[neobop]

Here we have a perfect example of an unknown pivot/stylus distance. This renders a 3 point approach useless. Many arms are mounted with pivot/stylus distance altered a mm or 2, sometimes intentionally. I wouldn't rely on a guesstimate of this distance to set my alignment.
"I'm not abandoning the 2 point  method, it is the essential last step in the alignment process." Yes, it is the last step to check accuracy. Why?

Because you say you've had imprecise results using a 2 point alone, doesn't mean it can't be achieved. Obviously you're doing something wrong. If you need an intermediate step to get there, so be it. If the 2 point is the final check, then it follows that getting the 2 point correctly will yield exact alignment.
"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." This makes no sense. What happened when you changed it for correct overhang, it no longer was aligned on the 2 point grids?

FYI, the arc of the stylus (overhang) is contained in the grids of a 2 point. It is an abstract that intersects the targets of each grid. Get the stylus/cantilever to line up, both in distance and angle on both grids and you are using the arc to align. I'm not opposed to using other means to get tangency or other nulls, for that matter. But I object to your statements about protractors being inaccurate, just because you've had problems.

You still haven't addressed the problems with arms located at unknown distance or fixed headshells. I guess it's easy enough to have overhang arcs on a template. But if mounting distance is unknown, it's useless.

neo

[rcag_ils]

That's why Wayner maxed out the cartridge's forward adjustment on his headshell. Either Technics mounted the arm wrong, or Wayner screwed up his paper tool. When he finalize his paper tool, he may have to file the slots longer on his headshell to get his overhang right, then the null point will be way off on the protractor. His paper tool is based on the assumption that all the tonearms are mounted wrong on the turntable, so that he has to "check" with his paper tool, and it's still wrong, because the overhang is incorrect.

[neobop]

That's why Wayner maxed out the cartridge's forward adjustment on his headshell. Either Technics mounted the arm wrong, or Wayner screwed up his paper tool. When he finalize his paper tool, he may have to file the slots longer on his headshell to get his overhang right, then the null point will be way off on the protractor. His paper tool is based on the assumption that all the tonearms are mounted wrong on the turntable, so that he has to "check" with his paper tool, and it's still wrong, because the overhang is incorrect.

Uh, no. As I said previously, overhang will change with different alignments. The factory nulls on the Technics are ridiculous, the inner one being in the lead out groove. Wayner happens to prefer the alignment (Loefgren) that requires the greatest amount of overhang. That's why the cart is at the end of the headshell. I have a headshell that has slots that I elongated to accommodate a Japanese arm and a cart with mounting bolts close to the stylus. My preferred alignment is Baerwald, which happens to require overhang very close to Loefgren.

These geometric relationships are a little confusing until you sit down and analyse. But it's really not necessary if you're not into it. What is necessary is to have a "good" alignment. There are a few threads on this subject, one of which I referred to. Felix, a new member here, has a great DIY guide for cartridge alignment, maybe he'll see this thread and give us a link. There is no right/wrong when it comes to choosing an alignment. The vast majority prefer Baerwald or Loefgren, but if inner groove distortion is a problem, then you might want to try Stevenson. The inner null of Stevenson is right at the standard lead out groove. Rega arms use an alignment very close to that. The brief look I had at Wayner's alignment method, seemed like it is very good. Neither one of us proved or disproved anything. It's more like a disagreement about approach. If this confused or intimidated anyone, don't worry about it. Just make sure you have a good alignment. If you're having a problem or need help, don't hesitate to ask. All this is not about nothing. Having a proper alignment makes a hugh difference in sound quality. You don't have to understand the geometry to benefit.

neo

[Letitroll98]

Here's a link that will solve all of your question (for those that have any) and answer any debate.  It's Conrad Hoffman's alignment template generator which once unzipped can calculate any alignment (Lofgren A or B, Stevenson, or Baerwald which is the same as Lofgren A but is not listed) , using any overhang, with variable null points. 

http://www.conradhoffman.com/chsw.htm

For myself, I have infirmities that cause me to have very clumsy hands and poor eyesight, so I'm unable to get consistent results with two point protractors and I have to use a tonearm specific arc protractor which effectively give me three points of alignment.  I can then check my results with the HFNRR alignment disk, which uses several types of alignment grids, I use the one that imitates the Geodisc one point grid with a tonearm pivot point alignment arrow.  When all of these agree I'm sure I have the proper alignment.  Note that these are all either free or included free with the purchase of another product.   

