Fidelity Research FR64s Headshell dilemma

Dear Dover, In this case I would also lose my license . 

@karl_desch 
No - the problem is that cartridges do not have a standard distance between stylus tip and mounting holes. Similarly headshells vary in their length and postion on holes/slots. So when you push the P2S out you will get this problem from time to time. With the 231.5 P2S on the FR64S I have used the Orsonic 101, Ikeda, Denon PCL300 headshells and had no problems. I'm pretty sure the Sumiko headshell should get you there as well. On some headshells with a collet type connection for asimuth adjustment you can puah the shell out a little further without losing rigidity.

Dear Nandric, ignoring ego would be a great first step....

Oyaide HS CF is also a good one if you need the extra head(shell)room. But this is a low mass carbon fiber shell. So maybe not the best choice for the 64s, unless you have the W-170 counter weight to compensate.

Karl, I heretofore was under the impression that the distance of 230 mm was the original recommended pivot to spindle distance for the FR 64S, which implies it is for Stevenson alignment. The distance of 231.5 mm was recommended to me by a well-known guru who shall remain nameless, and I assumed he was assuming I would use Baerwaldt alignment. Therefore I have gone through life since then in the belief that 231.5 mm was the choice for Baerwald and 230 mm was the choice for Stevenson. It certainly is the pivot to spindle distance originally recommended by Ikeda. Note there are two assumptions involved. Raul has corrected me on this thread and noted that the distance of 231.5 mm can be used for either alignment. And I think he is correct.

You can run either alignment, Stevenson or Baerwald, at either P2S. The only issue is cartridges with an integrated headshell like the FR7 because you cant alter their angle in the shell.
Furthermore, because the FR64S does not have offset bearings there is no advantage in having the cartridge straight in the headshell.
I have run Baerwald at both 230 & 231.5 - I can hear the difference, it is subtle, but the tracking angle error is reduced at the 231.5 - the sound is smoother and more integrated.
The original reason for 231.5 was as much as due to the balance of the arm and to minimise what is described as "break torque" as it was for alignment purposes.

With manufacturer recommended PS distance, measured by Feickert protractor, using one headshell with slots, i can reach all 3 alignment methods for the same cartridge.

The difference is that only with ONE alignment method my cartridge will be parallel to the headshell, with any other methods a cartridge must be twisted in the headshell or the cantilever and cartridge body will be way off!

I don’t want to change PS distance. Why i have to?

All i need is the right headshell to move a cartridge slightly forward and twist it a bit to make it in line not with my shell, but with Baerwald or Lofgren lines printed on the protractor. This is what happens when the arm designed for use with Stevenson must be re-adjusted for something else without changing PS distance.

It has nothing to do with PS distance, buy yourself a nice headshell first!

Another exaple is Technics tonearm on SL1200GAE, you can't change PS, and the alignment is NOT Baerwald or Lofgren, this tonearm is very close to Stevenson. Headshell with slots is all we need to re-align any cartridge quickly.

Thanks all.  I bet the Arche head shell would work!  I was re-reading the SmartTractor instructions and the two example tonearms are the FR66S and the FR64S.  The man likes his Ikedas.

I use 231.5 P2S with the 64S and Baerwald. I use the Arche Headshell that allows me to slide the headshell in and out giving me about an extra 10mm of adjustment. This essentially makes the headshell longer.  At 231.5 and Baerwald the cartridge is straight in the headshell, and the Arche gives enough adjustments where my Koetsu is still tucked under the headshell instead of awkwardly sticking way out in the front.  I use the Smartractor and tried Stephenson and UNI-DIN and still think this setup sounds the best for me.

advanced&karl_desch, Assuming that you are not familiar with
Arche you can buy extra insert pieces on which the cart is installed.
This way you can use the frame as base and pre-adjust as many
carts as you like. It is like owning many headshells in one.

And I had the opposite problem to the OP - had to push Decca Reference all the way back in AV101 on FR64S at 231.5 P2S and even had to push the the AV101 loosening the azimuth screw and finally remove the gasket (anyway recommended by the FR manual) to get a reasonable alignment. I was using the Nerve Audio copy of the Dennesen protractor and sort of cross-checking with the Mint (Decca’s have no cantilever so only the arc). My P2S is actually a bit shorter, closer to 231mm as this is what my setup allowed. I guess much depends on the cartridge as all have different "effective lengths".

