Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Blue_nose, thank you very much for your kind comment. I tried to give the serious analog audiophile the instrument to really bring out the very best performance possible from any tonearm.
Cheers,
D.

Congratulations Dertonearm on your implementation of such a comprehensive instrument for cartridge and tonearm configuration. It looks like a lot of thought went into design and production. And thank you Syntax for the splendid photos of the tool in its environment.

Could you say a comment or two on what is the "Azimuth template"?

Is it possible to post or share the manual on-line without releasing proprietary information?

Thank you for carrying on the tradition of continued improvement for analog technology.

Dear Jtimothya, thank you. I will post the whole UNI-Protractor manual on the website in April 2011. By then the first production run will have reached it's owners and we will have the first experience reports.
The Azimuth template is an additional feature to help getting azimuth adjustment - at any spot on the arc - as perfect horizontal level as possible.
It is an optical "helper".
Cheers,
D.

Dertonearm,

I'm extremely interested in this topic, as my owners are beginning to ask me about your new tool.

My first reaction is to have them buy one for me (for my Durand Talea, thank you) and I'll experiment with it and let them know. All kidding aside, I applaud your herculean efforts and the beautiful photos of the exquisite machining. My concern however is only with results. Any advantages of your tool fall into one of the following:

1. The precision with which this geometry can be implemented - can superior results can be achieved, or alternatively, can equivalent results can be achieved more easily. Easier is important to some, and "better" is important to everyone.

2. The superiority of your chosen alignment geometry

This is what I will base my recommendation on.

Before delving into the above questions, let ask you the following, on behalf of a customer who owns a Schroeder Reference. Can you confirm the following for me:

1. The protractor is "programmable" - coming with a set of some 30 templates to be used for common arms. Any arm not on the list requires a template costing $69. Is this correct?

2. Implication for Schroeder Reference owners. If the above is correct, then my customers with Schroeder references will need a template for each cartridge they use, due to non-standard stylus to cartridge mounting hole center. Is this correct?

-----

As I read through threads on the Mint LP protractor, I note how some of individuals struggle with viewing the stylus using the supplied loupe.

This issue is one that touches all alignment techniques involving one's having to view the stylus. It's not specific to the Mint LP, except perhaps because the Mint (like all arc protractors) tells you in no uncertain terms when you are off (by magnifying your error as you attempt to trace the arc). An addendum to the instructions would be helpful - telling you that there is no universal loupe, and that experimentation might be in order.

So, if you have freed individuals from having to use magnification to view the stylus, you have broken new ground and I applaud you.

Now this thread has gone off track with the discussion of the ideal alignment geometry. Of course it's important, but it needs to be kept distinct from the tool used to achieve it … UNLESS, you have arrived at an alignment you deem to be proprietary. If this is the case, then the perspective purchaser has only one way to implement that geometry - by purchasing your tool. I'm fine with that. Your research deserves to be rewarded.

So … what's my advice to my customer base? In plain and simple language, "it's your money and you take your chances".

Now, if you'd like to prove to the world that your methodology is superior - that someone can achieve better results with your tool over a well implemented arc protractor like the Mint LP (irrespective of geometry) - then I would propose one or both of the following experiments.

Experiment #1: Tell us the geometry you'd use for a world-class tonearm like the Durand Talea. We'll have Yip make up a protractor using this geometry and see which one best serves the music over a broad collection of records. The problem with this experiment is that the Mint LP might do a better job of implementing your geometry better, but we might not like the geometry.

Experiment #2: Implementing Baerwaald, Loefgren, and Stevenson with both your protractor and the Mint. This has the chance of giving us the broadest view - separating accuracy of implementation from geometry preferences.

Ultimately, all four geometries should be tested with both protractors, but I separated the experiments as I have, since I don't know your intellectual property considerations.

-----

If I appear to be holding your feet to the fire in this post, you are correct, but please realize that this is because I take my recommendations to my customers very seriously.

My initial impression of your beautifully made tool is that you have possibly selected a superior geometry - at least for individuals who listen to a large percentage of records that extend into what is today, the lead-out section. I've never been a fan of favoring inner groove performance at the expense of having higher distortion over the bulk of the stylus' path. One that further looks to bias the alignment beyond Loefgren's equations by extending the LP inward is something I'd be wary of.

There's no free lunch … other than a linear tracker, of course, and even that's not "free" … except from a geometry perspective.

Now, I would love to be proven wrong - that you have both (a) created a better mouse trap, and (b) that you have selected a superior alignment.

Lastly, now that you are a manufacturer, what is your real name and what city are you based out of?

Good luck in your new venture.

