio and must outer groove radius totally out of the LP recorded surface. Both around 50mm ( a little lower than that but the calculator does not permits lower " number ". ) that using the vinylengine calculator gives as result those parameters values ( almost there. ):

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=240&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=el&a2lv=240&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=el&a3lv=240&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=el&a4lv=240&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&rs=12&rsv=&og=cus&ogv=50.001&ig=cus&igv=50&cal=y&submit=calculate


that calculator was not made it to that kind of " novelty " so we can’t have the diagrams/graphics ( looks like tracking distortion/error gone very high .) about but we almost there.

Anyway, a pain in the ass to align a cartridge with the SAEC specs. As I told you what I use it in the 506-30 and 407-23 was Löfgren and this is what you can do too because for me wroks just fine and with no troble of any way.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Other often " trouble " is that tonearm manufacturers sometimes like to " round off " the values, example: if the off set angle real value is 15.22° they just round and use 15° and same thing could happens with overhang too. The FR/Ikeda analized here is an example because the correct P2S is not 230mm but 230.09mm as I posted and any one can corroborates in the vinylengine links.

R.

Dear @bukanona : I owned SAEC tonearms and it’s a disaster for say the least. The only model with an orthodox alignment is the WE-8000 that I owned and that uses Löfgren B wiith JIS standard not IEC one. I have to say that the 8000 model was thenlatest SAEC design.

All the  other models only SAEC knows what they did it  and why did it that way( exist a mix-up in the EL data.) . The other model I owned was the 506-30 that I used with Löfgren A ( IEC. ) alignment (with out any cartridges problems. ) because the SAEC specs are not near any normal alignment and cause problems to mount some cartridges on it.

Those both SAEC models I owned are really good looking tonearms with very high quality build skills, unfortunatelly SAEC is more resonant ( not very well damped ) that what I prefer.



R.

Dear @nandric  :  """  What Kessler and Pisha discovered is that by te most tonearms
the offset angle and overhang were wrongly chosen...""

for me that only speaks that not all tonearm manufacturers took with the necessary professional attitude the tonearm/cartridge alignment and its critical main importance because as I posted before and if the designer is " serious " about he only ned it to choose the EL of his design and the other parameters are the result/output of an orthodox alignment calculations. There is no way/margin of error, he only needs to paste the calculated values and that's all.

Other " confusion " that could happened with the gentlemans you named is that their observations were made using IEC standard and maybe do not try with DIN/JIS standards. Who knows from where came those " mix-up ".

R.

@chakster : " This is how anyone can change alignment from Stevenson to Baerwald without changing PS distance...""

yes, I’m not saying you can’t. The issue is that you are changing the EL with its implications and of course that with TT with integrated tonearm where we can’t move the tonearm position then we have no alternative, it’s clear.

"" At the same time i have tonearms in use aligned and designed with Baerwald method. ""

this is your real problem and total misunderstood because you are not a tonearm designer and you just can’t understand how that works: again the tonearm designer does not design his tonearm around an alignment type, through his design what he determines is the tonearm EL and when the tonearm is finished that tonearm can be used with any alignment geometry. Some designers like Löfgren A/Baerwald but this does not means in anyway that the tonearm was designed for use that geometry alignment, we can use any alignment we want.

VPI designed the tonearm as any designer but they choosed a combination of some alignments ( I think the Cotter one. ), for what lohanimal posteed Clearaudio did the same: a little different alignment, SAT too.

Almost all Japanese designers when they finished the manufacture of their tonearm choosed Stevenson alignment but we can choose a different one with any of their tonearms because Stevenson is an aberration and the worst alignment no matters what..
I think that Japanese tonearm designers never took their time to analize the charts/diagrams we can read/see in the vinylengine calculator were any one can see that Stevenson always has higher distortions(errors that any other alignment type no matters what ! ! but at the last 3mm of the LP recorded surface grooves but the LP’s that normally we own perhaps only the 1% are recorded at those very inner distance. As I said an aberration/worst and absurd along stupid to use Stevenson when we know those facts measured facts.

