"You believe", is fine. There really is no "correct" approach, since to begin with there is a built in error that will affect any solution. Can you further explain what you have in mind as regards the effect of increasing overhang, to shift the "force vectors"? Are you thinking of the skating force, or what? Of course, you would have to change the headshell offset angle, or twist the cartridge in the headshell, in my "solution", just as for your solution.
|
Mijostyn, good point but it seems to me we’re both right. Moving backward would preserve overhang at the expense of reducing effective length. Moving forward in the headshell would preserve effective length but increase overhang. Both work if you can also twist the cartridge. Neither solution is orthodox. |
Clearthinker, I did not say that the 10mm error in P2S contemplated by the OP would not be audible. At best, I said that if he fiddled with his head shell offset and the slots on the mounting surface, so as to move the cartridge forward, he might at least partially correct for the error. After that, I have no idea how it would sound, any more than you do. So sorry if that bothers you. Not. |
Dear Raul, I don't understand what you want me to say. I can only say (again) that my experience with underhung tonearms using zero headshell offset angle suggests that precise adherence to any algorithm that posits minimizing tracking angle error as its primary goal (I guess this would include Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, and any other similar solution) is over-rated as it applies to maximizing SQ from vinyl. I nevertheless do adhere to such geometries when I set up my conventional pivoted overhung tonearms that have a headshell offset angle. I have two "reasons" for thinking the practice may be over-rated: (1) Like I said above, the underhung tonearms with zero offset generate very large tracking angle errors other than at the single null point one can attain with such tonearms. So if there is zero tracking angle error (TAE) at the null point at the center of the playing surface, there will be several degrees of error (on the order of +/-10 degrees for a 9-inch underhang tonearm, as I recall) both at the inner grooves and at the outer grooves. You can do much better than that with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc. Yet, I don't hear the problem. You can argue that I am deaf or that my system is not good enough to allow me to hear the problem, if you want, and (2) I have once or twice inadvertently set up conventional pivoted tonearms incorrectly, only to discover my error weeks or months later. I then "fix" the error, but I don't hear a big upgrade as a result of doing so.
I realize that I am in violation of a vinylista mantra, but that is my opinion. No big deal in the course of every day life. I still play by the rules. I have to wonder what Baerwald and Lofgren heard with what must have been 12 or 16 inch shellac 78 rpm mono recordings played with spherical styli.
|
The thing is that an under hung tonearm will yield massive amounts of tracking angle error when the stylus is not located at its single null point on the surface of the LP. Way more tracking angle error than is developed in a properly aligned overhung tonearm with a correct headshell offset angle. And yet I hear absolutely no problem. With your 14 inch tonearms, of course you have dramatically reduced the tracking angle error at any position on the LP, compared to that of the RS Lab, but I would wager the actual error is still higher or not much better than one gets with a 9 inch overhung tonearm. I bet the soundQuality is excellent. |
I always wonder what sort of (mono) systems were available to Baerwald and Lofgren in the late 1930 or early 1940s, when they published their analyses, and how their work applies to modern stereo gear. Yes, geometry is still geometry, I know.
TomWh, I own an RS Labs underhung tonearm, and it is my experience with it that leads me to be a bit nihilistic when it comes to alignment algorithms. What 14-inch tonearms with zero headshell offset are you using? I guess I assume you mount them so as to underhang the spindle. (Meaning the stylus tip does not overhang the spindle.)
|
Whether exactly correct alignment could be achieved with the OP‘s situation is definitely a good question. I share your opinion that most headshells would not have that much adjustability room. But that is different from saying not to do it because it would be ugly. Whether exactly correct alignment is critically important is also another question. |
What will happen, if you use a 240mm P2S distance where 250mm is recommended, if you do nothing to compensate for that error, is the null points will move farther apart from each other. If the tonearm is designed for an algorithm like Stevenson, where the inner null point is already close to the run-out grooves, then there is a danger that the inner null point will now lie IN the run-out grooves or even on the label itself, where of course there is no use for it. But if the tonearm was designed for one of the other two popular algorithms, the inner null point might still be useful on the playing surface. That might be no big deal at all, depending upon the LP. But of course also the tracking angle errors before, between, and after the null points are traversed will be altered, probably increased in magnitude. (I haven't done any math on that.)
|
Why would moving the cartridge forward in a headshell with elongated slots “look ugly”, and who cares? |
I know I’ll get hate mail, figuratively, but anal attention to alignment is overrated in my opinion, as regards the effect of slight misalignment on audible distortion. |
If the slots in your head shell, presuming you are using a head shell, are long enough you could possibly make up the deficit by moving the cartridge forward in the head shell and twisting it slightly with respect to the long axis of the headshell. Then you might achieve only a small tracking angle error, rather than a large one. Use a good protractor if you go this route. While I respect the opinions of the other knowledgeable persons who commented here, I personally do not think there would be such a dramatic reduction in sound quality, if you were able to make up for the pivot to spindle distance in the manner that I described. |
