[Scottdazzle]

OMG. This thread makes my head hurt.  I'm glad some of you guys know enough to debate this esoteric stuff.   

Fortunately for me, the VPI Classic and its 10.5" arm comes with a single null point for adjustment. I trust that Harry has worked out the rest.  It sounds great from the outermost groove to the innermost, so I'm dumb, fat, and happy!
 

[Seb]

OMG. This thread makes my head hurt.  I'm glad some of you guys know enough to debate this esoteric stuff.   

Fortunately for me, the VPI Classic and its 10.5" arm comes with a single null point for adjustment. I trust that Harry has worked out the rest.  It sounds great from the outermost groove to the innermost, so I'm dumb, fat, and happy!
 

Well... Harry, at VPI did a strange job... see the complete problem here:
http://www.vinylengine.com/vpi-tonearm-geometry.shtml

and have fun;-)

best regards

Seb

[Scottdazzle]

OMG. This thread makes my head hurt.  I'm glad some of you guys know enough to debate this esoteric stuff.   

Fortunately for me, the VPI Classic and its 10.5" arm comes with a single null point for adjustment. I trust that Harry has worked out the rest.  It sounds great from the outermost groove to the innermost, so I'm dumb, fat, and happy!
 

Well... Harry, at VPI did a strange job... see the complete problem here:
http://www.vinylengine.com/vpi-tonearm-geometry.shtml

and have fun;-)

best regards

Seb

Seb and Wayner,

I doubt if I could hear the difference between the Lofgren, Baerwald, amd Weisfeld alignments, but I suspect they are all pretty close to adequate for music enjoyment!    I'll stay fat, dumb, and happy but will continue to watch this topic.

Q. How many angels can dance on the head of a stylus?
A. Two, but only if the null points are correct.

[Seb]

Seb and Wayner,

I doubt if I could hear the difference between the Lofgren, Baerwald, amd Weisfeld alignments, but I suspect they are all pretty close to adequate for music enjoyment!    I'll stay fat, dumb, and happy but will continue to watch this topic.

and you're perfectly right! as long as the protractor you're using is serious and as long as you do things precisely, you can stay away from all our stupid equations.

best regards

Seb 

[jrtrent]

(I have read every post, but over so many days that if someone has already brought up the issue below, I've forgotten it--the memory ain't what it used to be!)

As a contrast to all the posts about precision in alignment, has anyone seen how the Well Tempered Amadeus is designed?  It features a "fixed headshell with no fussy setup."  There is no overhang adjustment and he uses what he calls a non-standard tonearm geometry:

"I introduced a tracking angle error of 15 degrees and was surprised to find the musical result was better!! This led me to investigate tonearm geometry further with unexpected results. To make a very long story rather short, tracking angle errors generate 2nd harmonic components to the musical signal and many people interpret this as "sweeter music". I have written a computer program to show the amount of 2nd harmonic as a function of tracking angle error. At tracking angle errors less than 5 degrees, the 2nd harmonic level is essentially negligible. I have 21 phono cartridges. I used these cartridges to determine a statistically valid fixed tonearm geometry so the user is relieved of a complex set-up. All who have used this approach have commented on the ease of set-up and all have been more than satisfied with the result. Users of Amadeus simply mount the cartridge on the tonearm and proceed to the music."

As the owner's manual states, "Some alignment protractors may well disagree.  However, The Well Tempered Lab stands by their convictions."

I should mention that this is not the approach taken by Stanalog, who still manufacture and market the Well Tempered Record Player and Reference models, but I thought it made an interesting contrast to the past several pages of conversation.

[Seb]

about the Well Tempered Amadeus,

everybody should have to right to listen to "sweeter music"!

unfortunately, well tempered is not publishing any data about the Amadeus (no effective length, no mounting distance, no real idea of the angular offset). Too bad! give me the data, a little reverse engineering and tah dah, here is the protractor that will help you to listen to "sweeter music".

the explanations seems in fact really weird (just like "follow me, we all go to Venus to see my friends with three heads"), the only way to see if there is something new and serious is to test the alignment proposed here.

but no data....

best regards

Seb

[Seb]

sorry, the effective length is known.. 267 mm
but no mounting distance...