Bu why do you change manufacturer recommended PS from 230mm to 231.5 mm ? 

This 1.5mm can be easily adjusted in the headshell with recommended 230mm PS

Dear chakster, what you overlook is difference between zero (0)
points on the record surface between those two geometries.
Bearwald has the best áverage values for all surface places
while Stevenson has better value for the inner groves. You may
have records hith inner groves which ''ask'' for Stevenson. But 
the most people prefer better solution (values) for all groves. 
As I mentioned before you attribute to manufacturer to much
''authority'' with illusion that they know better,
By scientific arguments used by Kessler and Pisha all 22inspected
tonearms  have sub-optimal solutions for prescribed parameter.
I hope you can find their .article (Audio Jjanuari 1980) and see
for yourself. ''Belief'' is not an scientific argument. 

@nandric PS has nothing to do with Baerwald, i can re-align any cartridge on conventional headshell with slots on FR tonearm without changing PS distance. I do NOT change PS when i re-align between Baerwald, Stevenson or Lofgren, it’s all about cartridge position in the headshell, not PS which must be fixed to 230mm on FR tonearm, same with Ikeda tonearm.

Anyone who use Dr.Feickert protractor can do that too, no need to change PS distance to change alignment method.

Stevenson case has been discussed million times on audiogon. Actually it was made for classical music you’re listening, not me.

I have many tonearms and use them according manufacturer recommendations, some of my tonearms such as Reed is always Baerwald, my Lustre GST 801 realigned for Baerwald without changing PS distance. My Denon DA-401 aligned with its own method and i like it. What else ? Technics EPA-100 mkII is very close to Stevenson like almost any Japanese tonearms and i can't detect any single problem with many cartridges.

Using FR-7 or SPU series on FR tonearm everything is just perfect as it is with manufacturer recommendations, PS according to the manual.

Dear chakster, your ''theory'' imply that one can chose spindle
to pivot distance as one like. But pivot to spindle distance determine
eff. length. By Stevenson 245 mm by Bearwald 246 mm. If one 
could chose eff. length as one please we would not need tangential
arms because all points on the record would have zero angular error.
Your Feickert can't correct all the errors manufacturer made. 
As I mentioned by Kessler&Pisha all 22 inspected tonearms have errors. 

By Stevenson 245 mm by Bearwald 246 mm

This is why a cartridge must be moved just a little bit forward in the headshell and a little bit turned to the side to align by cantilever using lines on the protractor.

As i said earlier there are many turntables with fixed tonearms, you can’t change PS distance, but you can change alignment method moving a cartridge only (in the headshell slots).

BTW there are 9'', 10'' and 12'' tonearms. My Kuzma is made
for 9'' while my SP-10 does not allow 9'' tonearm. For tonearms
with different length different spindle to pivot distance are
needed. Ergo: one can't  chose this distance as one please. 

If we do speak about scientific arguments we have to use science principles.
I can see hypothesis - geometry. A lot of very exact calculations from derived data. Although I was thought in the university that after hypothesis you have to do experiment which must be reproducible. I do see a lot of calculations. What I don't see actual measurement with test disc using dedicated setup like old days system produced by Bruel & kjaer. So I think that Japanese geometry is problem related to that we can speak a lot, make a lot figures that manufacturers are stupid. Although at the very end measurement is the easiest way to decide.

Dear chakster, the so called ''zero points'' on the record will be
on other ''points'' by Bearwald than Stevenson. That is the
whole point. Those points determine  the amount of the angle
errors made by each geometry. You may have eff. length right
but if your PS is different you obviously negate their mutual
dependance. Aka PS+ overhang= eff. length .

 . 

bukanona, the problem of the inner grove distortions is not invented
by hypothesis. The problem can be easy solved by reduction of
playing time on each side of the record. That is to say to avoid
critical part of the inner grove. People don't buy records depending
from time duration. This also means no need for Stevenson geometry.

Nandric, show me measurements not geometry assumptions.
I don't neglect models.
I am not believer in Stevenson or Baerwald superiority. 

bukanona, What do you want to measure, tracking angle error or the distortion that results?  The former is completely predictable using geometry handed to us by the Greeks and their mathematical descendants.  The latter is complex, because you would need a test LP that encoded a single test tone, e.g., 1 kHz, from outer to inner grooves.  It would be useful to have such a test LP, but I don't think it exists.

