[Wayner]

This is a tool I have been working on for some time, and it has changed from it's original thoughts and designs, but I am still amazed at the things that can be made of paper, useful tools for us vinyl dopes.

This tool measures the distance from the center of the TT spindle to the center of the tonearm pivot, which is most necessary when calculating overhang to achieve any one of many alignment curves. While the accuracy is up for debate (at least to a very finite level), it will nontheless ball park the spindle to pivot distance.

 

The bottom of the triangular base has a predetermined triangular hole that just fits the standard spindle diameter. It then is referenced to the cross-member and then eventually to the mm scale. Keeping reference lines to make it all line up is crucial as it is made from 3 pieces of 110lb card stock, then laminated for stability and strength.

 

This view shows the correct spindle to pivot distance of 215mm for my Technics TT.

Orthobiz is getting one, so I'm curious to see how he likes it or what improvements it might need (and I already know one). Fun.

Wayner

[Ericus Rex]

How can I get one?

[rcag_ils]

This view shows the correct spindle to pivot distance of 215mm for my Technics TT.

OK, so we know that the spindle to pivot distance has been adjusted to 215mm at the Mitsushita factory, that's nice. So what do we do with that information? (I could have easily pulled a string and get the same thing).

Why did you maxed out the cartridge forward adjustment? That has never happened to me in my 30 years of vinyl listening.

[Wayner]

OK, so we know that the spindle to pivot distance has been adjusted to 215mm at the Mitsushita factory, that's nice. So what do we do with that information? (I could have easily pulled a string and get the same thing).

Why did you maxed out the cartridge forward adjustment? That has never happened to me in my 30 years of vinyl listening.

Well, instead of being a sheep, you could use a different overhang other then the supplied 15mm, which gives the Technics SL1200 a really bad distortion curve. You could align it to a Lofgren B as I have, and have a much better vinyl presentation. Lower overall average distortion, overall lower tracking error. And while the Technics is a no brainer finding info on spindle to pivot distances, there are other tables that have no, or incorrect information on this distance, and the user would have no clue he/she had the wrong overhang. There are great errors with just a 2 point alignment system (that is why mine is 3).

Wayner

[Wayner]

How can I get one?

Still in the moderate proto-type stage, but lets see what happens. Orthobiz is being used as a guinea pig. However, I think he likes the role.

Wayner

[rcag_ils]

Well, instead of being a sheep, you could use a different overhang other then the supplied 15mm, which gives the Technics SL1200 a really bad distortion curve. You could align it to a Lofgren B as I have, and have a much better vinyl presentation. Lower overall average distortion, overall lower tracking error.

All that tells me is that Mitsushita has never heard of the Lofgren B, or don't really care what they put out, as long as it has a platter that turns, and a tonearm that send sound out of your speakers. Dwelling on a Technics is like putting lipstick on a pig.

[orthobiz]

I'm gonna use the prototype to tackle a Sugden TT with a Grace 707 that is not properly set up. See if I can get it to work. This kind of stepped guide that Wayner is sending me has got to be better than a piece of string! I bought a nice stainless steel ruler and think the spindle to pivot distance is 217 instead of the necessary 222mm. But parallax and the angle of the ruler is anything but accurate!

Paul

[rcag_ils]

This kind of stepped guide that Wayner is sending me has got to be better than a piece of string! I bought a nice stainless steel ruler and think the spindle to pivot distance is 217 instead of the necessary 222mm. But parallax and the angle of the ruler is anything but accurate!

It looks to me the paper tool is for measuring the spindle to pivot distance after the tonearm has been installed, why do it after is beyond me. If you try to use it to make a mark with that paper tool so you can install the tonearm at the correct spot, the parallax will still be there. May as well eyeball it.

[neobop]

There are great errors with just a 2 point alignment system (that is why mine is 3).
Wayner

This statement is obviously incorrect. A 2 point Loefgren protractor will give the same null points with or without the use of spindle distance or 3rd point.

If the contention is that it's easier to use an arc, that may be so. But there are no "great errors" using a 2 point protractor. Either method, used correctly, will yield IDENTICAL results.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=82466.0

neo

[Wayner]

This statement is obviously incorrect. A 2 point Loefgren protractor will give the same null points with or without the use of spindle distance or 3rd point.

