Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Daniel, it is my fault not to be clear about this. My LPs are all from '70s and I don't have but a few classical symphonic music so, I prefer the Loefgren B IEC, all the time.

Dear Geoch, it is an important feature, but it is only one important feature among a good half dozen others.
Knife-edge bearings do have a good bundle of problems too.
Some of them are quite severe and do limit the performance of a knife-edge tonearm - that's why I personally abandoned the knife-edge bearing pretty early in the development of my design.
Low friction isn't everything (in fact - it is negligible in all better tonearm bearings today).
You should address this topic in a separate thread and I can assure you that you will get many posts and comments by some of the more active A'goners as well as by some tonearm designers.
Please do start that thread.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Daniel,
Interesting comments on arms with knife-edge bearings?
The SAEC arms with double knife-edge bearings enjoy quite an enviable reputation amongst the 'vintage' fraternity with Thuchan even ranking the 12" versions competitive with the FR series tonearms?

I wonder if you might expand on the weaknesses you find in this solution.......especially since I have a new addition to my arm collection arriving shortly.......namely an SAEC WE-308?
Cheers
Henry

Dear Raul,
understand very well. maybe we all have spent a little too much in too many different solutions regarding finding the exact geometry for our tonearms. I became happy with the Dennessen but did also see the limits for other installations when getting to know that some data inputs from some manufacturers for their own arms were not the right ones for special cartridges we are using. Therefore the situation for someone who deals with more than one tonearm/cart was calling for a universal approach. I have big hopes that the Uni-Pro is a good answer for those multi-users but I also wait with an assessment until I have made my own experiences with the sets ordered.

Dear Henry, knife-edge bearing tonearms do not like cartridges which do transfer a lot of energy into the armwand. Thus SAEC tonearms - despite the fact that some do sport a pretty high moving mass - in general do fare better with cartridge featuring high compliance.
So expect your WE-308 to perform pretty well with most of your MMs, but not with a FR-7.
As I still do favor LOMC and some with really low compliance, the not optimal energy handling abilities of the knife-edge bearings were abandoned in an early design stage.
To achieved my goals I needed very hard and rigid bearings and an armwand which can transfer energy ASAP without torsion or inner resonance.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Daniel,
Interesting?
How about unipivots?
Do they like low compliance cartridges in your opinion?
Cheers
Henry

Dear Henry,
there is - IMHO ... ;-) ... - a direct correlation between low compliance and the amount of energy transferred into the tonearm. Certain bearing principles can handle that energy better - others fare less well.
This is kind of a sensible topic - I am a bit reluctant to discuss toneram bearing principles in public, as I do not want to step on any toes.
If o.k. with you, I will address your question in detail tomorrow in a PM direct to you.
Cheers,
D.

"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."

Peterayer,

I am aware of all that. I have been participating in online forums since the early 80's when we had to dial in on 300 baud modems. I thought this illustrious group could help me avoid sorting through much irrelevant material. If you are an admin here perhaps you can give me Audiogon search tips. Even Google gives lots of trash. Although their recent changes have helped.

Robert

"I haven't worked with the SME 309 yet"

Dertonarm,

Thanks for your comments. Come to Houston and you can re-setup mine when it gets here.

Y'all be cool,
Robert

Dear Thuchan and friends: +++++ " we all have spent a little too much in too many different solutions regarding finding the exact geometry for our tonearms............. for someone who deals with more than one tonearm/cart was calling for a universal approach " +++++


yes, a lot of time. IMHO from the point of view of tonearm/cartridge set up geometry there is no exact ( specific. ) geometry for a pivoted tonearm with slots on the headshell, let me explain it:

the only known " solution " to cartridge/tonearm geometry set up are the Löfgren equations ( 1938 ), all the other " solutions " are clones from Löfgreen ones ( Baerwald ( 1941 ) Stevenson ( 1966 ) and the like. ).

The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in error between these points.

The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking error of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method.

Both solutions are Universal ones and can be use it with any pivoted tonearm with slots in the headshell it does not matters the tonearm geometry design. If the tonearm is J or S shaped or what you " imagine " is not important for the set up.