Regards,
Thom @ Galibier

This may cause some perplexity in our forum but the most
people own just one TT, one tonearm and (can you believe this?) just one cart. They may be totaly ignorant about the
existence of something called 'Mint tractor' but dispite of
this (probable)fact they may need exactly this one. One is free of course to compare 'apples' with 'pears' but only in
the democratic societys. I am originaly from some communist
society so I know how dengerous comparitions are.
But I shoud think that even in such a society one will be
allowed to recommend to the 'glorious workers' and even the
'glorious party members' the use of a Mint protractor.
However in the cpitalist society were some persons are able
to extract from other people the so called 'surplus value'
it is possible to own many TT's, tonearms and even more carts. So this Dertonarm knows very well for whom his protractor is meant. But that he needs to do examination
after so many years since he got his degree is very amusing.

Regards,

Dear Nandric, to my surprise the UNI-Protractor found several new owners the past 2 weeks who indeed have one tonearm and one cartridge only.
Apparently it is not only about universality and versality - but also about precision.
@Thom_mackris: thank you for your detailed and elaborate post.
I will be back home tomorrow night and will grant your post with the detailed response it deserves.
Apparently I have to clear up a few miss-understandings and miss-interpretations.
However - we have already 2 excellent volunteer reviewer's of the UNI-Protractor: Downunder and Halcro.
I am sure both will compare their UNI-Protractors with the other templates currently on the market and will share their findings here on Audiogon.
Right now I am 400 miles from home and it has been a long business day with 2 enduring meetings.
But one last thing: I am not a manufacturer - I have designed the UNI-Protractor and I am supervising the 1st production run.
My Audiogon ID was used to launch the introduction here on Audiogon on my request.
I did so, because the existance of the UNI-Protractor is a direct result of two fierce discussions here on Audiogon about tonearm geometry, I designed it to demonstrate in realis a few topics - and as Downunder put it: "looks like D. has put his money where his mouth is" (I REALLY liked that one !!).
More tomorrow.
Cheers,
D.

Thom and Nandric: I know you want one!

So all this talk of alignment has got me wondering. Anybody know what alignment HW prefers on the 9" JMW's? Is it also his own by his ears thing or something standard? The supplied jig only has one null point, which I have thought to be odd. I don't have the budget now for the UNI but I might get the Mint for the Scoutmaster since I do not when I will have my new rig.

Y'all take it EZ,
Robert

sold out!

Dear Thom_mackris: Nice to hear from you again.

Your post " disturb " me on some ways.
You named Schoroeder and Talea tonearm where I understand you are a distributor, then you named protractors like the Mint and the one of this thread and of course you want to serve your customers in the best way so please permit me to ask ( thank's in advance for your answer. ): all these means that the protractors supplied with the Talea and Schoroeder tonearms are so non-accurate or non-user friendly ( or both ) that you as a customer's take care of are " obligated " to look for better after market alternatives? are so bad those own tonearm manufacturer protractors or have I a misunderstood here?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Hi Raul,

Not a lot of itme these days, but this thread was brought to my attention by a couple of customers.

Up until this point, I have been recommending arc protractors for owners of all tonearms with adjustable headshell slots. The Mint combines availabilty and high quality.

The Schroeder Reference, Reference SQ and DPS arms are a challenge, because different cartridges yield different effective lengths (I know you know this). I try to make it easy for my Schroder customers and I send them card-stock protractors made for the effective length that their cartridge yields.

After that, it's up to them if they want to order a Mint or a Wally, or whatever.

At my suggestion, the Durand Talea has a small nipple on the underside of the bearing. Joel supplies a machined aluminum bar that mates to the record spindle and the nipple to adjust the pivot-spindle distance to within about .004" (some intentional play in the record spindle hole due to turntable manufacturer variances). A quality protractor brings you to the last .004" by rotating the arm (or, on a Galibier, by adjusting the armboard with its vernier, fine adjustment).

I appreciate the heroic effort undertaken by Dertonearm. I don't take this lightly, but there are some big claims being made, and I want to separate the issue of chosen geometry from how well a tool achieves the geometry.

On the subject of geometry, I found the ad, and noted that the protractor allows for Baerwald, Loefgren, and Stevenson for both IEC and DIN (6 combinations). I must have misread an earlier post about another alignment geometry being employed.

So an experiment using the Unitractor and the Mint (note that I did not use the word "shootout") would have more validity. Only 6 protractors need to be made for it ;-)

There are some nice usability features on Dertonarm's design, and these should not be underestimated. The fixed position magnifying glass (set up for the focal length of the magnifier, it would appear), will help many.

So, everything counts when you're trying to design a new product. A more "accurate" tool that a large variety of users cannot effectively use is not as good as one that is slightly less accurate but more users can use to its full potential.