@karl_desch 
You have read, experienced and understood the same problem. The only thing you mis-understood was that i had thought 230mm only allows stevenson.
I was perhaps under the mis-apprehension that 230mm ONLY allows stevenson.
@rauliruegas I appeciate you sending me the link repeatedly - but my question related to cartridge shell alignment using Lofgren A at 231.5 - not what the actual distortion figures are. However, it, is nevertheless particularly useful as it shows and confirms what @dover has said and pointed out - namely that at 230mm one can do Bearwald, Lofgren etc.
Likewise @dover having experiences the same head-shell length thing confirms i am not going insane - i ought to try a cartridge that is longer or has a longer cantilever to try out 231.5 or get a longer head-shell. Until then I will use 230mm
For my purposes thanks and thanks again for the advice.

Yes lewm measurement is a key. In the modelling then geometry was used to measure land in ancient Egypt results was easier predictable. Tonearm is much more complex.
To order such LP with 1 kHz tone is not big problem these days and even it's not expensive. Just someone has to make  methodology and try it for the sake of humanity :) After measurements we can discuss if 1 kHz tone is the right one but it will be figures not modelling. 

  

@nandric please read and look at the null points printed on the same protractor for different alignments. When we alight a cartridge we check 3 points step by step on Feickert. We do NOT altering PS, instead we just adjust cartridge position in the slots on the headshell to reach null points correctly. 

FROM DR.FEICKERT's PROTRACTOR MANUAL: 

"The general geometrical correlation of a tonearm based on a fixed pivot point are well known since the fundamental publications of Baerwald and Lofgren back in the first half of the 20th century. The conclusion of both papers was that such a tracking device must have an angular offset (zenith) with a defined overhang. The offset and the overhang vary with the effective length of the tonearm itself. While tracking the record the stylus matches tangential position in the groove at two points – the inner and outer Null points (linear tracking position). In the early 1960s another mathematician has calculated a new set of parameters taking into account that on records with classical music very often crescendos occur towards the innermost grooves (Stevenson)."

" **Step-1: Choose the geometry you want to use: Baerwald (B), Lofgren (L) or Stevenson (S).

Screw the gauge tower on the disc and place the Protractor on the platter. Aim with the pin in the gauge exactly over the pivot point of the tonearm. Move cartridge in the headshell so that stylus lands on the crosslines of your chosen geometry (B, L or S) at step 1 (overhang). In case you cannot reach either point on the Protractor please check your pivot-spindle distance.

Carefully tighten one screw a little bit and make sure you can still turn the cartridge in the headshell. Set antiskating to zero.

**Step-2: Turn Protractor so that you are over area of step outer Null-point). Set angular offset (zenith) so that the printed line on the Protractor and the cantilever of your cartridge fall in line when looking from the front. In case this is done carefully tighten both screws in an alternating way and take care the cartridge doesn‘t move anymore in this process. Caution! Don‘t overdo the tightening of the screws as really tight is followed by infinitely loose forever …

Double check your setup either at step 3 (inner Null-point) where the cantilever MUST fall in line with the printed line or you can alternatively check the overhang again at step 1. Both approaches are mathematical equivalent; if two points are correct, the third is correct by default. In case the cartridge still is off, then start again from the beginning by checking the overhang first and subsequently all the following steps again."  

" Having revised the math we found that for a given geometry all pivoted tonearms intersect with their tracking arcs in one particular point. This is a “unified overhang point” that can be used to adjust for overhang. Not only is the accuracy enhanced with this new Protractor, the complete setup process is much faster than it was before. "

Bukanona, I am still not quite sure I understand your point.  Surely you would agree that Euclid, Pythagorus, and the rest have left us enough formulae to deal with any nuance of tonearm alignment.  If you consult the original papers by Baerwald and/or Lofgren, I am sure you would see they relied upon the geometry we learned in high school, albeit maybe not every high school student could solve their problem.  As to the LP with a 1 kHz test tone, are you saying that I can buy such a test LP or that I could have one made?  I chose the frequency of 1 kHz merely as an example of a pure tone that would be a reasonable place to start to measure distortion induced by tracking angle error; it is not a matter of right or wrong.  Cartridge specifications usually list stereo separation at 1 kHz and cartridge output is often measured at 1 kHz. In the event, one might want to make such measurements at 100 Hz, 1kHz, and 10 kHz, and any other frequency of interest in between, I suppose.  It's a matter of how much time and energy you would want to put into it.  It would also be good to interface a computer between the output of the cartridge and the distortion analyzer, so that one could obtain a plot of distortion vs time and translate that into distortion vs location on the surface of the test LP.

