Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

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.