You can follow using Stevenson, is up to you but even if you can’t detect the higher distortions you are totally wrong and this speaks very clear you extremely low knowledge levels and your imposibility to learn to understand: that’s your brain, good for you.


R.

@chakster  : ""  I have FR 64s, FR 64fx, Ikeda IT-345
For all of them PS is 230mm...""   ""  I just use what Ikeda suggested us to use,..""

Ikeda/FR  spec/suggestion is an EL of 245mm, that is their recomendation and because they choosed Stevenson alignment then the P2S is 230.09mm: it's not a sugestion by Ikeda that P2S is only the result of the Stevenson solution for a EL of 245mm.
It was the same for the FR/Ikeda long tonearms 66/407 where the suggested/spec for those tonearms is 307mm of EL and due the choice of Stevenson alignment the P2S is 295mm but this P2S is not a suggestion by the manufacturer. GOT it?

For what you are still posting you still just do not understand the overall alignment subject and what Löfgren wants it and its implications. You are out of focus for say the least.

The discussion in this thread is not to look for a winner but that we all understand the whole subject and in this manner all of us win.

R.

Dear @karl_desch : " is that the P2S mounting distance is specific to the tonearm regardless of alignment choice. "

Not really/exactly that.

The P2S distance is specific to two characteristics: first the alignment choosed and second the tonearm EL.
Why is that? because each kind/type of alignment calculates its own and specific overhang for that EL and P2S distance is the difference between the tonearm EL and overhang. As overhang always change with the alignment choosed then the P2S always change with different overhang: easy. In the same way each aliognment type has different null points that are specific and never change for that alignment type.

When for whatever reason and at random we change the overhang what we are doing is changing the tonearm EL and this means that we need to change the P2S too to permit that those tracking error and tracking distortions stay at minimum in the alignment choosed.


""" with the FR-64s suggests 231.5 is correct and not 230.0 for P2S, what is this possibly based on? """

It’s not that 230mm is not correct because is near to be correct ( 230.09 is the correct value. ) for what the designer choosed as tonearm EL. The designer not choosed that 230mm, his choice to make the tonearm design was 245mm in EL and because he recomended to use Stevenson alignment the P2S distance comes as 230.09mm. Repeat 230mm is not the designer spec it’s only a consequence of the calculation of Stevenson alignment for a 245mm EL tonearm.

What happens when instead of 230mm. you have 231.5mm? , well you are changing the tonearm EL along the overhang and offset angle.
With 231.5mm the EL change from 245mm to 246.32mm.

Now, that EL change has an impact in the quaklity level we listen through?. Well if we want to " hear " a better performance then we will listen it even that in reality we can’t detect atrue improvement.

Why say I that? because please tell me whom of us can detect the difference in quality between a tracking distortion of 0.73% against 0.72%, this is 0.01%: it’s just imposible to detect for any human been especially that that 0.01% diference is changing in extremely tiny values at each tracking groove ! ! !

All of us know that as the tonearm EL goes higher the tracking error and tracking distortions goes lower if and only if the set up is absolutely accurated and I mean not only the tonearm cartridge set up but the VTA/SRA/AZ/VTF for we can have the posibility to listen " something " as a differences in quality levels.
So when the difference in EL ( FR/Ikeda. ) is of only 1.3mm and the resulted overhang only 0.09mm is really almost imposible to detect it. With larger EL differences we can do it.

R.

Dear @lohanimal : In my last post is an answer for you can't have to worry about, go with 230mm.

Now if you ask to MINTLP that you need the protractor for a tonearm with 245mm ( FR/Ikeda spec. ) and Löfgren/Baerwald alignment he will does and will works fine with your tonearm and any cartridge. In this way the P2S will be: 228.14mm and this is the distance to mounting your tonearm.

Btw, almost all internet alignment calculators give you the set up parameter values for you can make your own protractor or for you can confirm if the protractor you are using is rigth on orv is different like your Clearaudio.