Lewm, tonearm isn't a geometrical object it's also a mechanical one.
Yes Logfren and Baeward relied on geometry as we do build models of real world - it's part of science. After making model we do measurement in real life if results are as predicted = we have made good model.

There is services which can do such single sided like this one
https://www.onecutvinyl.com/
As about frequency yes it's a matter of methodology of experiment. I do believe that it can be very interesting topic. 

I think @atmasphere could cut an acetate too :) 
Any pressing plant can do that. 

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.

I think the key here from Raul is that the P2S mounting distance is specific to the tonearm regardless of alignment choice.  This is what I thought all along.  
So when a knowledgeable person with experience with the FR-64s suggests 231.5 is correct and not 230.0 for P2S, what is this possibly based on?  Actually measuring the EL of his FR-64S arm?  I’m sure someone here remembers what the 231.5 suggestion was actually based upon.  

This is so strange, do you really think that Ikeda, who designed all FR tonearms, and later went on his own with Ikeda tonearms, have no idea about "error" in PS distance ? IKEDA are modern tonearms, designed not in the 70’s like thos old FR. The PS distance is absolutely the same 230mm. In your opinion IKEDA did not realize an "error" in 20 years ?!

I have FR 64s, FR 64fx, Ikeda IT-345
For all of them PS is 230mm, but one designed in the 70s, another in the 80’s or 90’s

Not sure if this is directed at me @chakster but I am trying to figure this out too.  Why is the 231.5 recommended by some when the manufacturer recommends 230?

Not sure if this is directed at me @chakster but I am trying to figure this out too.  Why is the 231.5 recommended by some when the manufacturer recommends 230?

Question for everyone.

It's a conspiracy theory ? 

I just use what Ikeda suggested us to use, i don't care about some gurus. In a conventional headshell cartridge still can be adjusted for any alignment methods without changing PS distance at all. Some headshell have this type of overhand and slots to twist a cartridge body left of right. 

@rauliruegas 
I do understand what you and others have written. My simple question related to the fact that on my alignment guage and as it transpires others that have Lofgren and Bearwald alignments cannot get their cartridge out far enough in the headshell when one mounts the arm at 231.5mm PS distance, whereas at 230mm I can get it aligned. 
The vinyl engine calculator has nothing in it about how far in the headshell you mount the cartridge, nor about how it is twisted in the headhell. That said it was good to learn about the other things that have been written on this thread - which i will no doubt digest and re-read several times

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.

@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.

Assertions or opinions? Do people think different? If so with
which organs? We all think in the same way. That is we start
from some  assumption which we think is true and then deduce
in the assertion entailed sentences or propositions or statements.
But the first logical rule is that if assertions are not true than
deduced propositions are also not true. 
However ''being right '' is some kind of psychological reword or
being the winner which prevent us to ''change our mind'' when
we learn or must admit that our assertion are not true. 
So defending assertion at ''any cost'' can be understood in this,
uh, ''sense'''. Chakster is an example but in the sense that
he believes in Ikeda's authority. In the Western ''civilisation''
this confusion between ''veritas'' et ''auctoritas'' was the reason
for Aristoteles domination of Western education for more than
2000 years. Despite the fact that he was refuted in physics by
Galileo and by Frege in logic and scientific methodology. 
In some social 'sciences'' he is still present . Recognizable as
''essentialist''. Those who search for ''essential meanings of
notions''. But notions are linguistic expressions so speaking
about notions is speaking about language. The so called ''reality''
is ''extra linguistic'' . There are unknown many languages but
truth is universal  irrespective in which  language expressed.
But now back to headshells and their assumed ''qualities'' (grin). 

EL = effective length
The effective length is the distance from pivot to stylus.

