Regardless of whether you choose Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson, the alignment is based on 3 parameters or measurements: PivotToSpindle, PivotToStylus, and OffsetAngle. Fix any two, and proper alignment will require you adjust the third.
If you have an arm with a fixed mounting position on the table then the first is set as well as the OffsetAngle. This leaves only the abiity to change PivotToStylus unless you don't mind varying the OffsetAngle in the headshell.
Let's say you have an arm mount which allows you to vary the PivotToSpindle. In such a case you should be able to pick a good position for your cartridge in the headshell slot, with the cartridge straight (not rotated), thus fixing two of the three parameters. Then you could achieve proper alignment by sliding the arm mounting position.
Sometimes, the specified PivotToSpindle distance is not optimum. My old Fidelity FR64 allowed for easy rotation of the cartridge in the headshell. This was useful since when mounted using the template, fixing the PivotToSpindle, and installing the cartridge, fixing the PivotToStylus, only the offsetAngle could be adjusted. The old Fidelity arm mounting posiiton was not specified with Baerwald in mind. But, if you can move the arm mount, you could set the cartridge square in the shell and then move the arm base as needed.
Thankfully, the current VPI JMW PivotToSpindle spec seems to be correct for easy alignment using any of the 3 Alignments (Baerwald etc.)
It seems to me that the choice of which optimization to use (Baerwald etc) can be informed by the predominant type of record played. I prefer the Baerwald's more gentle degradation of the tracking angle error at the record center since I listen to much classical music which often runs to the limits of the inner radius and will often have crescendos at the end of a side.
As far as anti-skating being unimportant: It seems to me that is nonsense since a lack of anti-skating force is easily heard in highly modulated groove passages as gross distortion/breakup.
If you have an arm with a fixed mounting position on the table then the first is set as well as the OffsetAngle. This leaves only the abiity to change PivotToStylus unless you don't mind varying the OffsetAngle in the headshell.
Let's say you have an arm mount which allows you to vary the PivotToSpindle. In such a case you should be able to pick a good position for your cartridge in the headshell slot, with the cartridge straight (not rotated), thus fixing two of the three parameters. Then you could achieve proper alignment by sliding the arm mounting position.
Sometimes, the specified PivotToSpindle distance is not optimum. My old Fidelity FR64 allowed for easy rotation of the cartridge in the headshell. This was useful since when mounted using the template, fixing the PivotToSpindle, and installing the cartridge, fixing the PivotToStylus, only the offsetAngle could be adjusted. The old Fidelity arm mounting posiiton was not specified with Baerwald in mind. But, if you can move the arm mount, you could set the cartridge square in the shell and then move the arm base as needed.
Thankfully, the current VPI JMW PivotToSpindle spec seems to be correct for easy alignment using any of the 3 Alignments (Baerwald etc.)
It seems to me that the choice of which optimization to use (Baerwald etc) can be informed by the predominant type of record played. I prefer the Baerwald's more gentle degradation of the tracking angle error at the record center since I listen to much classical music which often runs to the limits of the inner radius and will often have crescendos at the end of a side.
As far as anti-skating being unimportant: It seems to me that is nonsense since a lack of anti-skating force is easily heard in highly modulated groove passages as gross distortion/breakup.