This two Löfgren solutions/equations calculate ( in any set up ) the next set up parameters: overhang, offset angle, null points, linear offset and mounting distance.
These calculated parameters comes from the equations that have three known and only three parameters: tonearm effective length, most inner groove distance and most outer groove distance, there is no other single parameter need it or taked in count for the overall calculations: so the geometry tonearm design does not matters for this calculations, the only tonearm design factor important is that be a pivoted one.
Of course that you can make changes on this starting calculations parameters, this is that we can change the tonearm effective length for a different calculated set parameters or we can change the most inner groove distance tooo if we like it. Every time we made one of these changes we are changing too the traking error and tracking distortion values for that set up.

As you can see does not exist: that this or that kind of calculations is better for this or that tonearm, you are free to use it as you want: Löfgren A or B, there are no more, as I told you all the other " solutions " are mathematically identical to the Löfgren ones but only with different notation and arrangement.

It is ironic that for many of us Baerwald is more " familiar " name than Löfgren when was LÖfgren the creator of those two and only solutions.
The Baerwald solution is identical to Löfgren A as is the Stevenson B.

But like in many disciplines in the past and today exist the " false profets " that only create confusion/mix up but really does not add something new in favor of that discipline.

In numbers which are the differences between Löfgren A and B?, well the offset angle in both solutions are the same what is different is the overhang and by consecuence the mounting distance.

But do you know how much varies that overhang value?, around 0.4mm ( longer for Löfgren B solution. ) depending on the tonearm effective length.

Now, do you know how change the %distortion between Löfgren A and B?, well: máximum distortion between null points the difference is around 0.17% and the average ( over all the LP ) is 0.04%!!!!!

Do you think you or any one can detect those so low distortions differences?, certainly not. We need at least 1% of distortion to start to detect and no all the persons are so sensitive, there are persons that can't detect distortions on the 5% values and of course that depend which kind of distortion we are talking about but in general what we are talking on tonearm/cartridge set up we just can't.

I told you I own at least 9 protractors and any one of them is a Universal protractor but my ignorance in the past years made to ignore that fact ( universal ) and due to my ignorance level I followed to those " false profets " that taked advantage of my ignorance level and start to bought any single protractor out there.

Of course that there exist different protractor accuracy level that are important on quality performance but if the protractor accuracy is important there are other set up parameters that are important and critical, maybe more that the accuracy on protractors. At least two of those critical set up parameters are VTA/SRA and Azymuth and almost the 100% of the problems that many persons have with inner groove distortions and Shshshss on the voices recorded.

Let me tell you about: I never been very " anal " on the overhang/offset angle set up ( right now I'm using a 20.00 protractor with great success. ) but I take care a little more in deep on the SRA/Azymuth set up and you know what?, I never had/have inner groove distortion problems or exaggerated shshss on voices.

Thuchan, with that 20.00 protractor I just listened the 1812 Overture on Telarc where the most demanding score range ( cannons's shots. ) is at the inner grooves and the quality performance I heard was not only CLEAN but a great one!!!!, yes for me SRA/Azymuth are critical as is the own cartridge abilities to track along the tonearm it self.

I'm not saying that overhang/offset andgle/PTS distance are not important of course are important but there are a lot of things that define if we could have inner groove distortions or not.

Over the time I visited several Agoners places/homes like: F. Crowder, A. Porter, D. Deacon, S. Doobins, etc, etc , let me to tell you that in no one of this systems I heard inner groove distortions or exaggerate SHshshss on voices recorded and in no one of these places I see an " anal " attitude on protractors set up even in S.Doobins place he changed a cartridge using a protractor and taked 2-3 minutes to doing and even that that cartridge set up was not fine tunned everything performs first rate.
What I seen at those Agoner's places was a more in deep care for SRA/Azymuth/VTF set up even at " anal " level like in Doug's place.

Thank's God I learned ( actually, still learn every single day. )on the whole subject and in other audio subjects that permit that today I don't follow any more to those " false profets " or false myths created inside the AHEE because our ignorance level. Best medicine for this?: questioning always questioning ( what if that's not true or what if that white is not white? ) and testing, why? how? who? where? or just " please show me " prove me it's true.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Dertonarm: I run my Ikeda cartridge with the 506/30 with very good quality performance level and as you know the Ikeda cartridges are one of the lowest compliance cartridges out there.

Agree, the SAECs runs very well with MM/MI cartridges too.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Thuchan: Almost all what you read in my latest post was writed for other people on the net and I only bring here with my " touch ".

Thuchan, the " black thread " was discovered many years ago.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Dear Raul

I use a $2 Ortofon tractor with my AS-309 and I get zero inner groove tracking issues.