BTW, the horizontal distance between the screws and the stylus tip is not a constant.
With a fixed headshell, someone should explain me how there could be a effective length...

and, here, http://welltemperedlab.wordpress.com, there is a tool... (the "tracking angle analyser")

let me see how it works....
 
best regards

Seb

[doug s.]

and, here, http://welltemperedlab.wordpress.com, there is a tool... (the "tracking angle analyser")  let me see how it works....   best regards  Seb

i looked at the blurb about tracking angle error above the analyzer on the wtl site.  i can grasp the concept of how a needle traveling three times as fast in the outer grooves might see the effects of its tracking angle error reduced correspondingly by three times.  it would actually support those who feel it's more important to minimize tracking error at the inner-most part of the groove.

but then william firebaugh gives the following, as an example:

"...For a radical example, suppose we chose an overhang of zero and have a 10.5 inch tonearm. Using the Tracking Angle Analyzer, we will see a tracking angle of about 5 degrees will give zero error at the innermost grooves. However, at the outermost grooves, the tracking angle is about 17 degrees. This gives a tracking angle error of 17-5= 12 degrees. This is reduced by a factor of 3 times because of increased groove velocity at the outermost grooves for an effective error of 12/3 = 4 degrees. Now, if we wish, we can split the difference and set the tracking angle to 7 degrees for a tracking angle error of 2 degrees on the inner grooves and a tracking angle error of (12-7)/3 = 1.7 degrees effective on the outermost grooves...."

the last sentence, (which i highlighted in blue), i do not understand.  it would make sense to me if the last sentence read like this. (my changes to his sentence are in the color red.):

Now, if we wish, we can split the difference and set the tracking angle to 7 degrees for a tracking angle error of 2 degrees on the inner grooves and a tracking angle error of (17-7)/3 = 3.33 degrees effective on the outermost grooves....

before, it was said that, at the outermost grooves, the tracking angle is about 17 degrees.  now, it's suddenly only 12 degrees.  what am i missing?   

doug s.

[vinylengine]

Hi, there's been a lot of activity this week but I'll throw my thoughts into the hat 

Apologies in advance for the chopped up post but Wayner made a lot of separate points.

However, as by my geometry below, the 2 point only alignment system has been rendered inaccurate, because we have 3 curves crossing the same null points having 3 different radii and offset angles. The 2 point only system can't recognize where your distance is.

Therefore, to do this, the "superuser" has to measure the extra length he has added to the OEM table's length and then set the offset by the null points.

The beauty of a two-point alignment system is that there is only one overhang/offset angle position where an arm of mounting distance X will align the cartridge/cantilever at both null points. Therefore if you can visually confirm that the cartridge/cantilever is aligned at both points (ie tangential to the groove at the two radii calculated by the chosen geometry) then you have set the correct overhang and offset angle. This is only as accurate as the printing of the protractor or the users eyesight, but you'll get a lot closer than trying to measure the overhang with a gauge.

No additional measurement is needed as the mounting distance is fixed and as previously mentioned, there is only one arc for that mounting distance that will pass through both points at those radii and allow the cantilever to align at both grids.

The other problem, as I have mentioned before, is that some tables may be physically incapable of reaching the new length position

Here we are in agreement, although in my experience most arms/cartridges can be aligned to at least one of the three popular alignment methods (Loefgren A, B or Stevenson) and in the case of Loefgren A and B you will almost always end up with lower tracing error/distortion than the manufacturers alignment method. If the manufacturer has provided sufficient data you can punch the figures into a spreadsheet to compare them.

You, yourself have even offered examples from other manufacturer's specifications on varying null points as noted below.................................. ........Each of these manufacturers chose different overhang and offset angles that resulted in these alignments - mounting distances are identical.)

Absolutely, I posted the figures to illustrate that an arm of fixed mounting distance X can align to many different pairs of null points by the simple expedient of altering the overhang and offset angle.

However, for any of the specified null points there is only one overhang/offset angle that will result in alignment at both null points without changing the mounting distance.

In the case of the Audiocraft, if you where to draw two grids on a piece of paper at radii of 60.0 and 114.7mm and adjust your cartridge position to align at both, you will find that the cartridge is parallel to the headshell sides and has exactly the manufacturers overhang distance (that is, if they provided accurate data and the cantilever is straight).

I believe that with certain instances, it may be better to leave the OEM tables specifications for stylus location, do reduce plain old alignment error. If they get the offset angle off by even 1/2 degree, the distortion levels go off the chart and I see a huge danger with this.

Yes and no 

If you mean plot an overhang arc based on the manufacturers published specs and keep the cartridge parallel to the headshell sides then in theory I'd agree it will give the manufacturers intended alignment and this should give reasonable results.

