Mint Protractor. A Pretty Nice Alignment Tool


So when I bought my Triplanar the seller had a Mint protractor for it. It was cut to be used on a Garrard 401. As luck would have it, the spindle size is the same as the one on my Scheu Analog table. So I put it on the table this morning, and fine tuned the cartridge alignment. My overhang was off just the smidgiest of a smidge, and I made the slightest of corrections to the cantilever alignment. Using an overhead light it was very easy to see the alignment lines. Playback showed the efforts yielded positive results. I have to say this is a good product. Nothing magical about it, just a clean execution of an arc protractor.

neonknight

Showing 3 responses by lewm

Mijostyn, is it really true that most tonearms are mounted incorrectly regarding P2S distance? I would have thought that overhang was the most common error. The very first and really only important thing to do when mounting a new tonearm is to get P2S as precisely as possible to the recommended distance. After that, setting overhang is a piece of cake. So why assume that the same tonearm mounted on the same TT in two separate instances by two different operators, will exhibit a difference in P2S? Bear in mind that I’ve never seen a Mint protractor, let alone used one. I guess what Raul is saying is that P2S for Stevenson is different from correct P2S for either of the Lofgren alternatives. Therefore, one ought not to use a Mint protractor to achieve a perfect Lofgren alignment, unless the Mint was specifically created for Lofgren A or B.

I sheepishly agree with fsonic on the minimal benefits of being anal regarding alignment.

There is something to be said for using the alignment algorithm (Stevenson, Lofgren, etc) for which your tonearm was designed. Because deviating from one to another requires twisting the cartridge in its headshell which can create aberrant force on the cantilever.