I also now use the free Graham alignment jig instead of the Mint LP version. I get better sound from the so-called imprecise Graham jig. Did I waste my $$ on the MintLP - not really - part of the hifi hobby I am afraid.

You seem to be inferring that Dert is a "false prophet" in bringing out yet another "Universal" alignment tool. I guess you are adding Yip from MintLP and well as Feikert?.
You also infer that anyone spending $$ on these type of devices are "ignorant"

Some may say I followed a "false prophet" in wasting some of my $$ on some MM cartridges.

Guess what, this is all part of out enjoyment of this hobby and we all live and learn.

I would say everyone who has spent there hard earned $695 on Dert's alignment tool has gone in with their eyes open and probably a deal of skepticism.

Frankly Dert has left his credibility wide open if the tool is not as good or better as what is out there now - but good on him for putting his $$ where his mouth is.

I for one will quite openly tell how this tool works in my system - good bad or indifferent.

So Raul, how about you be a gentlemen and play nice for a change and wait for some of the folks who have paid real $$ before you call folks "false prophets"

have a nice musical day

Dear Downunder: You said it not me.

I'm not talking about DT protractor but about what Thuchan posted so please read that post.

With all respect to those gentlemans: How do you name persons that cloned the Löfgren equations and present/introduce a " new " solutions as his solutions ?, false prophet is to much to you? ok change the name but things does not change. I think that " false prophet " is very elegant for that people.
Downunder, try to clone dollars or Yens and I can tell you that you could end on jail.

If you think you waist your money with MM/MI cartridges then you do it by ignorance and as you said: is part of our day by day hobby and like me you learned in that MM/MI subject in the same manner that I learned on the protractors subject after paid for my ignorance.

I bought and spended thousands of big dollars in " tons " of LOMC cartridges thank's to my ignorance and thank's to all those " false prophets " that supported this LOMC subject.

Which name do you like for this kind of people?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Raul,
Löfgren has not "detected" anything. Neither did Baerwald nor Stevenson nor any of the other persons which did calculations regarding the tracking arc and where to set the 2 tangential zero error points. You are missing one of a few vital pints here.
This is simply applied mathematic - geometry to be precise.
The last facts in known geometry of relevance to our small world which were "detected", were so many many centuries ago.

It is not just about average, peak weighted and/or maximum distortion and comparing those figures.
We have that way to evaluate things in all kinds of statistic everyday life and they are widely used to generalize issues by politicians worldwide with known intent and effect.
Is there a better tangential calculation with better distortion figures for a FR-64s possible - better than Baerwald ( Löfgren A), Löfgren (B) or Stevenson ?
Yes - of course.
Same for a good dozen great tonearms out there.
Why so ?
This is kind of generalizing arithmetical average vs detailed INDIVIDUAL calculation focused on an individual topic.
And maybe taking a few tiny issues into account which shouldn't be neglected.
Funny thing here is, that for the last month it seemed not to trouble you too much that I have designed the UNI-Protractor.
But now you seemed to change your mind and fall back to - very .. - old positions and habits of yours.
"False Prophets" who supported that LOMC-subject and forced a poor man to spent thousands of big dollars for those cartridges.
O.k. - message received.....
I believe that we all soon will see the decline of LOMCs into the mist of history - at least that's the prophecy.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Raul,
you can run your Ikeda in the 506/30 and I am happy to hear that you are satisfied with the performance, but - IMHO ... - the 506/30 is not exploring the performance limits of the Ikeda.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertonarm: Last time Agon deleted a thread with this same " discussion " subject ( as a fact the last one was the second time that happened for the same. ), I have 6-7 posts on those deleted threads and in one of them you give the " new " Fr set up parameters and result that distortions levels all over the LP were higher that any other approach/solution knowed.

So, till you don't show those lower distortions and better tonearm set up and only talk about telling us that there are something better IMHO is not enough. I repeat on that thread you try to prove it with out success but with a totally failure.

You ask why I return on this subject and the answer is because you insist on " nothing " and not only me but other people want to know where is that " true ". I'm not the only person that ask you about with no answer, Goech made it too in this thread as other made it on those threads I mentioned. Like all I would like to learn on that issue. If you don't want to talk about or you in reality have nothing then why bring it ones and again that ghost subject.
The people here in Méxiso say: " of tongue I eat 10Kgs. ".

On the Ikeda subject was many months ago when I posted on the quality performance of the SAEC/Ikeda combination. At the end the best cartridge performance was attained with the Mission The Mechanic tonearm.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I don't know enough about alignment geometry to understand or even question which geometry is best for my particular arm/LP type. I will follow the recommendations of those who know more than I do and listen to the results.

