If step 1 is locating the pivot by aligning the crossarm with it such that the pointer sets down on the pivot point at a distance from the center of the spindle equal to the manufacturer's recommendation (thus setting the P2S distance; for this, the tonearm might have to be loose in the armboard so you can tweak the distance by a few mm either way), then they are saying you should now ignore that (after securing the tonearm in its mount) and go on to step 2, which requires rotating the whole platform in order to make the stylus sit down on the crosshairs. This usually requires some maneuvering of the cartridge in the headshell to set the stylus tip exactly on the single point in the crosshairs and to align the body of the cartridge with the parallel lines flanking the crosshairs. Once you've got that dialed in, then tighten the cartridge screws being careful not to disturb the position of the cartridge. THEN they probably ask you to swing the tonearm over to the second set of crosshairs and check that the cartridge also aligns with those (step 3). If the P2S distance was not exactly set in step 1, then step 3 won't work, because the arc described by the stylus tip will not pass over the second set of crosshairs. (I am reciting this from memory; I don't have the instructions at hand.)
Thanks for the quick response. I'm still a bit confused about a couple of things - maybe I'm just having an off night :). First, I don't think I can change the P2S distance on the VPI Prime, at least not that I can see. The manufacturer recommends 258mm, and the measurement on the protractor is 261mm.
I'm not sure I explained the problem clearly. According to the instructions, the first step (it doesn't mention the P2S) is to place the gauge pin over the pivot point and then place the cartridge on the lines marked "Step 1" (actually printed on the protractor itself) to adjust the overhang. I don't have any problem getting that dialed in with a little patience.
So, once I have that dialed in, it asks me to move to the lines on the protractor marked "step 2" (which are on the outisde part of the protractor) by rotating the protractor. However, the protractor only moves in a circular motion, so as long as the stylus is over the lines marked "step 1" it can't ever be over the lines marked "Step 2". It's like placing your stylus over track 3 of a record and then trying to rotate the record until your stylus is over track 2. You'll just go in circles. You have to move the tonearm over to "Step 2", presumably without moving the protractor, to make sure that the arc is correct. Or am I missing something?
Here's a pic
Sorry if I'm just dense....
Yes you move the tonearm to the crosshairs in the second step. The first step is to get the overhang correct. Rotate the protractor some and swing the arm out to step two to set the alignment at the second point. You are then checking the cartridge (stylus) alignment at a second (null?) point. The cartridge should ultimately show correct alignment at both points and point 3. To move from one to the other requires rotation of the turntable platter (alignment jig) and moving the arm.
If the factory recommended P2S for your tonearm is 258mm, and if you are reading 261mm with the Feickert, then you probably should investigate whether you can loosen the joint between the vertical shaft at the pivot point and the arm board, in order to move the pivot so as to comply with the recommended P2S. This ideally would be done BEFORE proceeding with any additional steps. Check the underside of your arm board. You should see a large nut or some other fastener that holds the tonearm in position in the horizontal plane and that would allow some movement of the tonearm pivot, if you loosen it a bit. Without correcting the P2S, you may have some difficulty achieving Steps 2 and 3. (Or you may not; there is usually some margin for error.)
The Feickert can be used as either a one-position protractor (locked in place and not moved to make the adjustment-easiest use) provided that the exact pivot point can be determined and the arm is pointed exactly over that point. Alternatively, you can use the twin null point grids for any given alignment scheme, but, you have to then move the protractor or rotate the platter and determine for yourself how to move the cartridge back and forth and side to side so that it can fit both the inner and outer grid (provided of course you move the protractor when going from one position to the other). If you use the protractor as a single point protractor, the result is correct when the adjustment also works when you use the two grid part of the protractor. A lot of people don't like the two grid approach because of the need to move the protractor and one can get confused as to which movement will be needed to get closer to a fit at both positions. The two grid approach requires more trial and error to get a good alignment, but, ultimately, correct alignment is assured only when the two grid approach is a perfect fit. With the one point alignment, you have to achieve perfection in locating the pivot point, something that is not often easy to achieve.
With the one point alignment, you have to achieve perfection in locating the pivot point, something that is not often easy to achieve
And this assumes that the P2S your arm is mounted at is the P2S the arm was designed for -- which does not seem to be the case here and as a result may prevent any alignment being achievable ...