Unfortunately the published figures aren't always available and they don't always add up - eg SME publish the wrong figure for the offset angle for their flagship IV/V arms and Mission state that their Mechanic arm has a mounting distance of 210mm, overhang of 18mm and effective length of 225mm, which literally doesn't add up!

There is also the problem of aligning the cantilever with the headshell. If the cantilever isn't perfectly straight in the cartridge body or the headshell is an odd shape then you will almost definitely get the sort of errors you describe trying to align to it. The solution is to draw grids on the arc at the null points and to align the cantilever at these points, ignoring the headshell angle, but then you are (a) relying on the published data to calculate these points and (b) it's no more accurate than using a two-point or arc protractor to hit the theoretically better points you get from using Loefgren A or B.

In my opinion manufacturer's specs are so unreliable and their tools so often inaccurate (Rega's protractor anyone?) that it's anybody's guess where they intended to align to in the first place? By concentrating on the manufacturer's alignment specs you are trying to hit null points that we can't even be sure of 

Surely it's better to try and align to the null points giving the lowest error for that mounting distance, which have been proven mathematically to be Loefgren's A or B alignments, and only if this proves impossible resort to the manufacturer's method?

Regards,
JaS

[Seb]

well, for me it's  too...

let's take a look at the text quoted by Doug, (the radical example):

10.5 inch tonearm, 0 overhang, 5? of angular offset will not lead to a zero error at the innermost grove. The innermost groove on a lp, stated by IEC standard is a 60.325mm from the record spindle center.

http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm

The innermost groove considered by the "tool" is at 1.875" (1 7/8) that is 47.625 mm - If you find me ONE LP with a groove at 47.625mm from the spindle center, just tell me, I'll pay you a bottle of (French) wine.

At 60.325mm, the groove tangent is at 6.486? and the error is 1.486?
At 47.625mm, the groove tangent is at 5.117 and the error is 0.117?

At the outermost groove (IEC standard=146.05 - same value on the "tool"), the groove tangent is at 15.878?, (not 17?) the error is 15.878-5=10,878?

on the wtl blog, the specifications of the amadeus tonearm are finally indicated : overhang = 0.5" and angular offset=19?

associated with an effective length of 267mm, that will produce null points at 56.34mm and 117.52

distortion values across the record forced by this value are "fair" since the arm is rather long (but far from being optimized...)

Now, if you take a look at the amadeus protractor, here :
http://welltemperedlab.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tonearm-alignment-guide-for-amadeus6.pdf

the (unique) null point is positioned at 1 7/8" = 47.625mm (the supposed innermost groove), not at 56.34mm

william firebaugh said he read the Stevenson (1966) paper :
http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11568

this paper is indicating that the inner null point should be positioned at the inner most groove (because the closer you are from the record center, the more a given tracking error will produce distortion). The inner most groove is given by Stevenson at 2 5/8" but William Firebaugh considered 1 7/8 - an error in his reading of the stevenson paper ? (badly scanned, I know....). Nevertheless, William should take a deeper look at a LP...

To me, (this is just an intuition), william firebaugh made another mistake. I'm quite sure that he's considering the angle formed by the straight arm tube and the cantilever as the offset angle - that angle is not the offset angle since the offset angle is the angle formed by the line passing through the stylus tip and the axe of the tonearm (at the golf ball) and the cantilever.

IMO, this is what happened at the WTL factory:

"guys, we need to propose a new turntable but we're having a problem: the average guy doesn't like to set up his cartridge - he thinks it's too complicated and it would be an advantage if we could propose a very simple way to set up the cartridge"
"boss, you're right"
"so, to me, the best way is to propose a fixed headshell with no slots a la SME old school but with no sliding base"
then William talked:
"but, the average guy is knowing that it can not be that simple - he'll think there is a problem and won't trust what we'll propose"
"no problem" said the boss, "we'll explain him we found a new revolutionary way of thinking of the problem - just find justifications based on second order harmonics, quote old papers, look serious by proposing super complicated tools and say that the others are wrong"
"ok" said William "I'll do the job"

best regards

Seb

[vinylengine]

If anyone else is lost in this gangle of brainiac mathematicians here ....just use 10"+ arms and you'll be dealing a winning hand on your precious vinyl

An added benefit of better tracing is that stylus placement is less critical, as well, I've found.  Vinyl is such a pain in the keyster...any way to make it easier I'm in serious favor of

Hi John,
Isn't buying a longer arm viewed as cheating in the alignment game? You'll get less tracking error and lower distortion but it's the equivalent of playing with a stacked deck 

Regards,
JaS

[TheChairGuy]

Hi John,
Isn't buying a longer arm viewed as cheating in the alignment game? You'll get less tracking error and lower distortion but it's the equivalent of playing with a stacked deck 

Regards,
JaS

You Puritans.....are you gonna' sew a scarlet letter on me now?