For me, the two aspects of Dertonarm's Uni-Pro which are the most exciting are the extreme precision with which the instrument is designed and then manufactured and the apparent ease with which the user can see these tiny parameters.

My MintLP gave me much better results than my supplied SME cardboard protractor, but it is difficult to use and certainly not universal. If I change my arm or cartridge, I will need to order another one.

I don't want to cut into potential sales of the Uni-Pro, but it seems to me that this would be an excellent tool to share among two or three audiophiles who live near each other. I've considered a similar arrangement with something like the expensive Furutech Demag unit or even a strobe speed check disk. I find that I'm sharing/collaborating with a couple of fun audio buddies more and more these days. We all learn in the process and perhaps save a bit of money to buy more LPs.

Dert

IMO Raul's green eyed monster and old habits returned just after you indicated your tonearm will go into production June 2011 :>)

I am looking forward to see if you have designed a better mousetrap.

cheers

IMO Raul's green eyed monster and old habits returned just after you indicated your tonearm will go into production June 2011 :>)

I am waiting for Raul's breakthrough in Tonearm Design. For 3 years now...
But it should be crosschecked with a good Phonostage, a design which can handle the 0.2mV without distortions.

Well if Raul's tonearm works out as well as the phonolinepreamp, we can call it Edsel.

I think I understand passion.I am from the Balkans were people never try to avoid any war whatever. Thy are also
willing to participate in any as well start new one without
specific reasons. Ie pure passion. The western 'cowards' in
contradistinction need always some 'very strong reasons' for such an undertaking and have usualy no better then 'economic reasons'. I am not familiar with the Mexican hystory but from Zapata ,etc. one may quess at least some symilarity. There were times when fighting was a
way of life. If I am well informed Dertonarms direct predecessors were European champions.

Regards,

Addendum. My point was why intervene? This way we already
missed the answer about the status of the FR-64S. Is this
arm the real King or the false one. I have the strong impression that Raul keept his strongest arguments for later. But alas. I myself hoped for some result like:'the
King is dead... long live the Triplanar'. So to me it looks
like a much better scenario to organize a duel in which both partys will use their own tonearms instead of swords so we can after the event discuss about the qualitys like:
stiffness, effective lenght, effective mass (sic!),etc.

Regards,

OK, so what are we talking here? Curves and distortion figures? If so, then just sell your turntable and go back to your 80's Japanese Pioneer amplifiers with vanishing levels of distortion and to your "perfect sound forever CD player". You will not have to worry about all these that would complicate your life and spend more valuable time time listening and enjoying to your music.

Tonearm and cartridge setup is a lot more than a good protractor. The variables are almost infinite. Vinyl playback is also very flawed. Most records not pressed properly to begin with. Spindle holes not centered (so where is the arc?)and few are perfectly flat (VTA anyone). Many records are warped some way or other.

Dertonarm here IMO is making a very good tool here for those who can afford. It will save you a lot of time and aggrevation trying to get things right. There are also different templates so you can try different curves. If you can afford it, by all means order one for yourself and save your precious time trying to find the perfect alignment on a little "mint" or "wally" and use that time enjoying the music. BTW, I got one myself.

All we are arguing here are merely numbers and nothing more.

So guys, relax..... and like Raul always says "enjoy the music"

Well if Raul's tonearm works out as well as the phonolinepreamp, we can call it Edsel

Probably it needs some extra steps

Enjoy the music

Dear friends: I know for sure that many of us does not understand in deep the geometry cartridge/tonearm set up with both Löfgren solutions/equations and this fact is normal even some tonearm designers did not either, I know this because I asked with no certain responses.

The Löfgren equations, as I posted , are the only ones that exist that as a main targets are to calculate overhang and offset angle due to three input numbers ( tonearm effective length, most inner and outer groove distance. ), the calculation needs no other single input number and this fact is similar for the other clones/Copy solutions ( Baerwald, Stevenson, etc, etc. ).

We don't need any other geometry parameter to make a tonearm/cartridge set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle are all we need. Even we don't have to care on the null points.
The null points are calculated and used for other things than stylus-cantilever/tonearm geometry set up.