I need to make something clear. I am NOT saying that the Unitractor is less accurate. I am merely pointing out that ease of use is is an important feature. Nothing more.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

I agree. For someone like me who is more interested in listening to music at the best sonics instead of spending hours fiddling around with loupes and what not, ease of use is very important. I'd rather set up the cartridge spot on once and get on with the music.

Not to undermine Mint LP, I always have a hard time using it. Since my audio room don't have window, and my eye sight not so good, I tried table lamp, flashlight on my mouth, and even head lamp. The 10X peak lupe doesn't help either, with its mirror template, it's very confusing. So Derto Uni protractor might be it.

Dear Thom: +++++ " Up until this point, I have been recommending arc protractors for owners of all tonearms with adjustable headshell slots. The Mint combines availabilty and high quality. " +++++

I don't know how to tell this but IMHO it is a MAIN responsability of a tonearm manufacturer supply his customers that paid/pay multi K dollars for the tonearm with an accurate protractor in a way that we customers don't have to worried in any sense on that whole subject.

In the other side that a tonearm distributor ( like you ) support customers with advise on after market protractors could means that that manufacturer tonearm target about protractors are not achieved.

This fact is pity for we customers. This subject is like when you go to buy a car ( any ) then you paid for it but guess what?: your car comes with out tires, obviously that this makes no sense and certainly you or any one of us never be willing to buy a car with out tires or engine: so then why we accept that that tonearm comes " incomplete " ( with out tires/engine. ) and no one said a word about ( including audio distributors/sellers. ) but instead of make a claim to the tonearm manufacturer we are willing and exited and happy to buy/bought not only one after market protractors but several ones.

Maybe it is time that we customers could think to charge the tonearm manufacturer/seller where we buy/bought it the price for at least one after market protractor or ask to them that supply an accurate protractor with the tonearm we are buying.

I know that some of those tonearm manufacturers are reading this thread and I think their thoughts in the subject is a mut to and welcome!.

What do you think about?. Btw, I posted in a thread started by DT similar " worries ".

Btw, +++++ " So an experiment using the Unitractor and the Mint (note that I did not use the word "shootout") would have more validity. " ++++++

could be a learning exercise.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I find that the card style arc protractors are very accurate and perform better and are easier to use than other types of protractors. I have the Talea version one with the card style arc protractor provided and I feel that my cartridge is dialed in great. I have thought about getting the Mint protractor but not really sure that it would improve on what I have. It is doubtful though that I would ever justify $700 for a protractor unless I was changing arms and cartridges frequently.

Dear Raul,

as I am very keen with the Automotive industry I know that a lot of money is made in the After Sales Market. So why not in the Audio Industry? You are right usually you need to have some good tiers on your car when you pick it up at your dealer. But when you decide to equip it with flat runs you pay an exgra charge - if you are willing to do so.

I hope you have a good car at home :-)

Dear Raul,

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time you have to accept the fact that we live in an ever specialized world. There are people like Dertonearm, Yip, etc. who spend their time focusing on protractors.

People like Frank Schroeder, Bob Graham, Tri-Mai, Joel Durand, et. al. spend their time thinking about, and improving their tonearm designs. I'd prefer that they do this, in light of the superlative aftermarket alternatives in alignment tools.

In my setup experience, the most difficult geometrical parameter involves getting the pivot-spindle distance correct. The machined indexing bar that Joel provides, along with Bob Graham's method are but two excellent solutions to this problem, and both give you an excellent head start on the alignment process.

Joel had considered the idea of providing a Mint protractor with the tonearm, but we see examples above of individuals who cannot relate to this wonderful tool.

So, rather than dictating the the tool to his customers, he provides them with an arc protractor printed on card stock. It serves as a no-risk introduction to his customers. If they don't relate to it, there's no loss. I recommended this solution to him, as my customers have responded very positively to this approach.

I think you know that nothing is free, and if he were to provide a Mint protractor it to his customers, it would still be accounted for in the pricing structure. Even with an OEM arrangment, the nature of markups mean tha the customer would pay more for the Mint than by buying it direct.

As you can see, there are people like Dmailer who see no reason to go beyond the card stock protractor. Can they do better? Likely. Do they care? Obviously not.

As manufacturers, it's not our position to dictate, but rather to recommend.

Would I criticize a tonearm manufacture from providing sophisticated alignment system with their tonearm? Absolutely not! Would I criticize them for not providing one? Same answer.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Dear Raul, while I share your opinion that a tonearm designer have to supply a protractor with his tonearm which does fulfill the designer's concept and should ensure the perfect function and geometry of the tonearm, I likewise share the opinion's of Thuchan and Thom_mackris.
An individual protractor for a given pivot tonearm is always just ONE option. There is no single geometry for a given pivot tonearm which is best under ALL possible requests and conditions.
A fact which alone justifies the existence of "UNIversal protractors" as well as specialized "individual templates" supplied by the "aftermarket".
More later.
Cheers,
D.