Thanks for the wealth of information!
@lewm I don't seen any way to easily adjust the distance, although I will post question on the VPI forum to see what they recommend.
I can easily find the pivot point as it's a unipivot design. With the protractor in place I can easily get the stylus to hit the cross hairs for the overhang. However, if I use the protractor fixed in place, it overshoots one null point and undershoots the other. I assume this is caused by the disparity between the specs and the actual measurements?
smrex, I probably should not respond to your last question, because I am not sure I visualize what you are doing. Your tonearm is also a VPI, correct? It must be interchangeable with other tonearms of your choice. At this price point, it is hard to imagine that would not be so. Therefore, there must be a way to correct the P2S distance. By the way, also, "P2S" refers to "pivot to spindle" distance, nothing to do with stylus overhang. Perhaps my use of that abbreviation was confusing. With the Feickert, you don't have to think twice about stylus overhang per se, once you set P2S correctly and then adjust the cartridge in the headshell such that the stylus tip sits within the crosshairs and the cartridge body lies parallel to the lines parallel to its sides. I hope that helps.
Sorry for bring this thread back but I've just bought one of these and I'm very confused about how to use it correctly. My turntable is a PLX-1000. My understanding is that I place the gauge on the spindle, line up the spike with the pivot point, lock everything in place, tape the gauge down so it can't move and then adjust the cart so the stylus rests in the crosshairs of step 1 which is overhang. After that you adjust the angle of the cart to align it square with the grid on step 2 while also making sure the stylus rests in the crosshairs of step 2. Then make sure the cart also aligns with the grid and stylus rests in the crosshairs on step 3 and you're done. The problem I'm having here is no matter what I do, when overhang is set correctly to the gauge I can't get the stylus to rest in the crosshairs of step 2 and 3. It's usually slightly behind on step 2 and slightly in front in step 3. SO how do I rectify this? I have tried and tried and can't get it work. Isn't rotating the gauge "cheating" as you're aligning the gauge with the stylus and not the other way around?
Step 3 is a final check. It's not absolutely necessary but serves to corroborate your first two measurements. If steps 1 and 2 are done right, then step 3 should line up automatically.
I was having a hard time getting everything kosher when I was installing a new cartridge before realizing that my tonearm P2S distance was about 3 to 4 mm off.
I agree with Simao, but with the caveat that I own the older version of the Feickert Protractor. Mine has a base the size of an LP, whereas the newer version uses a base that is about half an LP, in size. Those who own it will know what I mean. The first step is to establish stylus overhang by first placing the poointer over the tonearm pivot and while in that position, you cite the stylus on a dot (on mine) that establishes overhang. On mine, these markers are inscribed in separate arcs running from the label area out to the perimeter, depending upon the effective length of any particular tonearm. The markings are labeled with respect to the P2S distance, not with respect to the actual pivot to stylus distance, which I find confusing if I have not used the protractor in several months. For example, if P2S (pivot to spindle) is 230mm and effective length (pivot to stylus) is 245mm, you adjust the cartridge so the stylus falls on a dot labeled "230mm". Weird but correct for mine, so far as I can tell. Then the next step is to rotate the disc template so that the stylus tip will fall on a dot confined by the innermost of two grids. You want to hit the dot and align the cartridge edges with the grid lines. Ideally, you are aligning the cantilever, if you can see it. You are essentially done at this point, as Simao suggests, but to maximize accuracy, for step 3, you rotate the disc again so that now the stylus tip falls on a dot within the outermost grid lines. This is kind of a test that you didn't disturb P2S in step 1. I don't know how different is the newer version from my older version to use, but I find mine to be quite versatile.
Let’s examine your latest post, Chakster.
You first admit you’ve “never tried” the older version of the Feickert, and then in the next sentence you assert that the latest version is “much better”. Need I say more?
And “simpler” is not always better .
By the way I was not asserting that one version is any better than the other, in the first place.
Can’t see any reason to try an old version or Feickert if it was upgraded long time ago by the manufacturer to the better latest version, sometimes it’s easy to see what is better. The 2.0 version is a one piece (the ruler and the platter screwed together, both are metal) and for this reason it’s precision version @lewm
Feickert 2.0 is easy to use, there are just 3 points for stylus with a choosen geometry. And yes the protractor can be rotated after 1st step is done.