The Stevenson A cloned/solution ( adopted by several Japanese tonearm manufacturers. IMHO with out in deep analysis. ) is not something with " new " equations, Stevenson only wanted that at the inner groove the tracking error be cero so he taked one of the three input numbers ( in the Löfgren formulas. ): most inner grove distance as one null point and that's all.
This " solution " gives you almost cero tracking error/distortion in the last 30 seconds of a LP with a higher distortions on all the remaining LP surface than in any other " solution ".

Any one of us can change ( in the Löfgren equations. ) this same input number and Voilá! we have a " new " Perry/Jones/Lopez/etc solution!!!.

Till today, IMHO, no geometry set up solution beats the Löfgren ones.

The Löfgren solution passed ( and is. ) trhough a Optimization process ( minimax principle. ) to achieve the criterions that I posted in my Thuchan answer.

Today there is no known equations or process that outperform the Löfgren optimization formulas to calculate: overhang and offset angle in a pivoted tonearm in static playback conditions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Genesis168: That's why any decent protractor helps for the set up, that's why the 20.00 one that I'm using right now and the 2.00 that use Downunder works wonderful.
We need only that the choosed protractor be " aligned " by/under Löfgren approach, if fulfil this approach then that single protractor is all we need to make the set up in any pivoted tonearm and with any cartridge.

Downunder: got it?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Nandric, any tonearms performance is always in the ear of the subjective beholder. Furthermore it is dependent on a lot of periphery components which do have effects and (hopefully) synergies. An objective judgement in audio is impossible.
What is possible however is a geometrical alignment which strives for perfection. It is a matter of technical gear and precision.
As not all tonearms feature the very same design, nor do all 12" records feature the same grooved area, we have some tonearms which do gain in their performance (here: level of distortion and locations of peaks) from certain alignments which do take into account their individual parameters.
Furthermore - and often missed - when Löfgren and Baerwald made their calculations and did "choose" the arcs they did, it was many years before Robert Fine packed tremendous dynamics into the last 1/2" before the paper label of a Mercury SR-90313 or DECCA decided that the entire Daphnis & Chloe can be cut on 1 single 12" record.
Track a SR-90313 with a FR-64s aligned to Löfgren B and it will match the worst experiences you ever had at the dentist.

Precise alignment is the one - single - topic in analog audio, which is objective. It is simple geometry.
Apply it with a minimum of care and precision and it will give any cartridge and any tonearm the basic chance to shows it's best.
Honestly - there is no problem at all here.
The only one maybe that I do not like to generalize - and I know why and have found good reason.
If Löfgren (A or B ) or Baerwald suits best on all tonearms and records for some audiophiles - fine with me.
But thanks to secularisation, neither I nor anyone else has to follow Galileo's path of pain and revocation against better knowledge.
Cheers,
D.

Raul, I don't think lofgren is the solution to all tonearm alignment. That's why other geometries exist. Dertonarm is giving us other options. If you are happy with lofgren them fine by me. If you are happy with the $20 protractor and mm cartridges fine but for those who choose to buy this tool, fine with me why argue and step all over something Were all different and we have a choice. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. You preach distortion so why not use a Japanese pioneer?

Nothing agianst the Dertonarm protractor it's looks like a wonderful tool but think I would probably wait and spend my money on this or down the road get both and don't look back.

http://www.sound-smith.com/cartright/index.html

Brad

Dertonarm, how did I miss this thread.

I guess I was doing more listening than reading.

It took me a bit to go threw reading all posts but I will say thanks for taking the time and designing such a tool, if it truely works the way you mention well what can anyone say but hats off to you and thanks.

Time will tell for sure.

I sure would like to get one to try and compare.

My current arms;

REED 2A 12 inch
TW 10.5

Dear Genesis168: IMHO maybe you don't understand very well the overall subject and what I posted in this thread about.

The main subject is not " if you don't think lofgren is the solution to all tonearm alignment " or what I think or what any other person/people think the fact is that those two Löfgren ( A/B ) solutions are the ones that exist and all the other " solutions ", including the solution you prefer ( it does not matters which one ), are only a copy/clon of those Löfgren equations.

In my last post before the one I sended to you I explain the Stevenson approach as an example on how we can manipulate/change the input data to achieve a different set up parameters but even in those cases the solution is still Löfgren, A or B but Löfgren.

Why is so complicated for you can understand something so simple?: there are no other solutions than Löfgren, what there are are different input data for the set up calculations.