[Wayner]

That's why Wayner maxed out the cartridge's forward adjustment on his headshell. Either Technics mounted the arm wrong, or Wayner screwed up his paper tool. When he finalize his paper tool, he may have to file the slots longer on his headshell to get his overhang right, then the null point will be way off on the protractor. His paper tool is based on the assumption that all the tonearms are mounted wrong on the turntable, so that he has to "check" with his paper tool, and it's still wrong, because the overhang is incorrect.

That would be a very large WRONG. My Technics is set into a Lofgren B alignment. At the standard 215mm spindle to pivot spacing, which my little ruler proves, the overhang for a Lofgren B is 18.282mm. That puts the cartridge at the end of the slot, but it is in the correct position and the table sounds awesome. The Technics, and it's shipped alignment tool will set the cartridge into a Stevenson alignment. That is 215 pivot to spindle distance with a 15mm overhang. That would set the cartridge back about 3.282mm from where it is now, or about in the center of the slot. With the Technics, you can actually set it to the Lofgren A (Bearwald), Lofgren B, Stevenson or even a Heybrook alignment.

Wayner

[Wayner]

Here we have a perfect example of an unknown pivot/stylus distance. This renders a 3 point approach useless. Many arms are mounted with pivot/stylus distance altered a mm or 2, sometimes intentionally. I wouldn't rely on a guesstimate of this distance to set my alignment.
"I'm not abandoning the 2 point  method, it is the essential last step in the alignment process." Yes, it is the last step to check accuracy. Why?

Because you say you've had imprecise results using a 2 point alone, doesn't mean it can't be achieved. Obviously you're doing something wrong. If you need an intermediate step to get there, so be it. If the 2 point is the final check, then it follows that getting the 2 point correctly will yield exact alignment.
"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." This makes no sense. What happened when you changed it for correct overhang, it no longer was aligned on the 2 point grids?

FYI, the arc of the stylus (overhang) is contained in the grids of a 2 point. It is an abstract that intersects the targets of each grid. Get the stylus/cantilever to line up, both in distance and angle on both grids and you are using the arc to align. I'm not opposed to using other means to get tangency or other nulls, for that matter. But I object to your statements about protractors being inaccurate, just because you've had problems.

You still haven't addressed the problems with arms located at unknown distance or fixed headshells. I guess it's easy enough to have overhang arcs on a template. But if mounting distance is unknown, it's useless.

neo

I'm not doing something wrong with the two step method. However, my own designed cartridge alignment tool has an overhang scale. This allows me to not only check the null point locations, but also prove that the overhang is correct. I'm telling you that if you do not check the overhang and you believe your alignment is correct, you might be in for a surprises. Again, the geometry of the 2 point system, theoretically is correct, but the human eye is the great deceiver. I know the 2 nulls are on the same arc. I used to make templates that way, but then the template was only good for one table. It's not an abstract thing at all. It's real geometry.

 

Here is the Lofgren B on my Technics.


Wayner

[Wayner]

Here is the distortion plots for the Technics Lofgren B alignment.

Neo, you are absolutely correct about the Technics and it's way old Stevenson alignment. Grado users may benefit from the inner null point, tho.

 

Wayner

[Wayner]

Neo, I also now know that we both are on the exact same thought process as far as alignment goes. I just add one more step, but it's a step that I think is better. Yes, I'm sure you are highly skilled at aligning cartridges, you have said you done this for a living. Others may have only done it once or twice, and understanding the geometry or what is really going on may be confusing or simply too much to absorb all at once.

I've been into vinyl for many, many years. I still have my Empire 598 MKII from when I was 16 years old. It still works. The cartridge alignment procedure is confusing for so many, because there are no set standards. There are a host of different alignments, and some arm/table combinations can't even get to some of the alignments. If my Technics' slots were a mm shorter, I'd be screwed at doing a Lofgren B.

I do know that there are a lot of newbies out there and I hope threads like this help clear the air a bit, even if we argue a little over trivial stuff. Like you said, getting a proper alignment is the real key to great vinyl listening. It also reduces record wear.

Have a great Christmas.

Wayner

[BaMorin]

Here is the distortion plots for the Technics Lofgren B alignment.

Neo, you are absolutely correct about the Technics and it's way old Stevenson alignment. Grado users may benefit from the inner null point, tho.

 

Wayner

I'm not sure I understand that point.  My nulls are set at 66mm inner, and 120.9 outer.  I've run just about any configuration from FTE+1 to the Sonata1.
Linn arm(s) mounted at 210.7 (not the advertised 211) and stylus at 229.

