Dear @chakster: "
Time to play with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson alignments..."
With that statement maybe your thread has no sense because you own very good protractor so just play with and you will know what works for you.
Your system is " your system " as are your music/sound priorities and no one can do it or give any single advise but you that are whom knows everything.
Just play ! and remember that the name of the " game " is: accuracy.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
@chakster : Again, """
Time to play with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson alignments... """"
Do you already did it? what happens? whcich one do you prefer?. You are the one that in your system and according your music/sound priorities the best judge.
Accuracy means that any alignment you choose or like by your experiences " playing it " must be accurate on set up.
I can't understand why you ask for other people experiences on alignments when all depends on that accuracy level, system, kind of LP and personal priorities. All alignments in a pivoted tonearm designs has tracking error and some distortion levels. Differences is where in the surface LP grooves happens those different levels of distortions and that's all.
Alignments is not a rocket science very dificult to understand.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
|
Dear @sampsa55 : """
I align the cartridges based on the alignment the tonearm was designed for. Since most of my tonearms use removable head shells and were designed for a 52mm distance from the head shell connection to the stylus... """
that's true only if those tonearms has the same effective length.
Remember that the Löfgren calculations ( he was the first to do it and all the other kind of alignments starts by his equations. ) begin with the input know parameters:
tonearm effective length, inner most groove radius and outer most groove radius. This is the foundation of the alignments that must be untouched for the calculations.
From those 3 input parameters we calculate: offset angle, overhang, both null points and distance from the center of tonearm pivot to the center of TT spindle. If we move the overhang we need to move the tonearm mount distance in order to mantain distortions at minimum for the choosed alignment calculations.
Understanding all those we can have a " personal " alignments changing the effective length or any or both radius.
As I posted here in the tonearm/cartridge set up the name of the game with the choosed alignment is: accuracy on that set up.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
|
Dear @sampsa55 : I see what you mean but I'm talking of a diferent subject. I'm talking of distortions levels.
Normally the Löfgren/Baerwald alignments gives really good low distortionm levels over the whole LP surface.
Ikeda as SAEC and other Japanese tonearms use diferent kind of alignments where distortion levels ( that must be the main subject. ) are higher.
That distance from headshell collet to the stylus tip is the overhang position and yes the designer can choose whatever he wants as Fleib said it. The main subject is which kind of alignment is using to look about distortion levels.
In my Ikeda, SAEC, Dynavector and other Japanese designs I just follow Löfgren B or Baerwald with better results than what the manufacturer recomend because his targets were diferent from mine and maybe my ears are " wrong " too.
As I said we can make our very personal alignment changing almost everything for calculations set up parameters but I'm in this critical subject more orthodox about.
There are no rules here.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Dear @cousinbillyl : """
Stop obsessing, you can't get it perfect, at least not for every album. """
Agree, we can't get it perfect. I was at the Doug place and I know that he really is " obssesed " with each LP and hee does " easy " but is him.
All of us have our each personal whole test/set-up process. I have mine that I try to " perfect " over the years. My take could sound easy: through my own process I have 9-10 tracks that are my references other than live music and I make the /tonearm/cartridge set up with " obssesion " to pass those 9-10 tracks and when passed then I'm " there " but I'm not looking for a change with different LPs.
At the end what I love is to listen and enjoy MUSIC.
What's my main target is that the whole set up been made it with " absolute accuracy ", in this I'm extremely obssesed: ACCURACY.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Btw, in that test overall process I have too a " fast track " alternative that I use with all cartridges I'm listening for the first time and if through it the cartridge performance is a promising one then I follow with the whole process.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @jtimothya : It's not M.Fremer or any other reviewer or tonearm designer whom started to " discuss " about, no.
All kind of alignments ( even personal ones. ) equations calculations ( Löfgen was the first one. ) shows three main set up parameters:
overhang, offset angle and two null points. These is inherent on all kind of alignments.
Why those two null points, other that tell us that there the pivoted tonearm cross tangentialy with "cero " tracking error?
Well, those null points define three LP surface areas where in each one exist ( normally ) diferent distortion levels. Where those null points been calculated define the distortion levels at those 3 LP surface areas : the area before the first null point, the area in between both null points and the area after the second null point. That's it.
Rgards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @chakster : The 7045 is good tonearm and he 170 is very good tracker and this cartridge characteristics means that with or with out Stevenson alignment it will ride perfectly the inner grooves .
Again, your music/sound priorities are very personal and you have to use what fits it and that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @fleib : I play several times with my 505. I almost not used the Dyna dedicated headshell but several others. I never like it what I heard it with what Dyna recomend alignment that's ( if I remember ) not exactly Stevenson ( maybe I'm wrong an it's. Never mind because this not the issue. ).
When I used, either, on it the Löfgren A or B alignments I let all parameters in those alignments in orthodox form.
That is what works for the best for me in that tonearm even that you can be rigth about that " torsional force in the cantilever " that maybe could stay at minimum with cartridge that has very good tracking abilities.