Genesis168, examples: you go to a movie theatre named " Six Flags " to watch Avatar movie and next week you return to the same movie theatre to watch Black Swan, do you think that the name on that movie theatre ( everything the same ) changed or still named " Six Flags " ?, of course has the same name but different input.
You own a Honda Accord that comes with Bridgestone tires and today you decide to change those tires for Michelin: can this car tires change the model of your Honda from Accord to City/Civic?, no you still own a Honda Accord.

The same happen with Löfgren two solutions and like it or not like it to me or not like it to DT or not today we have to stay inside Löfgren A or Löfgren B solutions, that's all. There are no other solutions that gives you overall lower distortions.

As I posted: DT tryed in the past to prove exist a better solution for FR tonearms and when he posted the " new " set up parameters ( that he gives ) only showed higher distortions. What he is talking about again and again he never proved because he can't, what he made is only change the yesterday Avatar picture for today Black Swan one and that's all.

Any changes from Löfgren IEC/DIN only gives you overall higher distortions: it does not matter what you DT or I have to say about and this is with any pivoted tonearm and any stand alone cartridge. As DT said is simple geometry.

Genesis and DT: I'm not against the DT protractor or other protractors I'm only trying to help for what take me a lot of research and time to understand and learned it ( I'M a little " slow ". ) and that this proccess be more easy to any one of you in favor to improve your knowledge level on the subject.

+++++ " Were all different and we have a choice. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. " +++++

agree/yes, Löfgren A or Löfgren B are today our only choices. Easy, if you don't beleive this then ask DT that show you the " new " equations ( not input data. ) different from Löfgren ones that outperform it. If he shows that then we could have a third choice and certainly all of us shall win in favor of music sound reproduction at home!

DT, could you? at the end is you who proclam about. I'm sure that everyone would like to see Avatar in 4-D new pictures technology.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Raul, yeah, perfect example you quoted. Yes, I can drive a Honda accord and change the tires from Bridgestone to Michelin. Yes the same car but ride differently. Can you get this? Yes, same car...honda accord but drives differently. Chenge some tires and get back to us if you feel the same ride comfort, handling etc. Changing curves it just like that.

Since you're so into distortion, get a pioneer. 0.00000001%thd. It means nothing. Yes, Lofgren might be the first according to you and the rest are clones? Yes, you're right. So Ford made the first car. So are all other cars are clones? Maybe. So does that mean everyone has to buy ford and not others? Comes back to my explaination. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. It's all different ideas nothing more than that.

Remember, in life, nothing is 100% except for death and your taxes.

Raul, according to you, everything else is a clone of the Lofgren. Fine. What if the clone "somehow" sounds better than the original? Like a Ferrari go faster than the Ford? But a Honda Accord will NOT drive like or become a BMW even you put Michelins on it. It will certainly drive better than those crappy Bridgestone or Firestone tires.

Dear Genesis168: +++++ " Yes, Lofgren might be the first according to you " ++++

no it is not according to me it is just that was that way.

+++++ " What if the clone "somehow" sounds better than the original? " +++++

I'm talking on lower distortions with the original, which sounds better is a subjective issue. As DT states this whole subject is one of the few where you can find objetivity: this is mathematics and you can change that. That a Ferrari runs faster than other car is no example for compare the tonearm/cartridge set up geometry.

I repeat again, in the Löfgren and clones solutions/equations you need three and only three input data for the calculations: tonearm effective length, most outer groove distance and most inner groove distance and is according these three numbers ( that you can choose as you want it. and for any reason you have. ) that you calculate the overhang and offset angle. For each one three input data set exist one and only one overhang and offset numbers.
Each time you change any of those three input data you change the overhang and offset calculations.

Well, all those calculations were made through Löfgren A or B equations/solutions. Today there is no other way, I mean no one take it the research time to create a new method or other equations level different from Löfgren.

What do you don't understand on this that's what I was posted one and again?, please show me where are my faults because if I'm wrong ( that could be, why not. ) I want to know it and appreciate your help or any other person help including DT help.
I'm here to share my experiences and know-how level and to learn from all and each one of you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Genesis168,
I am currently using an early 80s Pioneer turntable with early 80s Pioneer electronics (amps, pre with phono stage and headamp). They provide superlative reproduction of music. They have vanishingly low levels of distortion, and the headamp and amps are probably the quietest examples I have ever heard. And they are black too (except for the TT).

Lots of manufacturers had cheap stuff which doesn't sound great. That included mfrs from all over - not just from Japan. Some also had stuff which competes with the best out there today (and on an inflation-adjusted basis had prices to match the best of today (inflation-adjusted MSRP of the headamp would be in the range of $8-10k)).