Ciao, John

[toobluvr]

I got the basics down, but most of the real technical stuff discussed here goes right over my head!

Just a quick general question for you cartridge setup experts.....

I think I goofed a little bit and mounted my arm with a mounting distance of 211mm instead of the recommended 212mm.  Does that mean I should reduce the recommended overhang of 18mm by the same 1mm to 17mm?

Does it also mean that the cartridge setup protractor (with 2 null points, provided by arm manufacturer) is now rendered useless?  If I reduce the overhang by 1mm can I still use it to set offset angle properly?

Thanks,
John

[Wayner]

Re-calculate using the new spindle to pivot center distance. You should now use a 18.601 overhang number to get the 2 null points at 70.285 and 116.604mm. Don't know what the distortion curves would look like, but you are in the ball park.

Wayner

[jrtrent]

I think I goofed a little bit and mounted my arm with a mounting distance of 211mm instead of the recommended 212mm.  Does that mean I should reduce the recommended overhang of 18mm by the same 1mm to 17mm?

Does it also mean that the cartridge setup protractor (with 2 null points, provided by arm manufacturer) is now rendered useless?  If I reduce the overhang by 1mm can I still use it to set offset angle properly?

I read the instructions for using your Stogi alignment protractor, and it works the same as the ones discussed in this thread.  Used according to directions, you use the protractor to set both overhang and offset angle, not just offset angle (steps 8 and 9 in particular tell you how to adjust overhang based on what you're seeing on the protractor; steps 11 and 12 explain that you might be repeating this process as you narrow in on the correct alignment point).  Once properly aligned at both null points (on your protractor, these are at 66 and 121mm), you will have achieved the correct overhang and offset angle for your arm at its present mounting distance, even if you never measure to find out just what those overhang and offset values are.

[vinylengine]

I think I goofed a little bit and mounted my arm with a mounting distance of 211mm instead of the recommended 212mm.  Does that mean I should reduce the recommended overhang of 18mm by the same 1mm to 17mm?

As jrtrent said, the standard Stogi protractor is a universal Baerwald type so used as per the original instructions, and they are pretty comprehensive with the Stogi, it will automatically adapt to whatever distance you mount the arm (headshell slots permitting). This is just as well as the Linn mounting pattern means most get dropped straight into a 211mm Linn cut armboard.

To keep with the techno theme of the thread, aligned accurately to the protractor this is the small difference your altered mounting distance will make to the position of the cartridge in the headshell...

Mounting distance.......Overhang......Offset angle
211mm..................... 18.128mm.....24.069 degrees
212mm......................18.049mm.... .23.966 degrees

Regards,
JaS

[guest1632]

    I have been designing products for more then 30 years spending most of my time in the lighting industry and a few years in the suspension (for hard-disc drive) industry. I have had an intense interest in audio in general, but really got into vinyl as a young lad spending lawn mowing money on my first turntable, an AR-XA.

       
        From that point I was hooked. As time went forward, I began to merge my designing interest with the turntable geometry, as it really intrigued me. I knew that the LP master was cut on a linear arm so the 45/45 degree grooves were always perpendicular to the center point of the spindle, but here we are, running an arcing tone arm across the face of the record.

       
        As I grew older, I realized that my concerns were shared by others as linear tracking tone arms soon appeared in the market place. But the cost of these arms was out of reach for many, and I always wondered about the new type of error these arms would encounter. The cutting arms on a mastering lathe must certainly cost thousands of dollars; I just didn't see how these new style arms could perform at a fraction of the cost.

       
        Time passes by again and I discovered two fellows named Baerwald and Loefgren. Both of these gentlemen also realized the problem of running an arm that makes an arc thru a record that was cut straight on a lathe. Both came up with some pretty impressive formulas and ultimately settled on the what must have been the best geometry for the arm to produce the least amount of tracking error and tracking distortion. Though their numbers are slightly different for slightly different reasons, they both ended up pretty much in the same conclusion.