When we move stylus in the headshell slots back of forth for different null points (Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson) we are changing EL (Effective Length). The difference is small, within few mm. Then we turn a cartridge left of right to align by the cantilever. This is it.

This is how anyone can change alignment from Stevenson to Baerwald without changing PS distance (as i said on some turntables it is simply impossible to change PS, like on Technics for example).

Anyway i’m following tonearm manufacturer method first, because in my opinion tonearm designer is the one i can trust. if i have tonearm with Baerwald i use Baerwald. If i have tonearm with Stevenson i use Stevenson (especially with FR + FR7fz series).

On my Luxman PD-444 i have armboards on the rails, i can move them, but not everyone have same armboards to change PS.

No one can change PS (Pivot to Spindle) on this turntables.
Got it ?

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

I can’t hear this distortion or any problem at all with many tonearms designed for Stevenson alignment like world class Technics tonearms, Ikeda and many others. At the same time i have tonearms in use aligned and designed with Baerwald method.

My answer to the OP is a nice headshell with slots (not a short headshell with short slots), this is all we need to solve the issue, nothing esle.   

Dear chakster, in addition to ''slots in' or ''on'' headshells there are
also ''movable'' 4 pin connectors which not only allow for the
right azimuth but also  for extra extension for stylus adjustment.
Next to rigidity issue connected with used material those are
important properties of headshells. But also the distance in the
headshell which allows for carts with different dimensions as
well for headshell wire. Your ''short'' headhells are very frustrating
when one need to ''wrestle '' with them in order to get them 
connected with both : cart connectors and headshell connectors .
Add to that different  dimensions of headshell ''clips'' for the
carts as well for the headshells connectors so who would 
understand our hobby except by  masochism assumption?

''Simplicity and reality'', As Raul Kessler& Pisha start with
assumption of 3 ''simple equations'' needed for optimal
geometry. : 1. the determination of zero points, 2. the optimum
of offset angle and 3, optimum for overhang for a given eff.
length.
The reality, ''in the other side'' , as Raul is used to say,  is that
neither of 22  tonearms inspected has optimal construction.
All have sub-optimal results in the context of mentioned ''simple
equations '' . 

@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.

I do remember as story of SAEC then the first series was so condemned by alignment geometry specialists that they have changed into more normal one after 308 series. It's obvious that next series was more geometrical :)
So Japanese know about geometry for sure. 

The only German joke I  have ever heard and is curiously 
connected with my post about''simplicity'' and ''reality'' is
as follow:: ''If theory and practice coincide than both are
probably false''.
What Kessler and Pisha discovered is that by te most tonearms 
the offset angle and overhang were wrongly chosen . That is
to say not optimal according to the  3 mentioned equations. 

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.

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.

Your ’’short’’ headhells are very frustrating
when one need to ’’wrestle ’’ with them in order to get them
connected with both : cart connectors and headshell connectors .
Add to that different dimensions of headshell ’’clips’’ for the
carts as well for the headshells connectors so who would
understand our hobby except by masochism assumption?

I want to quit from this discussion, i have great headshells that none of you using here for some reason, i always read recommendation for the shells i never use. So if someone have a problem with headshell i must say this is not what i use. I have no problem to twist and adjust a cartridge in the headshell for any geometry.

As i said AudioCraft headshells (especially rewired) are great and available in different size from short to long, ZYX LIVE 18 is modern headshell i use. Grace Carbon HS-6 and heavier Grace metal HS-8 is what i really like too.

As some other members i can’t hear that re-aligned cartridge (Baerwald) is any better than aligned cartridge (Stevenson) on many tonearms originally designed with Stevenson geometry.

P.S. Saec did it wrong, but the brand is gone, while IKEDA and Technics are still making tonearm and alignment is Stevenson.

If you’re able to hear the difference at your age than maybe i will have to wait 20-40 years, right now i can’t hear any benefit of Baerwald over Stevenson on tonearms originally designed for Stevenson. So i will follow manufacturer’s recommendation for each tonearm.

P.S. I don't read Rauls posts, not interested. 

SAEC was superior brand. They were used by Micro Seiki, Technics, Victor as upgrade of stock tonearms.
After CD they have just ceased production of tonearms.

bukanona, and the argument is ? Your opinion?