Totally agree with Thom... it would end up like buying a computer bundled with Microsoft software. Then someone would file antitrust case against the tonearm manufacturer or against the protractor maker...Hey, this is a free world, where nothing is free.

Dear Mesael, 'this is a free world, where nothing is (for)
free'. The logician hate such 'literary compositions' because of fear for the paradoxes. But 'your' free world
may also mean: you are free to buy anything you can afford.
I hope anybody can afford a good tractor but not necessarily the best one.
Regards,

Dear all, I dearly hope moderators allow me this lengthly post to clarify a few topics.
Some spare moments so I would like to take the chance set some things straight.
The UNI-Protractor is the off-spring of my own "need and want" to have an instrument at hand which suits each and every tonearm I have encountered (many ....) and ever will come across in the best possible way.
I focused on true universality, exact positioning and repeatable precision in every alignment.
I agree with everyone that a printed paper template might be enough.
It is just not for me.
We are playing with top $ cartridges and tonearms (not to mention phono stages and the rest of the pack ...) and I for one want the best possible from these 2 front-line devices of the analog chain.
In tonearm alignment we are facing one of the very few true geometric and mechanic "fields" in audio.
Here nothing is about taste or like/dislike.
Here everything is about putting the stylus and it's cantilever in a position where the stylus' trip through the groove will produce the least errors and thus the best possible result.
For those in doubt that real precise alignment is king, I recommend to visualize the dimensions of the tonearm, stylus and groove.
If you amplify all dimensions of the tonearm’s length and the polished contact area of your stylus by 1000x, your average tonearm is anywhere between 250 meter and 300 meter long.
Your stylus’ contact area is still only about 1.5 cm x 5 cm .......... hanging at the top of a tonearm longer than 2 football fields .....
The 0.5 mm error you may have had in your alignment is now half a meter off the line.
I think the message is clear.
Precision is king - nowhere in the audio chain more important than here: at the very start.
What you loose here to less than best possible alignment can never anywhere in the cain be recovered.
It is about positioning the polished area of your stylus in the most perfect way in relation to the groove's walls - and that for it's whole journey and on every record.
This is setting the horizontal plane once and for all - and for all the records you are playing. VTA is setting the vertical plane and that is a question of groove-compliance.
But the alignment of the zero (points) is the raw basic on which everything else builds.

Now about my "geometry" and a few misunderstandings floating around:
To me Baerwald, Löfgren and Stevenson - DIN or IEC - are certainly not the only suitable alignment curves.
That there is no generalization like “Baerwald/Löfgren is always best” suitable for all tonearms
This first came to my attention about 25 years back when I struggled to get the best possible sound from my Fidelity Research FR-64s. The manufacturer’s specs were sub-optimal and so were all alignments following any of the above mentioned “big 3”.
And all the templates I had - and I had all ever put to the market - suffered to optimize the FR-64s (most if not any were following Baerwald IEC of course) due to it’s “special” geometry.
There are a good many tonearms out there which do produce better results with an alignment not following Baerwald or Löfgren - as their geometrical design calls for different calculation to bring out their very best.
Another great example is the SAEC 506/30, which geometry indeed is optimized by it’s designers to play 10” records and singles !!

So - there is not “secret geometry” here, but I have indeed calculated some individual templates with a geometry different from their manufacturer’s specifications ( which I’ve found to be not correct or sub-optimal) and different from Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson calculations.
Not all, - but a good few.
This includes templates for the Talea 2 and the Reed 3Q.

One should always keep in mind, that every arc calculation is always a compromise. It is always a question of where to put the focus of attention.
IMHO it is quite important to focus the attention on the last 1/3rd of the groove.
There is good evident reason for this: most climax in symphonic music is towards the last minutes of a movement and thus most likely situated towards the inner label. Very vulnerable to distortion and miss-tracking - I guess many here have had their experiences and know what I am talking about.
Furthermore the radius of groove curve gets smaller towards the inner label - as such the “environmental conditions” for the stylus alignment towards the groove wall gets tougher by nature.
In other words: low distortion figures in the first 1/3 of a record is less important than in the last 1/3.
Most of my personal calculations do result in falling in between Baerwald and Löfgren B.
Each templates for the UNI-Protractor do come with a leaflet describing the individual calculation and it’s pro and cons for the user and gives clear recommendations what calculation to use what what tonearms and which purpose (old jazz-LPs, symphonic recordings and pressings from the 1950ies to 1970ies, records cut in what period et al).