Dear Dev, thank you. The 2nd production run of the uNI-Protractor starts in April 2011 and we are already taking reservations, as the 2nd production run is limited edition too. You may request individual UNI-templates for your Reed 12" as well as for the TW 10.5 (in fact, both templates are available, as they were already requested from some customers). If you have any specific questions regarding the UNI-Protractors function or would like to have a look into its manual, please send me a PM and I will be happy to send you further info.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertonarm, The most 'variations' relate to the lead
out groove; the distance to the spindle hole. So no need
to worry about the outer groove. The math. is,alas, not my
best subject but it seems to me that depending on the mentioned distance 'many' O points should be possible. From Raul's arguments however I can deduce just 2 possible O points in relation to the 'inside part' of the record:
L. A or L. B. The simplicity of a theory is of course an
virtue but Einstein had some criptic comment about that:
'but not simpler'. Ie. one seldom see any distance mentioned except the most probable(average or?).
I own records with the distance of 10-4,5cm.to the 'hole'.
I got this result by inspeting just 10 records.So I claim
no 'scientific reaserch' but assume that others my own even
more 'extended' distances.
Some'light' for this 'dark part' would be very appreciated.
Regards,

There are many truly fantastic stuff from Japan. I do own some too. What I was referring was their cheap mass market stuff with that rated 0.00000??THD as an example

Complexity is always a challenge in this world. If you decide to live in a more simple world (not a bad meaning at all) you better go for a one tonearm/one cart soltion. There is no need for changing the tires. Nevertheless if one wants to reach the capabilities of Genesis 168 being able driving a Honda as well as a Ford even on different tiers ( also feeling the difference) you may need a good garage or excellent tools.I learned that some of us, Raul too and me as well, are sitting in front of a complex world.

There might be two ways of dealing with complexity. Usually we try to reduce complexity heading for simple solutions. A side effect of this approach is also reducing cognitive dissonance - you start feeling better!

Another way is to develop solutions for different requirements and tackle various applications by using different methodologies. This is something - at least to my understanding - the Uni-Pro approach is aiming at in this special field.

In the end everyone becomes happy. The manufacturer of a gauge adressing requests of potential customers going for a simple solution as well as those multi-users or people wo really care about exact geometry in various application fields. This means: There is no need for a war - at least not in this thread...

Genesis168,
+++++"So Ford made the first car."++++++

Ford did NOT make the first car. All Ford did was start mass production.....

All this is very interesting. Personally, I wouldn't pay that much for a protractor. And with all do respect to DT and everyone else. It doesn't really matter how precise the instrument is. Even though the more precise the better. It still comes down to a persons ability to see where the stylus sits. And their ability to physically move it in micro increments. Then, tighten everything down and not move it while doing so. Just MHO.

DT, it does appear you have designed a very nice tool.

04rdking, not a problem if you think it is not worth that coin. Some are happy with the protractor they printed out from vinyl engine. Some spend $20. Some might prefer to spend $200. So whats the problem here? What I have a problem is that there is no absolute. Raul is preaching absolutes. That s my problem. We have choices. If everything has absolutes, we will be all listening to the same system.

Dear Genesis168, couldn't agree more with your last post - you recall the phrase by Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars III - Revenge of the Sith, just before the final duel starts ?
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" .........;-) ....
Cheers,
D.

Genesis,
I totally agree. We all have choices. I chose a $50 arc protractor designed for my Schick arm. And it gives me the choice of L, B or S geometries. With the Koetsu, it is very difficult to see the inner null point because the body is so low, and the stylus so far back from the front of the cart. As I said, whatever protractor one chooses to use, it still boils down to eyesight and steady hands.

Now, if say DT, or any other member that has one, were to offer to let me try his, would I say no? No, I wouldn't. Heck, I might even be willing to pay a small rental fee.......

Dear Genesis168: +++++ " What I have a problem is that there is no absolute. Raul is preaching absolutes. That s my problem. We have choices. " +++++

in mathematics and geometry is part of it there are no place for " subjective ", in our world: 2+2 always gives 4 and this is what I'm talking about. That you or any one want or would like that 2+2 could be 6 has no sense in the whole cartridge/tonearm set up geometry subject.