R.

Dear @lohanimal  and friends: Till today seems to me that other than @dover , perhaps @lewm  and finally @nandric learning on the overall alignment subject all of you still have a different levels of misunderstood and I know that because what you are posted here.

Here we go. Please forgeret about Stevenson or Baerwald existence and be in focus with the Löfgren targets with the cartridge/tonearm subject:

the main tragets were and are to calculates the precise overhang and offset angle for any pivoted tonearm and determine both null points to make the accurated cartridge/tonearm alignment set up.
Those and nothing more were the targets and his alignment exist because of those.

Now, to achieve those targets Löfgren formulas calculations needs only 3 input parameters: EFFECTIVE LENGTH, MOST OUTER GROOVE RADIUS AND MOST INNER GROOVE RADIUS.

The overall alignment calculations needs no other parameter information even Löfgren does not gaves any formula to calculate P2S because it does not need it.
So please forgeret too about P2S, it's totally un-important for the alignment calculations.

Through those 3 input parameters the Löfgren calculations gives us: overhang, off set angle, both null points, linear offset, tracking error and tracking distortion levels.

So the critical in put parametr by the Löfgren calculation is the EL. I posted that the P2S distance is achieved by difference and Löfgren gaves it in this way: M=L-d , where L is the EL and d the overhang.

The null points calculated are a fuction of the inner/outer radius and can change if and only if the inner or outer radius are or is changed. 
Lófgren A and Löfgren B has its own and different null points that are the same ( inside the A or B choosed alignment. ) it does not matters the tonearm EL.

Here the Löfgren direct information:


"""  Using these equations, the
optimum offset angle, the optimum overhang, and the resulting maximum |WTE|
value (the |WTE| value at the three WTE peaks) may be easily calculated. The only
input required is the arm length in mm. The equations utilise three numbers which
remain essentially constant over the range of alignment values likely to be
encountered in practice.
Also included for comparison are the results for the 'perfect Löfgren A' solution. You
may be surprised at the accuracy of these equations!
The equations are based on an inner groove radius of 60.325 mm, and an outer
groove radius of 146.05 mm. ( IEC standard. )
Notation: L = arm length, b = optimum offset angle, d = optimum overhang, WTE =
weighted tracking error.  ""



@chakster  in good shape you need to focus in the Löfgren information because all your misunderstood belongs that you are focus in other " things " maybe in what you read somewhere, maybe in what you suppose, maybe in your wrong supposition that Ikeda-san knowledge levels is to thigh ( that it's not in this subject. ) or maybe because the explanations came from me but it does not matters what you are totally wrong because that total misunderstood.

Now, the overall and main target of Löfgren calculartions is that through his formulas solution we can put the overall tracking error and tracking distortions at minimum for any pivoted tonearm cartridge set up.

Perhaps some of us can't detect those distortions levels but exist and are affecting the cartridge signal quality levels. We have to remember that in all the ling room/system are developed several kind of distortions/noises/colorations and the like, this is that exist an accumulative distortions levels. So if we can put at minimum the ones developed through the cartridge/tonearm alignm,ent set up this means we are in the rigth " road ".

Now, inside any of the alignments ( Löfgren, Baerwald or Stevenson. ) and for each tonearm EL exist one and only one P2S distance to achieve all those targets explained here.
If we change the EL in any alignment or if we change from one type of alignment to other then and always we must change to a new P2S as a result of the new calculations for the overhang and off set angle to take advantages to put at minimum those tracking error and tracking distortion levels.

If with the same tonearm we change from Löfgren alignment to Stevenson with out change the P2S then those tracking error and tracking distortions goes higher. Why?, because the P2S distance is the difference between the tonearm EL and overhang and the change of overall kind of alignment gives us a different overhang value.

So any one of us can make what we want it following the Löfgren targets or our wrong " targets. So ( @chakster  ) you can follow doing the same: does not change the P2S leaving the same no matters what but you achieve overall higher distortions levels even if you can't detect it.