The UNI-Protractor is an engineer’s approach and device to ensure for the user - with ease and easily repeatable precision - an optimized alignment. Easy, swift but reliable and universal by all means.
There will soon come 2 very nice options to further widen the possibilities and options of the UNI-Protractor which will go far beyond anything we have ever had before.
Stay tuned.
And I look forward to the first reports by fellow Audiogoners about the UNI-Protractor.
I for one will continue to supervise the production and the quality control of the UNI-Pro.
My own tonearm design is almost finished and will go into production in June 2011.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Nandric, dear Mesael, everybody actually holding the UNI-Protractor in hand and see and feel it's build and parts quality will agree, that the price-value ratio is rather one of the very best in audio. The production costs are serious and this is not made in China..... but in Germany. And the linear stage drive is a custom production - nothing off any shelf or catalogue.
Now does it pay off in terms of sonics?
Oh yeah.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertoarm, no complain on the pricing, but maybe you can extend the introductory price. I believe that most of the members here are on the state of "wait and see".

Regards,

.....it is quite important to focus the attention on the last 1/3rd of the groove.
There is good evident reason for this: most climax in symphonic music is towards the last minutes of a movement and thus most likely situated towards the inner label. Very vulnerable to distortion and miss-tracking ...

That's what's all about...in the last 10 years I had so many discussions from owners who had problems with distortions, sharp "S" vocals in voices and some of them found their peace with Arms which have huge deficits in the reproduction of the full swing. I never had that, I never thought about that because I always had the right adjustments. Much later when I thought about "these" problems & listening to originals from the 50's+60's AND reading a lot of information how they were recorded, mastered, I knew, there are the differences. We also have differences in Tonearm Geometry, most Buyers think, when they pay for it, they get a perfect calculated and designed product. Some are really great and some are different in Performance from day to day. Anyway, it was necessary to think about a product which serves well for a majority of Audiophiles who are really interested in a better analog performance. Independent from price, a good alignment is also mandatory for a Rega RB250 as well as for Davinci user, when he wants to listen to old records which ARE the Golden Age of Analog. Listening to 80gr Records from 1995 won't show big differences, but when going back with the proper alignment and you will listen to LSC-Pines of Rome, you will hear what's the differences in Tonearm Design. It is a time jump into a recording session made lots of years ago. This is probably a better investment than swapping cartridges, which won't show us anything new (at the end of day).
More important is, we spend our time after working to "listen". Maybe one or the other will listen to his records and they will "tell" him something completely new...

Good sound (or analog Performance) is sometimes based on a very simple Principle: Knowledge about >>what is responsible for what<< and Precision.

"Joel had considered the idea of providing a Mint protractor with the tonearm, but we see examples above of individuals who cannot relate to this wonderful tool."

I certainly can relate to this tool. I also can relate to the fact that with the supplied 10x loupe, with my cartridge, it is not practical as I can't get a good view of the cantilever. So it doesn't matter how accurate Mint may be. Of course with another type of loupe, it might work beautifully.

If Dertoarm's allow for easy view and the alignment is precise, I think it will be a hit. Plus, I've been wanting to try out Lofgren.

Same 10X peak lupe I'm complaining about in my earlier post. Put it on top of an eraser just like the pix on Mint website. It fell down, rolled and bumped the cantilever. Luckily no serious damage done. Derto supplied magnefying glass seems will do the job.

Dertonarm,

Thanks for the clarifying points. You mentioned one point which may have been lost on folks, because everyone's attention is captured by the design of the Uni-tractor and your selection of geometries. I want to highlight your point:

This is probably a better investment than swapping cartridges, which won't show us anything new (at the end of day).

All too often (and in every area of the signal chain), we as audiophiles neglect the importance of setup, as our attention is always captured by the latest and greatest component.

The individual debating the purchase of the next $1,000 cartridge (we don't have to get to the pricing $tratosphere) would do well to ask himself the following question:

"have I provided my current cartridge every opportunity to succeed?".

If the answer is "no", you are randomly wandering about, and are depending on luck to reach success (not that I'm against a bit of luck here and there ~grin~).

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

There was a thread 'Why more then one tonearm?' or something. Well we have the answer as well as some kind
of Copernican turn. We need to measure the distance from
the lead out groove till the spindle and reorganize our
LP collection accordingly. Assuming,say, 4 categorys corresponding to 4 different tonearm geometrys (otherwise
5) we will be able to use the right tonearm with the right
LP's. One need to measure first to decide how many tonearms
one will need , mark them derafter accordingly and then
apply all the acquired knowledge by each LP we intend to
play.

Regards,

Thank you Syntax for this excellent post.
Replies for developing a state of mind like this one, can help us maybe even more than the actual product !

