[neobop]

Hi Neo,
Just reporting what I read! In fact, you may find a passage further into the article equally interesting: "For a modulated-groove-radius range of 56-146.3, they (the null points) should be at 61.6 and 118.4mm; or, for 58-146.3mm, at 63.6 and 119.6mm."

I knew you'd want to know! 

-Bob

Getting back on topic, the consideration here is obviously end of record performance. Stevenson sacrifices the overall error and lowest average error for end of record performance. This is a valid approach actually, because the smaller groove diameter at the end is problematic. They say that distortion < 1% can't really be detected by listeners. You can judge this for yourself - one of the main points of a thread like this, IMO.

The nulls recommended above, are between Stevenson and Baerwald. The 2nd set is around 1/2 way. I've tried alignments similar to these and I think they can sound pretty good.

To any newbies who might be reading this, obviously these considerations are not necessary to play a record and outperform digital. You don't have to go state of the art to do that. But vinyl does have the potential for hands on considerations that refine your experience even more, if you choose to. I think most people that enjoy playing records don't mess with alignment too much. The set and forget approach works just fine as long as you have done it correctly.
neo

[Letitroll98]

Hi Folks,

Some of you know me, some don't, but I'll opinionate fer a spell here.

Sunnydaze is dead on correct that you must align with the cantilever, very few are in perfect alignment with the cartridge body.  I don't agree with the pin hole as I think that can skew the cantilever's apparent alignment, I prefer a very smooth surface with incredibly tiny down-force, just enough to make the diamond touch the surface, but that's personal preference.

Wayne, for the technically inclined you simply must, immediately, I mean now, download Conrad Hoffman's two point arc protractor alignment generator over at that other vinyl site that will go forever unmentioned in my posts.  It's so much fun it's ridiculous.  Even if you don't use the protractor you generate, just to see the different null points and offsets instantly generated for IEC, DIN and your own personally chosen inner run out points, and Loefgren, Baerwald, and Stevenson alignments all at your fingertips is invaluable to the terminally tweaky.

Which leads to my last point (thankfully I'm sure) that the null points of Loefgren, Baerwald, or Stevenson are completely relative to the inner and outer lead in and run out points chosen.  These are listed in the usual calculations, but are no means static, fixed or predetermined.  There are standards for DIN (Japanese arms usually), IEC which is what is usually quoted, or you can decide on your own, the last of which makes the most sense to me.  Modern record run out distances are way different than classical IEC standard 60.3mm, much closer to 70 or even 75mm.  You can achieve dramatically lower distortion levels across the record surface by altering the IEC standard in your calculations.     

[neobop]

Letitroll,
As posted previously, using a minimum VTF to align means that you will be out of alignment when you apply the actual VTF and the suspension compresses. Also, sometimes you can re-center a cantilever, especially with a higher compliance cart.

Good point about modern records. I only have a few. Most of mine are re-issues and seem like the originals in that respect. I do have one that is around 70mm. You think I should re-align for that record? 
For someone with modern records exclusively (if such a person actually exists), then a Loegfren B alignment will have the benefits of the old Stevenson alignment on inner grooves!! That is, if they can get a Loefgren B with their cart/arm combo. Going beyond 70.29 might be problematic with most set-ups.
neo