Raul, you wrote in response to my post about the consequences of P2S error, "You are not only been extremely dramatical but ’out of game’, you are wrong and your statement about the null points is totally false."
First, thank you for your constant monitoring of my posts. It is good to know that if you do not criticize one of my posts, I must have been correct. However, I was surprised that your reaction to this last post was so vehement, since I consider you to be among the most orthodox, when it comes to tonearm/cartridge alignment. You have in the past been inclined to advocate absolute accuracy uber alles, and you are positively apoplectic with anger whenever anyone is bold enough to suggest that Stevenson alignment is an acceptable choice, even if one owns a plethora of LPs that have inner grooves that encroach the label.
Second, in this case, when you say that the null points don’t change whether the P2S is set at 252mm or even up to 300mm, are you running your numbers through one of the on-line calculators or your own calculator? Either way, that approach would ameliorate the problem I was trying to highlight. Such calculations would generally include changing headshell offset angle and/or overhang to keep the null points on the surface of the LP. Because my point was based on a situation where you err in P2S, but you don’t know you made the error, and you proceed to select the other mounting parameters on the assumption that you have correctly set P2S at 250mm. I am being intellectually lazy here, because I have not done the math myself, but it does seem you could by making that sort of error, end up with at least one of two null points entirely off the playing surface of an LP (maybe not both null points). Perhaps I did exaggerate or was "extremely dramatical" in saying you might end up losing both null points. I still could be wrong, but never am I "false". I was really responding to that old nihilist, MC, who takes pleasure in pretending he knows all the answers and that none of the answers are important.
So why did I make such a statement without doing the math, besides the fact that I hate trigonometry? I just guessed. The null points are points on the radius of a circle that has its center at the pivot point. As the center of that circle approaches the center of the circle that has its center at the spindle, then those null points get closer together on the surface of the LP, assuming you change NOTHING else. Conversely, as the centers of the two intersecting circles (P2S) get farther apart, the null points would get farther apart. As the null points get farther apart, eventually, at some P2S distance at least one and eventually both null points would "fall off" the playing surface of the LP. Probably no one of us would ever make such a large error in P2S so as to completely lose one or both null points, I grant you that.
First, thank you for your constant monitoring of my posts. It is good to know that if you do not criticize one of my posts, I must have been correct. However, I was surprised that your reaction to this last post was so vehement, since I consider you to be among the most orthodox, when it comes to tonearm/cartridge alignment. You have in the past been inclined to advocate absolute accuracy uber alles, and you are positively apoplectic with anger whenever anyone is bold enough to suggest that Stevenson alignment is an acceptable choice, even if one owns a plethora of LPs that have inner grooves that encroach the label.
Second, in this case, when you say that the null points don’t change whether the P2S is set at 252mm or even up to 300mm, are you running your numbers through one of the on-line calculators or your own calculator? Either way, that approach would ameliorate the problem I was trying to highlight. Such calculations would generally include changing headshell offset angle and/or overhang to keep the null points on the surface of the LP. Because my point was based on a situation where you err in P2S, but you don’t know you made the error, and you proceed to select the other mounting parameters on the assumption that you have correctly set P2S at 250mm. I am being intellectually lazy here, because I have not done the math myself, but it does seem you could by making that sort of error, end up with at least one of two null points entirely off the playing surface of an LP (maybe not both null points). Perhaps I did exaggerate or was "extremely dramatical" in saying you might end up losing both null points. I still could be wrong, but never am I "false". I was really responding to that old nihilist, MC, who takes pleasure in pretending he knows all the answers and that none of the answers are important.
So why did I make such a statement without doing the math, besides the fact that I hate trigonometry? I just guessed. The null points are points on the radius of a circle that has its center at the pivot point. As the center of that circle approaches the center of the circle that has its center at the spindle, then those null points get closer together on the surface of the LP, assuming you change NOTHING else. Conversely, as the centers of the two intersecting circles (P2S) get farther apart, the null points would get farther apart. As the null points get farther apart, eventually, at some P2S distance at least one and eventually both null points would "fall off" the playing surface of the LP. Probably no one of us would ever make such a large error in P2S so as to completely lose one or both null points, I grant you that.