Hello Dertonarm,
I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about using the Uni-Protractor with tonearms that do not allow the cartridge to be moved backwards and forwards in the headshell, like the Schroder and the SME V, IV etc.This question was raised by T. Mackris but has not answered yet, I think.
Surely with arms like these the crucial thing is to determine the effective length as accurately as possible and then set the appropriate pivot-to-spindle distance, again as accurately as possible.
The producer of the Mint Protractor is of course aware of this problem, and asks that, when ordering a protractor for a given cartridge with non-standard cantilever length (distance between stylus tip and mounting holes), customers should either indicate the cartridge manufacturer's specification of the stylus tip to mounting hole length or, failing that, provide a close-up photograph of their catridge viewed against a measure.
The problem here is clear enough: since the point of a dedicated protractor like the Mint is to provide a highly accurate alignment template for a given effective length, the whole enterprise is compomised if the effective length cannot be determined accurately to start with - and the photograph technique is by its very nature approximate.
It was this consideration that stopped me from ordering a Mint for my SME V & Benz combination.
Can the Uni-Protractor (or any add-on that you have in the pipeline) help with this problem?
My approach so far has been to measure the effective length, using the trammel that comes with the Feickert Protractor. This is simple enough: first choose a point on the template disk and rotate it until the stylus drops exactly on this point. Lift the stylus and block the turntable so that no movement is possible. Then place the spindle hole of the Feickert trammel over the point (so that the latter is in the middle of the hole), and then measure the distance to the centrepoint of the arm pivot (easier if you have removed the 'bridge' on your SME). Read off the effective length, and then use Conrad Hoffman's template generator (or similar)to make a template for precisely that effective length.
Of course there are several points in this where inaccuracy can creep in: (i) in trying to ensure that point on the disk is exactly in the middle of the spindle hole in the trammel base; (ii) in judging that the vertical pointer is exactly over the centre of the arm pivot; (iii) in reading off the measurement from the scale on the trammel.
Despite these possible sources of inaccuracy, this method has given me by far the best alignment so far.
Sorry for boring everyone with this detailed description, but my question is: can the Uni-Protractor - maybe via some sort of add-on - provide a way of eliminating the approximation inherent in the above system?
This is a genuine question, not a covert plug for anybody else's protractor.
Best regards, and congratulations on what you have created.
Peter

Dear Thom_mackris, you've hit the nail's head. Although it was Syntax' who deserves the credits for the phrase you quoted.
I think we all too often lightly and needless give away quality of performance right here at the very start and without realizing. This is the "very core point" I wanted to address with the UNI-Pro. Enabling everybody to very precise alignment with ease and universality.
Cheers,
D.

Pgtaylor, Dertonearm …

It goes without saying that we're venturing into the fine " ether" of tonearm setup. With respect to SME's and the upper end Schroeder tonearms, the effective length changes require a bit of trigonometry, or a CAD program to determine, and producing a protractor dedicated to a particular cartridge needs to take this into account.

Follow me …

1. The effective length is the STRAIGHT LINE distance from the stylus tip to the tonearm bearing.
2. The cartridge is offset, per Baerwald/Loefgren/Stevenson geometry

So, merely adding the effective length difference will not give you the correct results (close, but no cigar). A cartridge whose stylus is 1mm further forward than a statistically "normal" cartridge increases the effective length by less than 1mm.

I just modeled a Tri-Planar on my CAD tool. I chose this arm because I had the numbers handy: effective length = 250mm, offset angle = 21.949 for Baerwaald. I assumed a 40mm long headhell (the offset component) for this exercise.

A cartridge with a stylus positioned 1mm forward of the statistical norm increases the effective length by.9275mm, for a net effective length of 250.9275mm. Simple addition would predict 251mm, or a variance of .0725mm (.0028"),

.0028" is within the threshold of audibility for a high performance analog rig, which is why everyone on this thread has justifiably been whipped into a frenzy over a better tool.

The takeaway from this is that any protractor generated for arms like the SME V, and the upper end Schroeders, needs to take the effective length, the length of the ofset section of the arm wand, and the proposed geometry into consideration.

I posted the drawing to the following URL for anyone who's interested: http://www.galibierdesign.com/images/forum/Eff_length_Model.pdf.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Tom Mackris.
Of course you are right when you say that the extra stylus tip-mounting holes distance cannot simply added to the manufacturer's stated effective length for the tonearm. In fact I was aware of that. What I was trying to illustrate was a way to measure the actual effective length (rather than calculating it) by effectively drawing a line (but in fact using the Feickert trammel to simulate it) from the stylus point to the arm pivot 'as the crow flies' (and then measuring it). Surely this (leaving aside for the moment any practical difficulties in achieving it) would give the correct measurement (?).
regards.

