Will fine tune adjustments with protractor help with "brightness?"

Yip will build you anything you tell him to.

@avanti1960 

On the Technics, if the new GR is using the same arm geometry as the old 1200, traditional Lofgren alignment would result in a much greater overhang, approximately 3.3 mm more, and Baerwald would result in about 2.8 mm more. In both cases the cartridge would have to be angled noticeably toward the spindle to align properly.

Stevenson alignment on the Technics with a 215 mm mounting distance would result in less than 1 mm more overhang as compared to the Technics alignment and the cartridge should sit almost square in the headshell. 

What Raul says about Stevenson having greater tracking distortion than Lofgren or Baerwald across the vast majority of the record is absolutely true.

However, the statement that Stevenson has lower inner groove distortion is a huge generalization in light of the fact that the location of the "inner grooves" varies vastly from record to record.

The traditional inner null points (zero distortion) of Stevenson, Baerwald and Lofgren are approximately 60 mm, 66 mm and 70 mm respectively. So Stevenson will in fact have grossly higher inner groove distortion on a record which has inner grooves ending at 65 mm than Baerwald and approximately the same as Lofgren.

On the other hand, if you're playing a lot of audiophile records which have the inner grooves ending around the 70 mm mark (70 mm from the centre of the spindle, Lofgren is going to give you considerably better inner groove distortion numbers than either Stevenson or Baerwald.

It is really only in the 58-60 mm area that Stevenson excels at reduction of IGD as compared to Baerwald and Lofgren and many vinyl users (classical music lovers with lots of long sides possibly excluded) have very few records in their collection with playable inner grooves in that area.

If you took 60-70 mm as an average inner groove area in your collection, which is highly possible and very likely, Baerwald would in fact provide an average of 25% less IGD in that area than Stevenson. Lofgren would have the worst performance in that area, the bulk of it being in the 60-63 mm area though, while outperforming Stevenson & Baerwald on average across the whole record.

The elephant in the room for Stevenson is where the actual inner grooves are on each individual record, and it is a pretty big elephant.

The Technics alignment makes even less sense than Stevenson, placing the inner null around 59 mm.

@chakster

1) I am aware of Stevenson's link with classical music and in fact alluded to it in my post

2) "I doubt in your knowledge of record formats." Does that comment make you feel better-more superior?

3) I could be wrong but I doubt there is anything but a very small minority of posters here that spend a great deal of time playing 7" 45's relative to 12" records in their collection. If there are, accept my apologies;  my comments were not directed toward them.

4) For those playing large numbers of highly collectible 7" 45's with playable grooves between 50-82 mm and with a serious commitment to them and wanting to hear them at their best, Stevenson, while it may be preferable to Baerwald and Lofgren, would actually make little sense in that scenario.

What would make sense for those collectors would be to create a custom alignment with nulls somewhere in the 51-52 mm and 75-77 mm area. 

5) For those of us with pivoted arms it makes perfect sense to work at minimizing distortions when it is a relatively simple and basic procedure based on the geometry and, for most, a lot less complicated than moving to a linear tracking arm. 

@chakster

A couple of points and then I'll bow out of this discussion:

1) As I said above, Stevenson will be better and have lower distortion numbers than Baerwald (or Lofgren A) or Lofgren (B) in the 58-62 mm groove area. Hence, it will work well on those records, classical or otherwise on the last 60-90 seconds of those records. Across the rest of the record Baerwald and Lofgren have significantly better distortion numbers. There is nothing theoretical about this-it is simply a fact.

2) As such, the alignment that one chooses (if one makes or wants to make that choice) will be based on priorities: ie; whether they want to minimize distortion for 60-90 seconds on (certain) records, or whether they want to minimize distortion on the other 15-20 minutes of the record.

3) If you can't hear the distortions, no problem. Perhaps I could not hear them either. We're back in an entirely subjective domain then. Objectively, though, I would prefer to minimize distortion across 95% of the record as opposed to 5% of it from the star when it is a relatively simple procedure.

But if those distortions in the final 5% are more grossly objectionable than those in the 95% to the listener then their priorities may be different than mine. I don't have a ton of records with information around the 60 mm mark and don't play 7" 45's (if I did I'd explore other alignment options and a dedicated arm/table for them if I was serious) so it's a bit of a moot point for me.

4) Only the OP would be able to tell us if it would be worthwhile to change the alignment on his Technics and he'd have to do it to find out. If he's happy with the way it sounds now, there's no need to experiment. FWIW, other Technics users in the past have reported better performance with Baerwald, but I'm sure there are some who also can't hear any difference.

5) Japanese manufacturers do not "all use Stevenson". They typically almost all specify a 15 mm over hang and nulls around (but not exactly at) 60 and 114 mm. But 90 per cent of those nulls, while they are closer to Stevenson than Lofgren or Baerwald nulls, are not Stevenson nulls and they are often different from one Japanese manufacturer to another. The Technics "alignment" is but one example. The Japanese have simply been doing it that way for a long time, well before Stevenson wrote his paper(s) in 1966-67, and have simply continued doing it since.

6) I'm not familiar with the ViV Lab arm and really know nothing about it. If its geometry, however, contributes to significantly higher distortion numbers than Stevenson, let alone Baerwald or Lofgren, I'd be somewhat skeptical while trying to keep an open mind I suppose. Maybe some people just like the sound of certain distortion(s)? It's a subjective hobby and that can't entirely be ruled out.