I’ve seen many plastic or paper protractors, one of them which i recommend is FREE with Hi-Fi Test LP
In using this protractor, am I supposed to be adjusting the slide rule to my effective length of 230mm via the scale on the ruler? I notice a knurled knob in the center of the tower portion. I read instructions posted, but see no mention of this. Just how am i to set the overhang with this device? Thanks.
I have just about every alignment tool known to man - from a printed Hoffman arc protractor to an old Dennesen to a Feickert to a SMARTractor to many others. I use the SMARTractor now mostly because it's the most flexible and most finely constructed, but my random observation is that I've seen Harry Weisfeld use the VPI jig countless times to mount and align cartridges. It's fast and easy. They always come out sounding great. I'm not suggesting the VPI jig is the best tool for VPI tables, but I guess I'm saying there are a whole lot of tools out there that do the job perfectly well. If I had it to do over again maybe I could have saved a bunch of cash if I had stuck with my VPI jigs (258 and 300 mm).
Table and Tony, Have you ever measured spindle to pivot distance on your VPI turntable(s)? The point is that the OP measures 261mm, where he should see 258mm, on his VPI turntable. Does the VPI jig even have the capacity to precisely measure P2S, or does it operate on the given assumption that P2S is accurate? Probably the latter.
I used to have a VPI Classic 3 and JWM 10.5i which has a 258mm spindle to pivot length and an effective length of 273mm.
If you take your arm board off, like I did, there is a couple of mm of play in the assembly, because of the hole sizes etc. So Everytime I put it back together I tightened loosley then manuevered the assembly to 258mm pivot to spindle distance before tightening. Also make sure you are measuring the horizontal distance, so both the pivot and the spindle are on the same plane. Think of a right triangle, you don't want to measure the hypotenuse, otherwise that will result in a 1mm or so error on your part.
What I presumed, when they put these tables together they are not always exact because of couple of mm play in the arm board coupling.
Easy enough to remedy, just loosen, move to 258mm on the same plane, then tighten.
Table and Tony, Have you ever measured spindle to pivot distance on your VPI turntable(s)? The point is that the OP measures 261mm, where he should see 258mm, on his VPI turntable. Does the VPI jig even have the capacity to precisely measure P2S, or does it operate on the given assumption that P2S is accurate?
lewm, as you surmised the VPI jig assumes a correct pivot to spindle distance. Yes, the OP has a problem with a 261mm measurement. Another tool will have to be used to get that right. A Feickert or SMARTractor will get the job done, but at cost. A calibrated metric ruler can be purchased from a number of places at less cost, if Scott wanted to go that route.
Have you ever tried to measure P2S with a typical ruler? It is near impossible to get an accurate measurement because the spindle and the pivot are locatable in two different horizontal planes.
Plus, the OP HAS a Feickert. That’s how he knows the actual P2S is incorrect or at least different from the published spec. My point was, in part, do you know that your P2S is correct on your VPI?
I'm just as much of a nihilist as the next guy. Maybe moreso in my private moments. But still, it is nice to verify that if you buy a turntable and tonearm made by the same company, and if they come in a "package deal" with the tonearm already mounted, the P2S is in agreement with specifications published by the company. That's a fair distance from getting crazy over specs.
I have the newest version of the Feickert protractor. I used it to mount a 10.5 inch Reed 3P to my huge Layers of Beauty plinth housing a Garrard 301. Long story short-mounting the arm column using the tonearm builder's specified P-S meant slamming my Benz Glider all the way back in the head shell slots to get alignment. So after a lot of head and chin scratching, I purposefully re-mounted my tonearm 6 mms further back using the Feickert. And in the meantime I had purchased a Van den Hul Crimson.
I mounted the VdH and this time I had to slam the cartridge all the way forward in the head shell using the Feickert to get alignment.
Then I retained the services of Brian Walsh to professionally align my VdH Crimson. The end-result-Brian confirmed what I had read elsewhere-there is nothing magical about P-S. What counts is getting proper overhang. Brian's incredibly sophisticated Feickert Analogue + software confirmed that optimum alignment was achievable despite my fudging an extra 6 mm on my P-S distance.