Dear Thuchan: I like almost all use audio after market items, I own no least than 9 different protractors but you know why?: because my ignorance level over time.
Fortunately that level improve over the years.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Pgtaylor, the SME V's alignment is indeed a very special problem. The Schroeder is different and offers the user a wider range of options.
But back to the SME V, which was when introduced anticipated like no other tonearm ever before or ever after.
The SME V is unique in the sense that it's offset and effective length (at least it’s designers thought so and intended it to be that way...) are fixed and pre-determined. Problem is, that SME Ltd. took for granted that each and every cartridge manufacturer would strictly follow IEC standards regarding stylus-mounting slots distance. Which of course they did not.
Now there is the legendary SME slide base to allow sliding the whole tonearm back and forth. That way the arm kind of "moves to the wanted alignment spot".
In theory....
The fact that the fixed offset angle of the fixed headshell isn't really a feature which eases things in any way did not really appeal to the SME engineers in their strive for setting the technical frontier in tonearm design.
Now can one align the SME V precisely with ANY cartridge mounted ?
Yes.
As long as the protractor reacts to a change in P2S as well as to a change in effective length automatically.
The UNI-Pro individual templates do offer for a given tonearm (and there is a individual UNI-Pro template for the SME V of course) an optimized spot of alignment - the corresponding effective length and ( in the case of the SME V ) the P2S are direct results of the alignment and are automatically generated.
Without any calculation required by the user.
In the case of the SME V (which really is a very special issue) there is however way less options for variations in alignment/calculation curves.
The SME V is a super strict 9"/Baerwald IEC-standard tonearm.
You can't really align him a Loefgren or Stevenson curve with good results.
I hope this answers your question, but you are welcome to get in touch directly in case you have further questions regarding your SME V.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thom_mackris, indeed, this is rather the fine print in tonearm alignment is may already be well beyond what a good portion of the analog department want to muse or think about.
I just wanted an instrument which provides the best possible universal alignment results with super simple handling and comfortable feeling.
I will continue to design a few devices which will nicely work with and are based upon the UNI-Pro.
A super precise and truly new P2S-measuring tool will be introduced end this month. This will come together with an easy goniometer to determine offset-angle fast, easy and precise.
I am considering this rather an add-on of interest only for a few dedicated audiophiles who really want to study the subject.
Furthermore - also end this month - there will be a special USB-microscope w/strong cold light to be used with the UNI-Pro and which can be exchanged with the magnifier and uses the same cut-out frame on the UNI-Pro's main frame as the magnifier.
This will allow magnification 20x to 200x (similar to the Dino-lite) and will come with all features, adjustable and with software for Linux, Windows and Mac.
Plug and play within 10 minutes.
Allows view of the stylus on the spot on your screen with actual measuring tool and photo option.
This will allow the most enlarged and "recordable" look and will further ease as precise alignment as possible ever to the ones among us who are a bit troubled by eyesight showing our advanced age...;-) ....
Cheers,
D.

I understand what you were trying to accomplish, Pgtaylor. This was an illustrative example for those who haven't worked through the math.

BTW, do you really think that the Feickert has the precision to measure to .003"? If you can do this with that tool, you're a better man than I am.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier (the "h" is silent)

"In the case of the SME V (which really is a very special issue) there is however way less options for variations in alignment/calculation curves.
The SME V is a super strict 9"/Baerwald IEC-standard tonearm. "

Is all of this about the V also true of the 309 even though it is a removable headshell?

Anybody know where there is a good comparison of the V vs the IV vs the 309? I am not clear on the differences (other than the 309's removable headshell and the V has dynamic VTF?) and nothing I see on the SME site spells out the differences/advantages of the more expensive versions.

Thanks for any enlightenment you folks can give,
Robert

Thanks a lot, Dertonarm & Thom Mackris
It seems to me that what one really needs to align the SME V is: (i) some device for measuring the actual effective length once you have mounted the cartridge of your choice (this device needs to be very accurate), (ii) some device to allow you to set exactly the right P2S distance (again, this needs to be very accurate), and (iii) a grid that allows you to check cantilever alignment at one of the Baerwald-IEC null points.
If you have all these, then results should be perfect!!!
Best wishes,

Dear Geoch,

back to the roots:

Here you see a record with a last track
cut absolutely to the limit

here is a very modern LP with much more space & a lot of tracks
different cut, different cutting machines

You see, an Alignment with a Nullpoint which is at the beginning of the record and another one in the middle can't be the best one for the first record....
and here is also the reason for different Geometries in Arm Design.

Listen with ...

If I can recall, it is about abec7 Vs abec5 bearings.

Syntax,
I presume you prefer yours stirred and not shaken. Great photos as always.

