Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?


I’ve managed Dr.Feickert Analog Protractor for a decent price (build quality is superb, such a great tool).

Time to play with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson alignments on my Luxman PD444.
Need advice from experienced used of the following arms:
Lustre GST 801
Victor UA-7045
Luxman TA-1
Reed 3P "12
Schick "12

Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ? What do you like the most for these arms?
Manufacturers recommend Baerwald mostly. 

Dedicated "7 inch vinyl playback deserve Stevenson alternative, maybe?
Since it's a smaller format than normal "12 or "10 inch vinyl, it's like playin the last track's according to position of grooves on '7 inch (45 rpm) singles. RCA invented this format, i wonder which alignment did they used for radio broadcast studios.   

Thanks

128x128chakster
@nandric

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.

Thant’s the point, theoretically Stevenson’s geometry is better for 7’inch records (45s). In this case we don’t need optimal geometry for the whole radius of 12’inch, because the 45s (vinyl singles) are much smaller, there is only one track per side. That’s the same 45 rpm (7’inch) on my platter.

It make sence to use Stevenson with this format of the vinyl.

Since the RCA Victor invetned mono 45s in 1949 they soon became the most popular format (in stereo) of the industry for radio disc-jokeys in the 60s & 70s. As far as i know analog radio broadcast equimpement were on very high level in Japan (NHK), Europe and the USA in the 60s and 70s period (supplied by the top manufacturers like denon, technics, emt ..).

I wonder when Stevenson invented his alignment (before 1949 or after) ?

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).

There is something really odd in what you say Raulrigas - you say accuracy is the name of the game, there are 3 different alignments spoken of, and you say choose which one works.
Surely only one is accurate.
Just being devils advocate. 
Joking aside are you going to use one or two cartridges/arms - if so why not have one alignment that is better for outside tracks, and one better for inside tracks on a record?
Better still why not just go and a parallel tracker
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.