For me has no sense ( even if I can be wrong. ) to sacrifice over the 80% of the recorded area in favor of " nothing " because as I said to @chakster : with good trackers we can't detect " problems ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @downunder : It's not the third part of the inner recording area but a lot less, never mind.
Yes, it's better a pivoted tangential tonearm design as the one you own, no doubt about but tonearm design is not only if its run tangentially but several other critical subjects for the cartridge can shows at its best.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @pryso : There are nothing of exceptional/new down there even than the ownner of VS said he had no explanation where comes those null points values.
Look, I posted several times and I think here too that for alignment calculations there are 3 fix parameters: effective length, most outer groove radius and most inner groove radius.
In you link Cotter used the IEC outer radius and changed the input inner groove to 66. What did it that " guru "? the same he changed the IEC radius on the inputs calculations.
Exist no " black thread " about but only manipulation of the input calculation parameters.
What did it Stevenson?, as @fleib pointed out he did not touched the outer radius but the inner one where he forces that the inner distance coincide exactly with the second null point. That's all.
If you read the Analog Planet link that was posted here, I posted there that that " black thread " discovery ( even new for MF. ) for the uni was only a manipulation of the most inner groove radius and I said it its value.
Many people puts angry with me when I use the word " ignorance " but it's tru when we don't have the rigth information we are ignorant on that and what we read could seems to us as the century's discovery when it's not.
You like it that alignment not because it's better but only that tracking error/distortions changes of surface LP position.
Regards and enjjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @lewm : On your take about the Vivid floating tonearm design it's ovbious that you are just speculating about the AS issue.
"""
but the arm gets great reviews and is revered in Japan and Europe. ""
several people when listen something diferent and especially when the audio item manufacturar touted its " great design " almost always all ( especially reviewers. ) " revered ". Sometimes like in your example is by ignorance sometimes because they like those biased diferences and sometimes those biased differences are no more than higher distortions. In that regards about the " underhung " the design has no real foundation and the manufacturer speaks only on what the listeners heard it but with out single fact on its design and why is " so good ".
Mathematics always helps and you are an advocate to. What happens with the " underhung " higher eror(distortions?
Anyway, maybe all of us have diferent opinions about and maybe no one has the rigth one. That's why exist the so many forums in the internet with so many " hot " discussions. Is part of the audio fun where all we can learn.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @lewm : """
within less than an +/-0.5mm margin of error, """, that's almost the overhang diference between Löfgren B and Baerwald.
If we made an accurate overall cartridge/tonearm set up with either Löfgren or Baerwald it´s almost imposible that you or anay one else can detect differences in the quality level performance. Against Stevenson things could be diferent because higher set up differences in the main parameters and with higher distorions overall Stevenson.
In both cases we can make it more " easy " if we know what to look for in the tests listening process.
Now, all we need is the MINT LP that's a dedicated protractor for the TT/tonearm/cartridge and for only 100.00. Makes no sense to spend ( because is not an investment. ) any little dime over that cost because we can't achieve in true any single advantage but more " problems " for those expensive protractors you own or other people owns.
As a fact and I posted several times about no one of us should spend a single dime in protractors if the tonearm manufacturers takes its own/self critical responsability with their customers to delivery the tonearm with an ACCURATE and user friendly protractor !!!!!, it's his responsability not us one but we are the ones that already liberated them from that main manufaturer responsability.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @barbapapa : Overall Löfgren " A "/Baerwald and Löfgren " B " has lower distortion levels than the other alignment you mentioned. That alignment is not something " special ", it's only a manipulation of one of the input values in the alignment calculation formulas: the change was that instead to take either: IEC or DIN or JIS standards value for the most inner groove input it tooks 54 with no real overall improvement. As you, M.Fremer voted for Löfgren B too through his tests.
As I posted what any one of us need as a protractor is the MINT LP one, that's a dedicated protractor for the TT/tonearm we own. It's really accurated and for only 100.00-150.00.
IMHO no one needs more, is really useless stay trying any other protractor other than by curiosity. At the end what we music lovers want is listen MUSIC all the time and not testing 3-5 diferent kind of alignments. Again: useless.
Btw, @lewm posted: """
curve again and make a more definitive opinion. """.
You tested by 3 days and changed to Löfgren with the same LPs. IMHO you need no more. Your ears telling ( in this case ) what the numbers tell it too.
We can think that a short/brief time can't be enough and sometimes is true but when one person ( as you ) knows what to look for that times goes lower.
I don't need to many time to give my vote to Löfgren and Baerwald over Stevenson alignment: 2-3 hours can be more than enough. Why can I follow wasting more time? when what I want is to enjoy MUSIC. Makes no sense to me: makes sense to you?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @fleib: The manufacturer choosed Baerwald ( I think???? because I 'm not an owner of it. ) and I don't know if he is willing to manufacture it Löfgren B. At the end Baerwald is excellent choice too.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