Robob,
Perhaps you should start a specific thread about the different SME arms or do a search in the archives. There is lots of information regarding these arms. You could also email Sumiko, the US importer.

Dear Robob, I haven't worked with the SME 309 yet, but his headshell features single mounting holes and hardly any option to alter overhang and/or offset. As such it shares the very same "camp" with it's big brother the "V".
The SME V does feature - as Geoch pointed out - better ball bearings and is a dynamically balanced design ( which - at least IMHO - is an important feature in a pivot tonearm trying to set the state of the art ).
The SME V is - among it's brothers and offsprings - still the best tonearm. Due to superior attention to detail and better parts incorporated.
The other SME tonearms are "trickling-down-products" from the SME V.
Cheers,
D.

At last! For first time ever someone has noticed that a dynamicaly balanced pivoted tonearm is better.
I'm wondering do you feel that it is also neccessary (if it might be possible to integrate in) for the cardanic arms (Pluto 9A, Reed, Davinci, etc)?

The bearings are now the same (i.e. ABEC7) on all the Series V-derived models (= Series IV, 309 etc)and have been for a couple of years now.
You can hear this direct 'from the horse' mouth' if you look at a series of videos about SME on Youtube.Here is the URL of the first of the four (all relatively short):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8tbyVRsrKM
Best regards,

Dear Syntax,
Thank you for your nice photos.
It is clear that for ALL of my records, (your first photo) the prefered TONEARM'S ALIGNMENT is the Loefgren B.
The problem that I'm still have, is that I can't indentify those particular points on the TONEARM'S GEOMETRY, that dictates to a specialised/individual/unique alignment !
Not to be confused with the alignments of the B,L,S, IEC or DIN, (that depended by the way the LPs were printed on vinyl).
I'm really sorry that I'm posting about this again, but I've just figured a possible misunderstanding might occur about my quest.
What I mean is : When you look a tonearm, how can you see those points that require a modification in it's geometry ?
Is that all about setting new null points ?
I don't expect an answer, I'm posting this just to clarify.
Thanks again.

Dear Geoch, I do not want to step on any toes here, but in general, a "cardanic" = gimbal bearing does in no way hinder a design approach to give a tonearm dynamic balanced mode.
It is VERY difficult however to apply dynamic balanced mode to a uni-pivot tonearm (it is possible however..).
It is just, that there are "camps" in audiophile analog community and at least a few of them do not really "favor" dynamic balanced mode.
Why this is so, is beyond my limited horizon.
Interesting to note however, that many of those great japanese tonearm designs which have stood the test of time - Micro Seiki MA-505 and MAX, Pioneer/Exclusive EA-10/Pa3, Fidelity Research FR-64s and 66s - do feature dynamically balanced mode.
From the point of view of mere physics and technical engineering, dynamic balanced mode has a few good advantages vs static balanced mode - at least regarding guiding a cartridge with compliance through the groove of a record which is by nature NOT flat in a technical sense.
Cheers,
D.

Dear all, the last post by Syntax with the two photos showing the different cutting area ( and those weren't yet the absolute extremes of either school - have a look at some of the DMM cuttings from the 1980ies !! ) shouldn't be overlooked, as these pictures nicely illustrate a core problem of tonearm alignment.
The reason behind many "sibilance" and "distortion" problems and one of the reasons why longer tonearms in general are superior over a wider band of records.
Cheers,
D.

" dynamic balanced mode has a few good advantages vs static balanced mode - regarding guiding a cartridge with compliance through the groove of a record which is by nature NOT flat."
Excellent!
But what if this feature is the most critical ?
And what if we accept that probably the bearing friction on tonearms with ball bearings is considerably more than knife-edges, cardanics & unipivots, and this advanced feature can not incorporated in them or in a air bearing tonearm...
Does this pointing us the way of designing better tonearms?
Can we include this feature in a more sophisticated bearing ?

Dear Geoch, be careful not to fall into a "trap" here: Löfgren B IEC is NOT a priori better for those records cut close to the inner label!
In fact Baerwald IEC does sport way lower distortions towards the inner groove compared with Löfgren B IEC.
Löfgren B is way better in the middle 3rd of the grooved area, but has it's highest distortion figures towards the cutting limit.
A very dangerous error if one thinks that Löfgren B is better for wide cut records - it certainly is not!
Löfgren B is all about lowering the average distortion figure - but it does so at the expense of the inner grooves.
If you want the lowest distortions possible in or towards the inner groove - which is wise BTW .... especially if you listen to symphonic music and have a large collection of records from the 1950ies and 1960ies - you should have a good look at Stevenson, as it puts the focus exactly on that: lowest distortions and zero error point at cutting limit.
This again is just a general guideline - not meant as a generalization.
Cheers,
D.