[2bigears]

  rght here is the reason alota people say frick-it to TT's.i would love to get a linear track arm and i bet if someone made a good sounding arm on the budget side they would make a lota loot.that said,my Rega set-up is drop the needle on this point and you are good to go.the earth must be flat.....

[Wayner]

A linear track has some of the same alignment problems. It's overhang has to be zero. Any position you try to strive for offers challenges. However, if you are happy with your sound, then why bother with this stuff.

For those that want to see if they can improve their playback (and reduce record wear at the same time) this is information they are looking for.

Wayner

[neobop]

Since most 2 point protractors are designed around either Bearwald or Lofgren's null points (where the stylus is perfectly perpendicluar to the record groove), the act of aligning to the 2 points, which usually involves using a grid pattern to match the front flat feature found on most cartridges at each point, will automatically set the overhang and the offset angle.

The only physical feature that will stop any tone arm from achieving any popular null positions is just plane real estate. That means, are the slots long enough to move the cartridge where you need it. Some tables only offer 2 holes, and this is very piss poor designing, or perhaps it's a lack of understanding, regarding cartridge alignment.

 Wayner

Yes, there's the rub. Even though most 2 point protractors are Baerwald or Loefgren, most popularly priced arms are Baerwald or Stevenson. It's often impossible to reach a Loefgren alignment if the arm is designed for Stevenson, without reducing your mounting distance. Sometimes you can't get Baerwald, depending on the cartridge.

I think Naim users have lists of carts that conform to there stylus to mounting distance. It would make sense to me to mount one of those arms on an SME type movable mount. There is usually a little room with the mounting holes to angle the cart slightly. Not sure about Well Tempered. I seem to remember some kind of straight line to get an acceptable range for alignment? Maybe I'll look into it. It was a long time ago. I remember being somewhat amazed by the sound. I was setting up high end tables back then and owned a Goldmund Studietto with a Zeta, so my standards were pretty high. The Well Tempered seemed to perform way out of its price class. Back then I think the whole shebang was around $1K.
neo

[Wayner]

Neo,

Not that I don't believe you, and I know you used to set up turntables, but I have yet to find a vintage table that I couldn't set for either Baerwald or Lofgren curves. Their overhang generally is less then 2 mm apart (Lofgren farther out) so I'll have to take your word for it, I just haven't seen the problem. Well, except for my old AR-XA that has tapped screw bosses on the headshell. The tonearm length is changeable, but not the cartridge angle.

I think this afternoon, I'm going to generate a chart of Baerwald and Lofgren numbers, every mm from 200 to 230 in 1 mm increments just to observe the behavior of the offset. It might also be handy for others as a reference. I wonder if anyone has ever done this. I'm going to ignore Stevenson, cause I have no way to generate data.

Wayner

[neobop]

Wayner,
I have seen quite a few. It depends mostly on the factory alignment, how generous the headshell slots are, and the cartridge. Many mass market Japanese tables from the heyday were designed for a Stevenson-like null. With many, depending on the cart, you're lucky if you can get Baerwald.

I have a Sony PS-X50, the next generation from your X7. With the stock headshell I can't use Baerwald with most carts I've tried. Since I wanted a lighter headshell anyway, I elongated the slots in one, which was longer to start out with, and now I can use Baerwald with all the carts I've tried. The TT is a semi with a height adjustable arm similar to your 1200 in adjustment. I'm not about to mess with mounting distance. Whatever works.
neo

[hesson11]

Wayner,

You speak of Baerwald and Lofgren as being different alignments. Are you talking about Lofgren B? I ask because it's been my understanding (or perhaps my MISunderstanding) that Baerwald and Lofgren A are identical. Thanks!
-Bob

[Wayner]

Baerwald = Lofgren A (65.998mm, 120.891mm)

Lofgren B (70.285mm, 116.604)

I have no clue what Stevenson's is.

Wayner

[Wayner]

Wayner,
I have seen quite a few. It depends mostly on the factory alignment, how generous the headshell slots are, and the cartridge. Many mass market Japanese tables from the heyday were designed for a Stevenson-like null. With many, depending on the cart, you're lucky if you can get Baerwald.

