Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

Dear chakster, The answer to your question depends more from

you records than your ears. But first thing first. Lofgren was, uh,

the first who described the optimal geometry for the tonearm in

relation to the record radius. Hoewer Bearwald got the honors

( as being the first) instead of Lofgren. This ''optimal'' geometry

means ''optimal'' for the whole record radius. Aka ''average'' values.

Stevenson wanted ''optimal values'' near the spindle with assumption

that the grooves end is about 6 cm distance from the spindle. To put

it otherwise he thought that the ''inner grooves'' are the most problematic

for the (conventional) tonearms. The Japanese tonearm designers ,

among which also Ikeda, somehow prefered this geometry.

I own hardly any record with ''inner grooves'' near the spindle

so all my Mint tractors are ,uh, Bearwald (grin).

Dear chakster, ''Thant's the point?'' I have no idea what this

expression means. It my mean ''that is not the point'' but also ''that is

the point''. But if you know better why do you ask this question?

I considered only the ''normal'' (aka 12'') records. I hate it to

stand up and walk to my TT to turn the 12" records . So I never

owned those 7'' kinds. Are those also called ''records''?

Dear chakster, On the most ''tractors'' one can see those two

''zero points'' at which a tonearm is assumed to have zero errors.

Those two zero points are not at the same ''points'' in relation

to the record radius. This imply different geometries. Lofgren and

Bearwald calculated '' average values'' for the whole record radius

with minimal errors in ''average sense''. Stevenson calculated the

optimal values in relation to the ''innermost grooves'' as you called

this. For such tractor a zero point near the spindle is necessary. So

this tractor must be different from Lofgren/Bearwald. The most

of my records are classical music but I hardly own any with grooves

near the spindle. You assumption is the cotrary. However in the

West, in contradistiction to Japan, the most tonearms have Lofgren/

Bearwald geometrry.

My Gosh, How could Tchaikovsky know on which part of the

record to put (write)  those shots ? Beethoven , on the other side, would  not care for his crescendos  because he was deaf (grin). 

 By Yip , the owner of the Mint Arc protractor ,one can order specific

tractor calculated for the owners TT and tonearm. Yip has the

data of the most tonearms but needs the (exact) dimensions of the

spindle in addition. Those are not of the same dimensions. The price

is about $110 . The address: mintlp.com/best

I own three Mint protractors two of which are made for my Kuzma

Stabi Reference , Reed 3 P and Triplanar VII. The third for my SP-

10, Mk2 and FR-64 s .

Hi pryso, If you mean with ''general rule'' any standards by cart

or tonearm producers then , as J. Carr stated, there are no

such rules. The arguments for Stevenson are rediculous as put

forward by chakster. Consider my records collection of +/-

3000 pieces. I would need to check them all in regards to the

distance of the inner grooves to the spindle as well regarding the

question if the crescendos are in those grooves. As I mentioned in

my post the assumption is that those inner grooves are the most

difficult for the arm and the stylus. So if the tracking error of the arm

is at its minimum on this part of the record then this means ''zero''

point on the tractor. Those zero points are elsewhere by Lofgren/

Bearwald. This is in accordance with their intention: the least

possible tracking error on the whole recod radius. Those are not

''small diferences'' but different approach of the tonearm geometry.

The correct deduction will be true provided the premisse from

which deductions are made is true.

Is the premiss of this thread that we all own just one cart?

I own more than 40 . Consider then my geometry adjustment by

ear for them all. With the Mint tractor I need about 2 minutes for

this adjustment. Thanks to the tractor's ''curve''. Not the one Raul is

talking about (grin).

Well solving a problem and adding to a problem are different ,say,

approaches of the problems. We , I think, solved the problem stated

by chakster. We even reduced the problem to two choices by

considering Lofgren/Bearwald as the same solution. For those

who own many 7'' records Stevenson for others Bearwald.

The problem with the glued styli in exotic cantilevers can be

solved with aluminum (alloy) cantilevers which, according to

Carr (his post in the MM thread) have as advantage that the

stylus can be pressure fitted. I own 3 FR-7 kinds, Miyabi standard,

Magic Diamond and Anchor (Dertonarm) all with aluminum cantilever.

 Those are among my best MC carts. So to regard aluminum as

some kind of inferiour material is problematic.

The manufacturers as well as repair services get the cantilever/

stylus combo's from their suppliers. Those are mostly used

by the so called ''retipps''. Gluing a new stylus in the original

cantilever seems to be much more difficult than gluing the

combo in the ''joint pipe'' on which also the coils and suspension

are fastened. BTW the joint pipe is usually an aluminum tube.

The manufacturers as well as the retippers are

assumed to check the styli as delivered by their providers.

We can't complain by styli/cantilever producers if something

is  wrong with either.