At the end of the day, P-S serves as an average mounting point for obtaining proper overhang with a variety of cartridges when you have a slotted head shell. And then of course there is the SME method-a fixed head shell mount and you move the mounting column fore and aft to suit the cartridge. It's a factor of cartridge design-the length and angle of the cantilever in relation to the mounting screws.
Sonic, What you say is of course true. Any chosen P2S distance will result in one of a family of concentric arcs across the surface of the LP. It is likely that more than just one of those arcs (i.e., any one particular P2S) will result in two null points on the surface of the LP, but you won't get those null points at the exact two points predicted by whatever standard algorithm you have chosen (Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc.). Like you, I see no tragedy in that except that the tracking angle error in between the two null points that do result OR on either side of that region, may on average be greater than what you get with, for example, Baerwald. And I am sure that with the Feickert program, Brian was able to make your non-standard P2S work. The problem is if you are confined to using any one of the standard protractors, you would then have to guesstimate how to account for your 6mm alteration of standard P2S when citing the stylus tip using the crosshairs typically offered.
You wrote, "there is nothing magical about P-S. What counts is getting proper overhang." Easier said than done with standard protractors, if you deliberately ignore the recommended P2S. On the other hand, I recently discovered that the P2S for one of my tonearms had at some point in time been altered by movement at its pivot. I've been aligning cartridges on the assumption that it was spot on, for at least the past year. I never noticed a problem I could relate to alignment.
This morass is one reason why I have become more and more interested in the small number of tonearms that are "underhung" and that have zero headshell offset, like my RS Labs RS-A1. Such tonearms result in a single null point on the surface of the LP, but at that null point, there is also zero skating force (unlike for conventional overhung tonearms which ALWAYS induce a skating force regardless of tracking angle error). For an underhung tonearm, on either side of the null point, the max tracking angle error is much greater than for a conventional tonearm, but it's predictable and changes gradually, the max occurring when you drop the needle at the outer groove and when the stylus reaches the run-out grooves on the inner track. I've wanted to buy a Viv Float tonearm, another underhung model, but the cost is too high in my opinion.
My first sentence above is confusing at best and incorrect at worst. Any chosen P2S distance will result in a family of concentric arcs ONLY if overhang is then varied. For each chosen P2S and for any headshell offset angle, there is a very limited number of overhang distances that can give two null points on the playing surface of a typical LP. Some "optimal" solutions were worked out by Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc. I was uncomfortable with the idea that P2S doesn't matter; you cannot separate the trilogy of P2S, headshell offset angle, and overhang, if you want two null points. But it's true that there is more than one solution, as Sonic says, and as Brian Walsh demonstrated.
Ha! I was going to clarify what I thought you meant and decided it is best not to cloud the issue. I would have clarified it this way; what you said above is definitely true if you are trying to use an arc protractor or any other alignment device that assumes the P-S specified by the manufacturer. However, if you are using a universal protractor that takes into account the actual P-S distance-such as the Feickert-than all you have to do is determine if you can achieve the two null points with the given alignment (Baerwald, Lofgren A and B, Stevenson). Again, the easiest way to think of this is to remember that SME figured out a long time ago that the P-S distance can be the variable rather than cartridge position in the headshell.
Overhang is-in my view-unnecessarily complicated in it’s definition. It is defined as the P-S distance plus the amount that the stylus overhangs the P-S distance. While perfectly true, as long as we are talking about overhung arms rather than underhung arms, it can be defined or at least thought of as the total distance between stylus and pivot point. As I said in my first post above, the variable that can not be perfectly accounted for by the manufacturer is the design of the cartridge-the cantilever length, the angle of the cantilever, the relative position of those two to the mounting screws, the height of the cartridge body, even the shape and length of the stylus tip itself. In order to provide for meeting the necessary null points for a given geometry alignment, the manufacturer has two choices; specify a P-S and allow for headshell adjust-ability that will accommodate the vast majority of cartridges or take the SME approach which will accommodate virtually every cartridge on the planet. Actually, there are other options too. With custom plinths like those of Artisan Fidelity, Woodsong, Dobbins, and many others, there are removable or pivoting arm boards that again allow the P-S distance to be varied to accommodate one’s choice of arm and cartridge.