I have a Sony PS-X50, the next generation from your X7. With the stock headshell I can't use Baerwald with most carts I've tried. Since I wanted a lighter headshell anyway, I elongated the slots in one, which was longer to start out with, and now I can use Baerwald with all the carts I've tried. The TT is a semi with a height adjustable arm similar to your 1200 in adjustment. I'm not about to mess with mounting distance. Whatever works.
neo

I have the Grado Gold1 Longhorn loaded into my Sony PS-X5 in a Lofgren B. There is not much room left. Same with both of my Technics, and VPI. The Audioquest arm on my VPI is at the absolute very end of the slots.

I guess, if you can't get to Lofgren B with a particular arm, go to Baerwalds or Lofgren A then.

I suspect the new Sony PS-X7 will be geometrically the same as my X5, if it ever gets here.

Wayner

[Wayner]

Here is a nice Excel spreadsheet for Baerwald (Lofgren A) and Lofgren B curves:

 

I didn't include the offset angle as I would have to lay each one out with the CAD, am I'm too lazy to do it.

It is interesting to look at the progressions.

Wayner 

[Wayner]

If you will notice on line 18 (215mm) that the baerwald overhang is 17.817mm. IN contrast, the Lofgren B overhang is 18.282mm. The difference between them is .465mm. In english measurements, that's about .018" or a flyshit more then 1/64 of an inch.

So, unless you are at the absolute end of the headshell slot doing the Bearwald, you can get the Lofgren B with no problem.

This is why I don't understand why some of you are hesitant to go down this finicky path of precise alignment. 1 fricken half of a millimeter and your in a different curve. It's all about precision.

Wayner

[neobop]

Baerwald = Lofgren A (65.998mm, 120.891mm)

Lofgren B (70.285mm, 116.604)

I have no clue what Stevenson's is.

Wayner

Stevenson is 60.325 and 117.42

BTW 60.325 is the standard distance for the lead out groove.

neo

[Wayner]

Thanks, neo.

Wayner

[Wayner]

I don't want it to seem that I'm hijacking this thread to go in another direction, but as a side line to the discussion, I'd like to show you this little "side view of a typical cartridge body, showing it's mounting holes in relationship to the stylus tip:

 

Now the question at hand I'm going to point right at neobop, since he has many years of setting up turntables, and for that matter, anyone else in the know, this question. Why isn't there an industry standard for dimension "X"? The distance from stylus tip, or even better, from SRA to the mounting screws would be nice. Unless this has passed me by, I don't think there is one. There is a standard between the 2 screw mounting holes (as seen from a top view) and that is .50 inches. Has the power of the RIAA or NAB been neutralized. It seems to me this should have been made a standard and then this whole alignment problem would be lots simpler.

As an example, I just measured my MC Sumiko BPS and that "X" dimension, eyeballing it, looks to be about 7mm. One of my AT's looks to be about 7.5-8mm and an old Empire cartridge is almost 10mm.

So HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM! Now another wrinkle is in the works. I also see Ortofon came out with a new series of cartridges that have a rounded front edge. Are they mad? How are you suppose to line up the cartridge with a grid without a flat edge in the front?

Wayner

[sunnydaze]

So HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM! Now another wrinkle is in the works. I also see Ortofon came out with a new series of cartridges that have a rounded front edge. Are they mad? How are you suppose to line up the cartridge with a grid without a flat edge in the front?

Wayner

It's quite easy, actually.

(1)   Get your protractor in place and place stylus on cross-hairs

(2)   Get down real low.......

(3)   sight down (squarely from cartridge front)  the null point line and adjust the cartridge body till the cantilever itself merges and becomes one with the heavy black protractor line, and disappears into it.  Don't use the cartridge body!   Do this for both null points.  Twisting the cartridge for null Pt A sets the offset angle, and moving it fore and aft for Pt B sets the overhang.  Iterative process till both are set accurately.

You should never ever use the cartridge body for setup......any part of it.     Why?   Because the cantilever is not always set into it perfectly.  Sometimes it is skewed one way or another.

Check out this pdf file from Kuzma for pics and explanation.  It all becomes very clear:

http://demo.amplio.si//AmplioCMS2/UserFiles/File/29/Manual%20Appendix%20set%20up%20cartridge%20_3_.pdf

I have a Kuzma arm and I use the included Kuzma protractor precisely as per those instructions.   It is dead easy to use and cartridges set up quickly.  I get sonically stunning results every single time.   

