Dear Raul, I don't understand what you want me to say. I can only say (again) that my experience with underhung tonearms using zero headshell offset angle suggests that precise adherence to any algorithm that posits minimizing tracking angle error as its primary goal (I guess this would include Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, and any other similar solution) is over-rated as it applies to maximizing SQ from vinyl. I nevertheless do adhere to such geometries when I set up my conventional pivoted overhung tonearms that have a headshell offset angle. I have two "reasons" for thinking the practice may be over-rated: (1) Like I said above, the underhung tonearms with zero offset generate very large tracking angle errors other than at the single null point one can attain with such tonearms. So if there is zero tracking angle error (TAE) at the null point at the center of the playing surface, there will be several degrees of error (on the order of +/-10 degrees for a 9-inch underhang tonearm, as I recall) both at the inner grooves and at the outer grooves. You can do much better than that with Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc. Yet, I don't hear the problem. You can argue that I am deaf or that my system is not good enough to allow me to hear the problem, if you want, and (2) I have once or twice inadvertently set up conventional pivoted tonearms incorrectly, only to discover my error weeks or months later. I then "fix" the error, but I don't hear a big upgrade as a result of doing so.
I realize that I am in violation of a vinylista mantra, but that is my opinion. No big deal in the course of every day life. I still play by the rules. I have to wonder what Baerwald and Lofgren heard with what must have been 12 or 16 inch shellac 78 rpm mono recordings played with spherical styli.