If the contention is that it's easier to use an arc, that may be so. But there are no "great errors" using a 2 point protractor. Either method, used correctly, will yield IDENTICAL results.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=82466.0

neo

There is a great error in using just 2 points. The eye simply is not accurate enough to align to a grid pattern without the help of a third point. Going back and forth between two grid points may look like you are right on, but indeed, you could be off by as much as 1mm in the overhang. The 2 point alignment is not accurate enough.

After you have aligned your cartridge using the 2 point system, measure your overhang. You might be surprised how far you are off. The 2 null points (with the alignment grid) actually sets the offset angle, but it is completely related to overhang. If all three points are not dialed in, you will have alignment error.

[Wayner]

It looks to me the paper tool is for measuring the spindle to pivot distance after the tonearm has been installed, why do it after is beyond me. If you try to use it to make a mark with that paper tool so you can install the tonearm at the correct spot, the parallax will still be there. May as well eyeball it.

I think there are a lot of things that are beyond you.

Wayner 

[neobop]

There is a great error in using just 2 points. The eye simply is not accurate enough to align to a grid pattern without the help of a third point. Going back and forth between two grid points may look like you are right on, but indeed, you could be off by as much as 1mm in the overhang. The 2 point alignment is not accurate enough.

After you have aligned your cartridge using the 2 point system, measure your overhang. You might be surprised how far you are off. The 2 null points (with the alignment grid) actually sets the offset angle, but it is completely related to overhang. If all three points are not dialed in, you will have alignment error.

Nonsense. The grid is the same. Most commercial protractors have a pin hole or indentation at grids dead center. If you download a protractor, it's easy enough to put a pin hole there to mark the spot. As long as you can see the stylus/cantilever, you will get identical results. Using an arc, or third point might be slightly easier, but you still have to align on the same two grids.

I don't think there is any arm made that uses Loefgren as factory alignment. The vast majority use Baerwald. Many older Japanese arms use Stephenson or a variation of it. In that case your overhang will change with a different alignment. It is NOT necessary to compute overhang change to achieve a correct alignment. If used properly, results will be identical, including overhang.

I guess you're using this forum to promote your alignment system. That's fine with me, it looks good. But please don't misrepresent the benefits. There is NO difference if either method is used correctly. It isn't as hard as you say.

neo

[neobop]

I think there are a lot of things that are beyond you.

Wayner 

Even though your snotty response was directed at Rcag_ils, I think I should point out that he's correct.
"It looks to me the paper tool is for measuring the spindle to pivot distance after the tonearm has been installed, why do it after is beyond me. If you try to use it to make a mark with that paper tool so you can install the tonearm at the correct spot, the parallax will still be there. May as well eyeball it."

I understand that you made the paper tool to measure pivot/spindle distance on an arm already installed. Why couldn't you just say that, instead of being nasty? This stuff doesn't have to be so confrontational.

neo

[Miney]

Dwelling on a Technics is like putting lipstick on a pig.

ouch

[Wayner]

Yes, the grid is the same. Theoretically you are correct. However in practice, there are errors to be discovered.

Here is my example. If I were to draw 2 lines, 1/2" long about 1/2" apart, but didn't tell you that I drew one line off by .1 degrees, you would think, because of what your eyes were telling you, that the lines were parallel. If I then extended the lines to about a foot long, you would then notice that in fact the lines were not parallel. This is what happens with any 2 point alignment system. If you are off .1 degree, your stylus overhang will not be in the correct position. I doubt if anyone could tell if something is off by .1 degrees.

Therefore, the 3 point system helps to eliminate errors by reference 3 positions, of overhang, null point 1 and null point 2. This helps to reduce eyeball error and gets the cartridge in a more accurate position.

I have tools that can measure overhang at any particular time. I have discovered that try as I might with a 2 point system, that my overhang was always plus or minus of where it was supposed to be. Since almost all alignment systems use paralleling techniques either with a portion of the cartridge body or cantilever, you perhaps can understand my point of where the error comes into play, not because the geometry was wrong, but the technique was.

As far as policing my response to rcag_ils, The Technics table was used only as a model. Othobiz certainly understood what I was doing, as he has a table that he has no way to measure.