I have added a few of my own tricks to make things even easier and more accurate:

(1)  On the protractor,  I put a pin hole at the two null point cross-hairs.  This means less eye strain and makes it real easy to get the stylus in perfect position every time. Just drop the stylus in the vicinity, and then gently move the platter / protractor to and fro till stylus drops into hole.  Bingo!  (Before starting I remove all bias and use minimal tracking force to keep cantilever from twisting and flattening)

(2)  I also lay a bright mag light on the platter shining on the work.  This, and a simple magnifying lens, makes it very easy to see relationship between cantilever and black line, and always results in very accurate and quick setup.

(3)  in pencil on my acrylic platter, I extended out the null point sight lines.  This allows me to get my eyeball more acccurately lined up on the sight line.

[hesson11]

Good stuff, folks. Just a few points:

Neo: Regarding minimum modulated groove radius, you might be interested in this: “There is a widespread misconception that the minimum allowable radius for the modulated portion of an LP groove is 60.325mm. Well, it isn’t. When I laboriously measured my LP collection 30 years ago, I found a significant proportion had minimum radii down to 58mm, which I subsequently recommended as a realistic figure to use in alignment calculations. IEC 60098 doesn’t explicitly state a minimum modulated radius…it turns out that the minimum permissible radius for the modulated portion of the groove is 56mm.” From “Arc Angles” by longtime analog maven Keith Howard in the March 2010 issue of “Stereophile,” p. 56

Wayner: I’ll sign my name on the petition to have screw-hole-to-stylus distances standardized!

Sunnydaze: You are absolutely correct about aligning the cantilever instead of the cartridge body. I’ve seen way too many brand-new carts with cantilevers slightly out of alignment. BTW, those Kuzma instructions are some of the best I’ve seen. Thanks for the link. Regarding aligning the stylus at a low VTF, when you increase the VTF, the cart will be out of alignment (if only slightly) because the added weight pushes the stylus forward. Michael Fremer’s video “20th Century Vinyl” has a good animated illustration of this.

Thanks for a great thread, all.
-Bob

[Wayner]

Sunnydaze, Sorry, but your response is kind of complete BS. Here is why. The most critical factor of any cartridge alignment is offset angle, shit they all have to be on the nat's ass, but the fact is, you can't possibly see even 1/2 degree of error with the human eye. Overhang is the easy part of the equation. If you have a cartridge that the stylus is skewed from the body, I'd send it back. If you can see it with your naked eye, there is serious quality control problems with the manufacturer. I don't buy any of this for one minute.

Wayner

[neobop]

Good stuff, folks. Just a few points:

Neo: Regarding minimum modulated groove radius, you might be interested in this: “There is a widespread misconception that the minimum allowable radius for the modulated portion of an LP groove is 60.325mm. Well, it isn’t. When I laboriously measured my LP collection 30 years ago, I found a significant proportion had minimum radii down to 58mm, which I subsequently recommended as a realistic figure to use in alignment calculations. IEC 60098 doesn’t explicitly state a minimum modulated radius…it turns out that the minimum permissible radius for the modulated portion of the groove is 56mm.” From “Arc Angles” by longtime analog maven Keith Howard in the March 2010 issue of “Stereophile,” p. 56

-Bob

Bob,
LOL, I accept that you're quoting Keith Howard out of context and maybe he isn't a complete moron. But when I read, "When I laboriously measured my LP collection 30 years ago, I found a significant proportion had minimum radii down to 58mm, which I subsequently recommended as a realistic figure to use in alignment calculations." I gotta wonder.

It doesn't much matter where the lead out groove starts. Hell, I have a Miles Davis record that has 1 side around 27 min and there is about 8mm of lead out before you hit the label. No, I didn't measure it.

Look at the inner nulls on the 3 standard alignments:
Stevenson -60.325
Loefgren A - 66
Loefgren B - 70.29
Stevenson is already set up for the end of record. The main criticism is that the beginning suffers. What are you going to do, change the inner null to 58mm? If you change the calculation for the center of grooves to include 58mm as the lead out start, then you'd have to move it (center) in 1.1625mm.

I've been recommending the straight line grid protractor for those who want to experiment with alignment, and for those whose combination of cart and arm won't allow a particular alignment. For those experiencing end of record distortion or sibilance, you might want to try an alignment between Stevenson and Baerwald (Loefgren A).
neo

[TheChairGuy]

Attention all newbies tuning in:

Please avoid this topic at all costs.  I fear we will irretrievably lose you to the minutae expressed here.