[neobop]

BaMorin,
I think that was really about carts with bonded .3 x .7 styli, and inner groove distortion complaints. I've read many such complaints about the 2M Red and other carts with similar styli.

I just want to add, that techniques can be mastered to get the 2 point protractor right, without additional overhang checks. If you're unsure of the pivot/spindle distance, this is necessary. There are many tables out there with arms not installed by the factory. If, for instance, Letitroll's Rega on a VPI was mounted a mm or 2 off, then those arcs are wrong. They are based on where the arm theoretically should be, not where it actually is. That is, unless he's actually measured it.

One point protractors like Geodisc, Dennesen, and Clearaudio are based on the actual location of the pivot (not where it theoretically should be) and will give excellent results if used properly. That is the key. If I'm using a 2 point, I have pin holes to make sure I have the right distance, and magnification and proper lighting to see if lines coincide or square up. I normally align the cantilever with the anti-skate off. I also use a flashlight to make sure the angle of the light isn't causing an error. You shine the light at different angles - you'll see what I mean.

Before you get to that point though, here's some tips to get there quickly. Get the right distance on the inner grid, so the stylus is in the hole and the angle is close. Then move to the outer grid and put the stylus in the pin hole. If the grid looks like the back is going toward the inside (the lines that should be parallel with the sides of the cart) or toward the platter, then move the cart forward in the headshell. If the lines are going toward the outside of the table, away from the platter, then you need to move it back. Knowing which direction to go can save a ton of time. Don't get into magnifiers etc until you're really close. On fleabey somewhere they have linen magnifiers (a few $) that can really help. These stand up and make it much easier. Once again, change angles just like you change the light, to make sure. It's really easy for it to look right from one angle and prove to be off. That's the trick to getting it right when you're at the final stage.

Oh, one more thing, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays everybody!!

neo

[Wayner]

I'm not sure I understand that point.  My nulls are set at 66mm inner, and 120.9 outer.  I've run just about any configuration from FTE+1 to the Sonata1.
Linn arm(s) mounted at 210.7 (not the advertised 211) and stylus at 229.

I'm not sure I know what you mean? Are you taking about the existing Technics alignment? If so, the specifications for the arm and the supplied gauge put's the stylus at 15mm overhang. They don't really tell the user how to deal with the offset angle, like by setting it with any null points.

The actual numbers for a Stevenson are: inner null at 57.5 outer at 115.522 (DIN).

Wayner

[Wayner]

My bad, you are referring to my Grado comment. I think Grados are wonderful cartridges. I make the Grado Gold1 and Green1 Longhorns for Audio by Van Alstine. On some particular tables I have found that the Grado really picks up inner track distortions after inside of the first null point, between there and the label. Using the Stevenson alignment solves that problem. I have no explanation for this, as it only seems to occur with one other table that I have.

Which makes me want to ask the next question. Are some cartridges just plain better suited for some alignments?

Wayner

[rcag_ils]

That would be a very large WRONG. My Technics is set into a Lofgren B alignment. At the standard 215mm spindle to pivot spacing, which my little ruler proves, the overhang for a Lofgren B is 18.282mm. That puts the cartridge at the end of the slot, but it is in the correct position and the table sounds awesome. The Technics, and it's shipped alignment tool will set the cartridge into a Stevenson alignment. That is 215 pivot to spindle distance with a 15mm overhang. That would set the cartridge back about 3.282mm from where it is now, or about in the center of the slot. With the Technics, you can actually set it to the Lofgren A (Bearwald), Lofgren B, Stevenson or even a Heybrook alignment.

Just messing with you. I still like the simple protractor method.

[BaMorin]

My bad, you are referring to my Grado comment. I think Grados are wonderful cartridges. I make the Grado Gold1 and Green1 Longhorns for Audio by Van Alstine. On some particular tables I have found that the Grado really picks up inner track distortions after inside of the first null point, between there and the label. Using the Stevenson alignment solves that problem. I have no explanation for this, as it only seems to occur with one other table that I have.

Which makes me want to ask the next question. Are some cartridges just plain better suited for some alignments?

Wayner

Yes the comment was about alignment and grado.  Your observation about it occuring on one other table.......is the same observation I've had with what is percieved as a mistracking issue. That was on a Sony PS-X7. That table wouldn't track a grado to save its soul. And it did get worse on the inner grooves. Same cart, different arm, zero issues.

Probably should splt this off into another topic line.......as I don't want to clog this one up, nor hi-jack it.