For you can understand what I posted in this thread you need to read and learn on the white papers by Graeme F. Dennes that you can find out in the net or download here:
www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854

Read it one and again till you fully understand what you read and then come back on that " absolute " subject because right now ( with all respect ) seems to me that you don't have any idea on the real subject.

For we can have a productive discussion at least we have to be in the same " channel " because if I'm talking of apples and you don't have any idea what's an apple how can we agree on nothing?.

Do it a favor, please read those Dennes white papers and I'm sure that the " ligth " will shine for you or any one that read it. As a plus you will learn that the idea DT try to " sale " here about " especial " tonearm set up due to very " especial " tonearm geometry is totally false. Please remember that you need only three known parameters to make a cartridge/tonearm set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle: nothing more.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Nandric, neither Löfgren nor any of the other (Baerwald, Bauer, Stevenson et al) did "set" the inner limit of grooved area at 57.50 mm or 60.00 mm (distance to center of spindle hole).
These were determined by the record industry and the AES and were NOT inevitable and fixed standards, but merely "suggestions". We have many examples, where the groove went even past the DIN standard.
Löfgren, Baerwald (Löfgren A), Stevenson et al tried to give a "general" calculation.
Each of them did value different aspects of the calculation different.
Each of them has had his reasons for doing so.
Löfgren's - as well as Baerwald's - first calculations (pre WW II !!!!) were many years before microgroove record was launched and several decades before a fine line or micro-ridge stylus was first introduced.

Löfgren tried to minimize distortion over as large an area of the record as possible. He did so at the expense of the last and most critical inch of the groove, where the distortion level of his calculation sky rockets.
Very very dangerous and with devastating sonic results for the last 2-4 minutes, if your records have a long groove - i.e. run close to the label.
Take one of your examples with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B DIN is here way over 2% tracking distortion - for example THREE TIMES the distortion level of Stevenson DIN at this point !
And that happens at the most critical point, as the difference between inner and outer groove angle becomes ever wider with reduced diameter creating and awkward situation for a modern stylus.
Löfgren B is only great for records which do feature a rather short grooved area - i.e. with records with long lead out groove.
So - sorry - generalization in pivot tonearm alignment isn't really smart.
Unfortunately the world isn't crowed only with DMM-pressings, but there are Impulse, old Verve, Mercury SR, RCA LSC and DECCA SXL too.
Then there are different tonearms from a SME V or SME 3009.
This is an audio world full of variations and derivations from standards.
It is part of the game.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thuchan, 'reducing the complexity' means to me not being able to deal whith it. If the result of this reduction is the reduction of 'çognitive dissonance' then
this is even worse. From your statement or hope:'there is
no need for a war' I may conclude that you are a nice person and a very optimistic one as well.

Regards,

Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B is here way over 2% tracking distortion " +++++

I don't know where you take or calculated that 2%, could you tell us?

in any of the net calculators ( enjoy the music, Vinyl Engine ) in a normal effective tonearm length of 258mm with an inner most groove at 45mm the distortion is lower than: 0.3% at the inner grooves with 0.67% between null points and with an average of 0.55% a lot better than what you states.

Dertonarm, everyone is asking here for your precise answers about especially those " special " set up with some specific tonearms.
If those " special " set up for specific tonearms comes with the same criterion you used on the FR then all we have to wait that those set ups have and gives us higher distortions a lot higher that anything else ( Including Stevenson. ), so what's the advantage to have higher distortions?

Don't you think that these higher distortions makes no sense?. The problem with all this is that you only " talk and talk " proving nothing, even that 2% you states comes from nowhere ( ghosts everywhere. ) till you shows. You goes around around around and till today ( for years. ) you never stop and put the finger right on " focus ".

Here in México people say: " in blind land the one-eyed is king ", unfortunately in this forum there are not so many blind persons as you thinked.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

My mistake. If we take a effective length say 260mm and the inner groove at 50mm ( 5cms. ) Löfgren B calculation gives 1.3% and Löfgren " A " 0.8% and this is an extreme case at inner grooves that we don't find very often.

Now, if we change the data input to force better " figures " at inner groove that could be in detriment of higher distortions in the other 90% of the remaining LP grooves. Our today LOMC cartridges are better trackers than many vintages and the MM/MI ones are champions on this regards so I can't see that " dramatic problem " you states because I just tested a recording with almost no blank grooves at the end and with the XV-1s I can't detect a higher distortion level and neither with the 20SS .

To much " cream on your bananas ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

and that figures of distortion were at the last inner groove, the last one.

Raul.