Not that there isn't something important to learn - it just sways far further into the exotica camp of cartridge alignment than you likely will ever need to know.

Balance your cartridge to the recommended tracking force of your make, set it to one point on whatever overhang gauge you can find or is recommended for your tonearm and set it square (or, correct azimuth) in your headshell. 

Vertical Tracking Angle (or, Stylus Rake Angle) is secondary to the above three tasks.

Set your table up on as non-resonant a platform as you can use or buy - enjoy your tunes - and stick around Vinyl Circle for more fun 

Thank you,

John / TheChairGuy - erstwhile Facilitator of The Vinyl Circle

[neobop]

John,
Good way to attract attention: WARNING DON'T READ

I see Sunnydaze has stirred up a bit of a hornets nest regarding cantilever vs cart body alignment. At the onset, I think it might be helpful to get two thing out of the way. The relationship of the stylus/cantilever to the groove, is what's being aligned. It is also the cantilever angle that defines the offset angle.

Normally carts have the body end of the cantilever centered. They are usually straight when new. Often, a cantilever gets canted to one side by skating or excessive anti-skate. If your cantilever is to one side, you can either align the cantilever, or try to correct it by aligning the body and over or under compensate with anti-skate. Depending on compliance and age etc, they sometimes will recenter. If you're aligning the cantilever a mirrored protractor can be helpful. They can be tricky to use.
neo

[sunnydaze]

John,
Good way to attract attention: WARNING DON'T READ

I see Sunnydaze has stirred up a bit of a hornets nest regarding cantilever vs cart body alignment. At the onset, I think it might be helpful to get two thing out of the way. The relationship of the stylus/cantilever to the groove, is what's being aligned. It is also the cantilever angle that defines the offset angle.

Hmmmmm.....I don't see how my post is so controversial.  Your last sentence above is 100% correct.  That's why I do it that way. 

Wayner doesn't agree.  I explain an easy and precise way to align a rounded body cartridge (or any cartridge, for that matter) and his response is that it is BS.  No explanation why it is BS....just that it is BS.    Or maybe the explanation is there, and I simply don't understand it.

he says:

The most critical factor of any cartridge alignment is offset angle, shit they all have to be on the nat's ass, but the fact is, you can't possibly see even 1/2 degree of error with the human eye. Overhang is the easy part of the equation. If you have a cartridge that the stylus is skewed from the body, I'd send it back. If you can see it with your naked eye, there is serious quality control problems with the manufacturer. I don't buy any of this for one minute.


First of all......I am not talking about a skewed stylus, whatever that is.   I specifically and clearly said cantilever.  It is not unusual for them not to be set 100% perfect in the cartridge body.  Hence the reason for aligning the cantilever and not the cartridge body.   If cantilever is off by a small amt,  and you can't see it,  why would you wanna set the offset with the cartridge body?  That method assumes there is no cantilever build error, and if error is present you are 100% guaranteed to obtain an incorrect offset angle!

The Kuzma method I use makes no such assumption.  It only assumes that the stylus is attached properly to the cantilever.  It will yield good offset angle results even if the cantilever is off....by any amt, small or large.  If you sight down the line properly and use a good light and magnifier lens, it really is easy to adjust things such that the line and cantilever blend and become one.   Doesn't this mean that that the offset angle is correct? 

Conversely,  there is no such assurance when using cartridge body, if the cantilever is not set 100% perfectly.  So how is using the cartridge body better?   What am I not understanding here, Wayner?

Also,  trying to achieve a cartridge body parallel to grid lines is much harder to see and accomplish than my cantilever / line merge method.  I have done it both ways.  Unless someone can explain otherwise, the cantilever alignment method just makes more sense to me.

The proof is in the pudding.  I always get phenomenal sonic results very quickly when using the Kuzma setup method.   This has not been the case when trying to align the cartridge body with my DB Systems protractor.

Additionally,  and no offense Wayner, but I have much more confidence in a method recommended by Franc Kuzma  -- who in my estimation is a genius in the analog world -- than by you.   I have owned several of his products, all excellent.  I think my current Stogi Reference is an absolutely killer arm......way better than the SME V that I previously owned.   So based on my direct experience with his gear,  I would say he knows his stuff!