Marc

[Wayner]

Marc, one more comment on the Grado then back to the topic. I think the problem is really caused from anti-skating settings. I have a Sony PS-X7 as well, also a PS-X5, but those are not "the other table" I had a problem with. It was in fact my old Empire, which I know has an anti-skating issue, because of it's age and it was a spring loaded device, not magnetic as so many others are.

Wayner

[BaMorin]

Marc, one more comment on the Grado then back to the topic. I think the problem is really caused from anti-skating settings. I have a Sony PS-X7 as well, also a PS-X5, but those are not "the other table" I had a problem with. It was in fact my old Empire, which I know has an anti-skating issue, because of it's age and it was a spring loaded device, not magnetic as so many others are.

Wayner

how about a new topic line.......

[neobop]

Slight correction -
Stevenson nulls = 60.325 and 117.42

Baerwald (Loefgren A) = 66 and 120.89

Loefgren (B) = 70.29 and 116.6

Stevenson reasoned that because distortion is greatest at the inner grooves, it beneficial having the inner null near where the record ends. This alignment can sound really good with longer arms. Inner groove distortion isn't greater because of arm geometry. It's greater because of the smaller groove circles.

Baerwald and Loefgren are pretty close sonically, even though the numbers look very different. You'll notice that Loefgren nulls are closer to the center of record. That's where tracking distortion is greatest, and that is why Loefgren has lowest total distortion. Baerwald has a more even amount of error throughout the record.

neo

[BaMorin]

Slight correction -
Stevenson nulls = 60.325 and 117.42

Baerwald (Loefgren A) = 66 and 120.89

Loefgren (B) = 70.29 and 116.6

Stevenson reasoned that because distortion is greatest at the inner grooves, it beneficial having the inner null near where the record ends. This alignment can sound really good with longer arms. Inner groove distortion isn't greater because of arm geometry. It's greater because of the smaller groove circles.

Baerwald and Loefgren are pretty close sonically, even though the numbers look very different. You'll notice that Loefgren nulls are closer to the center of record. That's where tracking distortion is greatest, and that is why Loefgren has lowest total distortion. Baerwald has a more even amount of error throughout the record.

neo

Which raises the question on tracking error and tracking distortion.....all of these measurements were done when the stylus shape was conical. How much of the inner groove distortion has been removed by the higher profile shapes? Does the better stylii make "Stevenson" mute?

[Letitroll98]

One point protractors like Geodisc, Dennesen, and Clearaudio are based on the actual location of the pivot (not where it theoretically should be) and will give excellent results if used properly. That is the key. If I'm using a 2 point, I have pin holes to make sure I have the right distance, and magnification and proper lighting to see if lines coincide or square up. I normally align the cantilever with the anti-skate off. I also use a flashlight to make sure the angle of the light isn't causing an error. You shine the light at different angles - you'll see what I mean.

+1 on all of that neo.  Definitely anti-skate force to zero as the pull will easily offset the cantilever from it's natural rest position.  I thought I invented the flashlight trick, guess I'm not so smart after all.  I don't have a Soundtractor‎ or a Clearaudio, but the HFNRR thick paper alignment disk is the same geometry as the Geodisc.  I have to use a string to align the printed arrow to get it consistently pointed at the tonearm pivot, but once so aligned it agrees with my Hoffman printed arc template (printed on gloss heavyweight photo paper).  I tried pinholes and while I agree they should work, I was never happy with them, I'm certain it's me and the way I make the pinhole or something.

The mounting distance on my Rega is spot on spec, but I agree, aftermarket arms on blank armboards have no reason to be mounted correctly beyond the skill of the installer.   

[neobop]

Marc,
Good point. Although geometry doesn't change regardless of stylus shape, distortion might, and tracking ability certainly will. I guess it could be argued either way regarding distortion. Because the stylus has a thinner side profile and is able to resolve more information, tracking error becomes more noticeable?  Or, because tracking ability is improved with greater vertical groove contact and thinner side profile, there is less minor mistracking and loss of information.  Or, all of the above.

When I tried a micro line stylus with Stevenson, on an arm of 240mm eff length, it sounded great, even spectacular, on all but the beginning of record. There it was good, but not great. I think arm length is the key here. I wouldn't use Stevenson with arms of less than that eff length. With 9" arms, you're better off with Baerwald or Loefgren. IMO Baerwald is better with those arms. I had a couple of different ones with that geometry (Linn) and Baerwald seemed best. They were the Zeta and Alphason 100S, which I still have.
YMMV