       
        Several companies have developed alignment cards based on these two men's geometry and have created the 2 point alignment card based on the null points (where the stylus is in perfect alignment with the record groove). The user was to align a feature of the cartridge body, usually the front, with provided lines to position the stylus. The user then believed his cartridge was properly aligned for optimum performance.

Fiction: The realization.

         
          One day I decided to start laying out the geometry from the known specifications for the perfect arm using my CAD software. Baerwald's numbers were 228.6mm overall length (stylus to tone arm pivot center), 18.173mm for the overhang (distance from stylus to platter spindle centerline) and 24.128 degree offset angle. This resulted in 2 null points occurring at 65.9mm and 120.8mm producing and average RMS distortion of .431%.


        Loefgren chose a different overhang of 18.690mm which changed the null points to 70.2mm and 116.6mm producing an average RMS distortion of .388%

       
        Here is the fundamental problem. Unless your turntable/tone arm combination matches 228.6mm overall length with a 18.173mm overhang, you cannot achieve the null point position with the proper offset angle.

       
        As examples of this, I laid out the parameters of the Empire 598 mk II turntable. I then set the positions of the Baerwald null point locations into the geometry. Yes, you can get the stylus to fit on both spots, but here is what happened. At the outer null point of 120.8mm, the measured offset angle was 24.248 degrees. Not the same as the original numbers, but I thought with the different spacing, the angle would change, hoping that the second null point angle would be the same. When I measured the second angle at the inner null point location at 65.9 degrees, the angle changed to 24.278 degrees! We have a problem and it's geometrical.

                  I then did the geometry for a Technics SL-1200 mk II. At the outer null point the measured offset angle was 22.509 degrees, but the inner null point was a whopping 21.302 degrees! That was even worse!



   

Baerwald?s Geometry

(Upper Dimension in English,

Lower Dimension in Millimeters)

        This was proving my point that there really isn't such a thing as a universal alignment protractor as the geometry simply cannot support the theory. How did this happen? I believe that those involved didn't really understand the geometry at all. They simply new that there were null points and if they set the cartridge to those positions all would be good. This is simply a matter of not understanding geometry, and with my many years of experience using CAD, I knew that the answer had to be something different.




   

Empire 598 mk II Geometry

(Respecting Empire's Overhang)

          While the Empire's angles are not that far off, the fact that they are different proves that the change in distance between the pivot and the spindle has an ever increasing effect on the null point locations, or that there was a lack of support for the currently accepted null point locations.



   

Technics SL-1200 mkII Geometry

(Respecting Technics Overhang)

        By the time the Technics's geometry was laid out, the problem was more then obvious.


        Now that we know we have a problem, what are we to do? Fear not, a solution is at hand. There are several null point calculators out there on the internet, and I?m sure if you ask your table's manufacturer, they will tell you the null points for their particular arm/table combination. If your one of the lucky ones that has an arm with an adjustable base, you can dial it right into the Baerwald's or Loefgren's numbers.

        For the rest of us with fixed arms, there is only one thing to do. Find your null points for your arm geometry. To do this, there are 3 things to know about your particular set-up. First is the distance from the turntable spindle to the tone arm pivot center. Second, you need to know the overhang or distance from the stylus tip to the turntable spindle center. And last, you need to know the offset angle.


        One of my favorite null point calculators is offered free by www.enjoythemusic.com. This is a wonderful tool and I thank them for offering it to the vinyl community. This tool is Excel based and all you have to do is plug in the values for your table and it will give you a distortion curve and the location for your null points. You may try varying the overhang and offset angles in small steps to find your best location.


        The results for the Empire turntable put the inner null point at 66.6 degrees, and the outer null point at 120.1 degrees for an average RMS distortion of .419% which is lower then Baerwald?s numbers.

        The results for the Technics put the inner null point at 58.8 millimeters and the outer null point at 113.5 millimeters for an average RMS distortion of .536%, still in an acceptable range.


        Of course, these numbers can be played with a little by varying the overhang if your arm allows it and by changing the offset angle. The object is a low number for average RMS distortion.


        In conclusion, the purpose of setting the cartridge is two fold, first for correct tracking and sound and more importantly, to reduce record wear. The examples shown here prove that the standard 2 point alignment systems in use today are flawed, and may not give you the best results with your particular table/arm combination. Perhaps this explanation has shed new light onto your understanding of tone arm geometry and how critical all of the factors are governing proper stylus placement and angularity.
 Happy Spinning!