Wayner

[Wayner]

I understand that you made the paper tool to measure pivot/spindle distance on an arm already installed. Why couldn't you just say that, instead of being nasty? This stuff doesn't have to be so confrontational.

neo

That is what I said in the very first paragraph: This tool measures the distance from the center of the TT spindle to the  center of the tonearm pivot, which is most necessary when calculating  overhang to achieve any one of many alignment curves. While the accuracy  is up for debate (at least to a very finite level), it will nontheless  ball park the spindle to pivot distance.

I didn't imply that the tool was to be used for accurately locating a new tonearm position, in fact I said it wasn't.

Wayner

[neobop]

Yes, the grid is the same. Theoretically you are correct. However in practice, there are errors to be discovered.

Here is my example. If I were to draw 2 lines, 1/2" long about 1/2" apart, but didn't tell you that I drew one line off by .1 degrees, you would think, because of what your eyes were telling you, that the lines were parallel. If I then extended the lines to about a foot long, you would then notice that in fact the lines were not parallel. This is what happens with any 2 point alignment system. If you are off .1 degree, your stylus overhang will not be in the correct position. I doubt if anyone could tell if something is off by .1 degrees.

Therefore, the 3 point system helps to eliminate errors by reference 3 positions, of overhang, null point 1 and null point 2. This helps to reduce eyeball error and gets the cartridge in a more accurate position.

I have tools that can measure overhang at any particular time. I have discovered that try as I might with a 2 point system, that my overhang was always plus or minus of where it was supposed to be. Since almost all alignment systems use paralleling techniques either with a portion of the cartridge body or cantilever, you perhaps can understand my point of where the error comes into play, not because the geometry was wrong, but the technique was.

As far as policing my response to rcag_ils, The Technics table was used only as a model. Othobiz certainly understood what I was doing, as he has a table that he has no way to measure.

Wayner

Nothing wrong with the 2 point technique if applied properly. If you have holes or indentations to mark the null point and hit it exactly, then the alignment is self-correcting. If your angle is slightly off at 1 null, then it will obviously be further off at the other. Your alignment isn't achieved until it is perfect at both nulls. This can easily be verified with minimal magnification.

You seem to be under the impression that overhang measurements are accurate. They are less accurate than alignment grids. What about the vast number of arms without a removable headshell? Should we use your paper measurement device?

I understand that many people find a 2 point protractor tedious. If they choose Baerwald alignment, then there are quite a few alternatives. Geodisc, and Clearaudio are a couple that use different sighting methods and are relatively easy. I've checked a Dennesen protractor many times. It comes out perfect, if used properly. dBsystems makes a 2 point protractor with easy to follow instructions. Reality is, the 2 point method is the MOST accurate because of the self-correcting nature.

neo

[Wayner]

Well, we have to agree that we disagree. I'm not abandoning the 2 point  method, it is the essential last step in the alignment process. To rely  on two vectors to create a third, with out verifiable measurement does  not stand well with my engineering background. I understand that you  have been setting up turntables for a long time. Well, I've been  engineering for a long time and have been using CAD for 25 years and  geometry is rich is my blood. With my own designed alignment tool (I'm  really not allowed to promote it other then on the Van Alstine site) I  incorporated overhang scales as well as null point scales. I have  installed and aligned many cartridges using the two point system, and  when I brought it over to the overhang scale, it was off, no matter how  hard I tried, back and forth and back and forth. My conclusion was that  unless you use the 3 points, you are kidding yourself into thinking that  the overhang is correct. You are using the two point system to do two  things at once, first set the offset angle and secondly the overhang.  Why go thru all the work. It's mush easier to set the overhang first,  then head over to the null point scale and finish it off. Easy, accurate  and verifiably accurate. Many alignment tool manufacturers claim they  will get you with in 2 thousands of an inch with their tool. I simply  don't buy that for one minute.
 
 Wayner

[jtwrace]

Come to NC and I'll use my CMM on them and the truth will come out. 

[orthobiz]

The only thing this thread is missing is a discussion of whether power cables can make a difference in audio performance! Nothing seems to bring up banter better than alignment tools on a vinyl forum!

BTW, the turntable I'm looking at seems to have an eccentric mounting hole at the tonearm base. I'm going to take off the bottom cover and see if I can rotate it and achieve the proper 222mm distance once Wayner's tool arrives. I'll be sure to post pics.

Paul