 Stevenson and almost all japanese tonearm designers are wrong when they choosed Stevenson. Maybe they did it because never took the time to see a comparative chart/diagram/graphics where even a " blind " gentleman can see is totally wrong and useless as an tonearm/cartridge alignment. Here again a calculation sample where we can read in the tracking distortion chart that Stevenson has lower distortioons only in the last 3mm of the recorded LP surface and only if that LP has recorded information at that distance/radius, normally 95% of the LP's has not recorded signal at those very inner last 3mm grooves:


https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=245&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=el&a2lv=245&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=el&a3lv=245&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=el&a4lv=245&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&rs=12&rsv=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate


This comes from erudite alignment gentleman:


"  As a background note re the 'Stevenson A' alignment. Stevenson's goal was to
minimise (in fact to make zero) the weighted tracking error (WTE) and the resulting
distortion at the specified inner groove radius. However, under the 'Stevenson A'
alignment, the WTE (and the distortion) occurring over about 75 percent of the record
playing time is greater than that which occurs under the 'Löfgren A' alignment for the
same conditions (ie arm length and groove radii). Further, the 'Stevenson A'
alignment is only significantly better than the 'Löfgren A' alignment during the last 3-4
mm of the record playing surface (usually less than one minute of playing time).  """


@bukanona in that link are the measurements you are looking for.

Now that from some years now exist excel tool and several internet calculators where we can take the P2S distance as an input calculations ( like vinylengine. ) does not meaNS IS THE RIGTH WAY TO GO. aS WITH MATHEMATICS ANY ONE CAN MANIPUKLATES THE NUMBERS BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY Löfgren did it and he is the " inventor " of where all alingnments comes.

One gentleman here posted that for he it sounds better with uni-din alignment using Stevenson. Well the main and critical subjet in the overall alignment subject is not what we like it but the way to make things rigth.

The other " thing " that the cartridge must be straigth in the headshell means nothing at all because the cartridge will be as the calculated parameters say.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @dover : ""  Just because the stylus is conical, does not mean alignment is irrelevant. """

you are rigth, stylus tip shape has no " interest "/is not involved in the cartridge/tonearm alignment set up.
That is only common sense that stupid persons not have because in any pivoted tonearm design always exist tracking error/tracking distortions all over the recorded LP surface but at the alignment null points.

Now, that a person can't detect the tracking distortions generated by that tracking errors and as you said does not means does not exist because always are there .

Problems about always exist with persons with extremely low knowledge levels.

R.

Dear @lohanimal  : I have no idea of your protractor. When you are making the cartridge alignment what  must be parallel is not the cartridge body to the lines but the cartridge cantilever.

If the stylus tip " won't reach the hole " then the set up is not " perfectly " accurate.

You need an universal protractor as the Feickert that you can use with any cartridge/tonearm combination using Löfgren A/Baerwald alignment alternative.

R.

Dear @lewm  : The difference between P2S 231.5mm and 230mm is not overhang. Now if what you said is that the difference between EL and P2S distances is overhang then is correct.

Now, according orthodox alignment calculations we can't know the P2S  distance till we have the overhang that's an output of that alignment calculations.

R.-

But not only you have that misunderstood about because even reviewer as M.Fremer or TAS ones have it and several tonearm manufacturers too.

Here some examples of that misunderstood:

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/uni-din-versus-l%C3%B6fgren-b-just-clarify

Years ago and by " accident " I found out that article on the MF site where any of you can read that MF had a total misunderstood about the overall alignment subject. I participated down there and explain him almost the same I did it here.

Inside that Analog Planet artricle was an alignment manipulation parameter that’s what the uni-din gentleman did it when he took/fixed a different most inner groove distance than the IEC or DIN standards, he took 54mm that when using IEC standards appears what is in the article chart/diagram.

Well even what I posted there months latter in other article about Technics TTs MF again made it same mistakes about.