Hi, Well this is one time I wish there was just a "Reply without quotes" heheh.

I remember back in the mid .70's when Girard had an interesting twist on the straightline tracking arm. They had the headshell suspended on two rods. These two rods were set up so when the arm moved across the record, just the headshell would twivel just slightly. Not to bad for an automatic record player.

It's really to bad that the air bearing tonearm didn't really catch on. You just had to make sure your table was level from left to right.

Marantz tried there hand at the straight line tracking table. I had one. The wires wer the problem. plus the table had a foam rubber matt, which was glued to the metal platter. That was a mess to get off and replace with another foam matt. oh well, so much for sidetracking this thread. Just a bit of history. Anybody remember the tinker toy called the Radco turntable? It straightline arm actually worked out pretty well.

Ray Bronk

[jrtrent]

Hi, Well this is one time I wish there was just a "Reply without quotes" heheh.

. . . Girard had an interesting twist on the straightline tracking arm.

There is a "reply" button at the top and bottom of each page that will let you respond without quoting a particular post (it's the first in a string of options including "notify" "mark unread" "send this topic" and "print"); it might be better placed next to the "quote" button in each post to make it more obvious.  Quotes can also be trimmed, of course, as I've done with yours.

I owned a Garrard GT-55 with the articulated tonearm design for zero tracking error (the earlier Zero 100 model seems to have been far more popular, if results from a Google search are any indication).  I can't say it sounded particularly good, and it proved unreliable in its record changing and arm lift functions (very similar to the BIC 960 I had used previously).  Clever concept, though.

[toobluvr]

Thank you JRTRENT and VINYLENGINE for responding to my query in a most direct and understandable way.

I do indeed use the Kuzma protractor with 2 null points at 66 and 121 for offset and overhang respectively.  BTW.....it is very clear and much easier to use than most.  I can lock in a cartridge in about 5 minutes with minimal eye strain, minimal fuss, and excellent sonics.

But before even using the protractor I start out by setting overhang in a different way.  The Kuzma manual says the correct overhang point is achieved when the stylus is exactly below the front edge of the headshell......provided the mounting the distance is correct. 

This is how I do it:
(1)  put a dot on a piece of paper.
(2)  drop the stylus onto it  (cartridge is approximately attached...any position in headshell)
(3)  put another pencil mark exacly under the front edge of the cartridge body
(4)  use a caliper to measure the distance between the two dots.

This tells me how far back the stylus is set back from the front edge of the cartridge body.  To set overhang, I simply slide the cartridge body fore and aft in the slotted headshell holes till the front edge of the cartridge body protrudes the measured distance from front edge of headshell, when directly looking down at it.  This effectively positions the stylus directly underneath the front edge of the headshell. 

This only works because the front surface of my cartridge body is flat and completely vertical.

I then use the protractor to fix offset angel at the 66mm point.  I then move over to the 121mm point not to set the overhang, but to confirm the accuracy of the overhang that I set earlier.  I find that it is pretty much always spot on. 

Doing it this way eliminates the constant back and forth and constant readjusting between the 2 null points on the protractor.

So you see, I am setting overhang to an actual number, and this is why I asked my original question.   I mounted the arm 1mm closer to the spindle than recommended (211 instead of 212), so my intuition told me that I should reduce the overhang by the same 1mm (from 18 to 17) to compensate.  Just logically, I thought this would put the stylus on the same exact arc path over the record as had I used the recommended 212 and 18.  Why doesn't it?

It surprises  me that I should actually now be using a slightly greater overhang (per VINYLENGINE).       

I guess logic does not work in these complex matters!     

Thanks Again,
John

PS:  I think this Kuzma Stogi Reference arm is very very good.  Might not be among the heavy hitters in reputation and buzz, but I can tell you it sure is in terms of performance.  I prefer it to two other big name arms I have owned:  SME V and Graham 1.5 t/c.   There is one on AG right now.  It's been posted for awhile now, so seller might be flexible on price.  To those that might be shopping at that price point, take a chance.  It is great value.  I don't think you will be sorry.  I am very confident in recommending it.  Comes with the Toob-luvr seal of approval!     

 

[avahifi]

You know it would be so much easier for all you guys if you just used a P-Mount cartridge and tone arm. 

Regards,

Frank