Other example of manipulations was and is what the over 60K SAT tonearm designer did just for marketing and as the uni-din gentleman taking advantage of audiophile and professional reviewers ignorance levels/low knowledge. The SAT designer changed too the most inner groove distance and he surround his tonearm/cartridge alignment set up as something to special that only him or his distributor can make correctly the alignment and no one else. Go figure ! ! ! the SAT tonearm as any other tonearm can be aligned using the normal/orthodox kind of alignments: Löfgren A or B, no problem at all and nothing special on that tonearm set up as the designer wants it the owners must think.

No tonearm designer think first than all in the kind of alignment before make his design, only a stupid person could think that SAT, FR, Technics, Ikeda designers made it that way.

A tonearm designer is just that: a tonearm designer. The cartridge/tonearm choosed alignment is totally independent of the pivoted tonearm design. What the designer has to choose is his tonearm effective length and when he finish his project then he can choose the alignment that likes him the " more ". It’s our choice to use what the designer says or make a different alignment choice if and only if goes in the orthodox way.

Japanese designers choosed ( almost all. ) Stevenson A alignment by their overall misunderstood/ low knowledge level in the subject or total ignorance because is the worst of any alignment you can choose. Stevenso B is his solution similar to Löfgren A/Baerwald.

In the past I used Stevenson by my very high levels of ignorance.

R.

Btw, all tonearms has a limit for the choice of the EL especially the removable headshell designs as the FR. The ones with fixed headshell permits the designer a litle more " play " to choose the effective length. I posted 250mm for the FR but I don't know if it can works because I'm not going to mount and test it in my TT again.

Dear @lohanimal  @lewm  @karl_desch  : All of you have a misunderstood of the overall cartridge/tonearm aliggnment  formulas.

Löfgren formulas  use 3 input parameters: tonearm EFFECTIVE LENGTH, most inner groove distance and most outer groove distance. Through the calculations of the alignment we will achieve mainly these output alignment parameters:
overhang, off-set angle, by difference P2S distance and inner and outer null points.

That is the rigth and orthodox way to make the alignment calculations.

Any one can manipulate those parameters, as a fact Stevenson did it when he made to coincide the inner most groove distance with the inner null point, as could be the P2S distance but any kind of parameter input value manipulations will gives us way different output parameters to the orthodox way to make the alignment calculations.

I will repeat here the links I posted along the orthodox way to make " things ".

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=231.5&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=231.5&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=231.5&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=231.5&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate

and now P2S 230mm:



https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=230&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=230&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=230&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=230&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate


@lewm  you can see that the difference between 231.5mm and 230mm P2S is not the overhang: 1.5mm


Now the rigth way to do the alignments calculations taking as one of the input parameters the EFFECTIVE LENGTH:

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=245&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=el&a2lv=245&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=el&a3lv=245&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=el&a4lv=245&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&rs=12&rsv=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate


where the P2S LöfgrenA/Baerwald alignment distance is: 228.14mm

even the gentleman behind MINT LP has a misunderstood too because if he takes this P2S distance we have not any single trouble to mount any cartridge in any headshell in that arm.n  Even we can change the 245mm EL for 250mm and we can set up that arm with any cartridge/headshell if the overall calculations takes that EL with the new P2S distance ! ! 

Till we understand it we will follow posting wrong post on the subject.

We need first to understand the overall Löfgren " idea ".

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. 

Dear @lewm  @lohanimal  : What defines the P2S distance is the effective tonearm length.

You can see it in the link I posted where the calculation alignments were made it for 231.5mm. p2s distance and here you can see the calculations for 230.00mm:

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=230&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=230&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=230&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=230&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate

Both of you can note that with 230.00mm the overhang is a little forward with any alignment, Löfgren A/B or Stevenson .

So the lohanimal alignment is neither of them but something different, 

R.

Dear @lohanimal : I agree with @lewm , maybe you are using Stevenson alignment that's no recommendable.

Take a look here and take your choice:

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=231.5&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=231.5&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=231.5&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=231.5&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.