With custom plinths like those of Artisan Fidelity, Woodsong, Dobbins, and many others, there are removable or pivoting arm boards that again allow the P-S distance to be varied to accommodate one’s choice of arm and cartridge.
Before them all, the Luxman designed PD-444 with armboards on the slide with lock mechanism. This is the most versatile turntable for almost any tonearm and each arm can be adjusted quickly with Feickert. Pivot to spindle distance can be changed by sliding the armboard left or right.
P.S. Italians made replica of Luxman armboards
Sonic, A thousand pardons for this bit of pedantry, but "overhang" is conventionally defined as the distance by which the stylus tip overhangs the center of the spindle, when proper alignment has been achieved. P2S (pivot to spindle distance) is equal to the distance from the pivot point to the center of the spindle. Tonearm "Effective length" is thus equal to the sum of P2S plus overhang. If you find other definitions on line that agree with yours (as I understand your post), I would like to see the citation. I'm always happy to be corrected. However, I think it is important that we all share a common understanding of the meaning of these terms, if we are trying to discuss tonearm alignment.
Lewm, you are of course correct but my reference to overhang was not central to my point-my point being once again that P-S does not need to be static or precise and that instead, having the range of adjustability to obtain proper alignment at the two null points is all that counts.
But for what it's worth, Michael Fremer was probably being lazy in his description of overhang when he said and I quote:
The "overhang" is the pivot to spindle distance plus the amount the stylus literally "overhangs" beyond the spindle. The arm's "effective length" is the pivot to spindle distance plus the overhang. If your arm allows, you can actually move it so the tube rests on top of the spindle and the distance from there to the stylus tip is the "overhang", which is usually also specified in the arm's specs. It's usually around 16 or 17mm for a 9" tone arm.
Dear @fsonicsmith : """ -there is nothing magical about P2S. What counts is getting proper overhang. """
Maths permits manipulation of almost every alignment cartridge/tonearm set up parameter.
Seems to me that your statement has no true foundation and I will try to explain about:.
First than all the true name of the game in the cartridge/tonearm alignment set up is: ACCURACY and this means not " overhang accuracy " but that the whole set up must be accurated in all the alignment parameters.
In both Lôfgren solutions ( A and B. ) equations, these ones are the overall alignment original true foundation, Lôfgren never " cares " about P2S that is not part of the input/output calculations parameters. This is very important to understand it.
Exist only 3 input parameters in the original Lôfgren equations: tonearm effective length, most inner groove and most outer groove and from the equations solutions the main outputs are: overhang, offset angle and null points.
P2S was not calculated directly by the equations/solutions but as the difference between the tonearm efective length minus the calculated overhang.
Null points are fixed calculations for Lôfgren A and Lôfgren B and does not change no matters the tonearm effective lengths with different P2S or different overgang.
The null points depends directly of the most outer/inner grooves choosed. Normally in the calculations we can choose between the standards IEC, JIS or DIN. The 90% of the time every one use the IEC standard.
Of course that any one can choose his self most outer/inner grooves values. An example was Stevenson whom made that the inner null point be coincident with the most inner groove.
Tonearm SAT designer choosed a self most innergroove value.
Now, when one of us change the P2S distance then at the same time result is that we are changing too the tonearm original effective length, overhang and offset angle ( at least. ) and these means we are changing the tracking distortion levels and traking error levels too. Nothing is for free, each parameter depends of each one of the others and that’s why is so important that we take care to make the overall set up as accurated as we can. So even that P2S is not and input/output calcualted directly for the equations is extremely important that the tonearm stays mounted at an accurated P2S.
About your overhang definition the reference you have ( MF. ) is totally wrong and useless as a reference.
The @lewm explanation is the rigth one on the overhang issue.
So, your " again " P2S statement in your last post is not true , you have a misunderstood about or in the whole alignment subject.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
Btw, Baerwald alignment solution is similar to Lôfgren A that's the original. Baerwald came latter on that both Lôfgren solutions.
Once again, if every benefit of the doubt is extended to you as being well-intentioned and just suffering from a severe language barrier, the inevitable conclusion remains that you can not express a thought in logical fashion, you love to tell other people that they are wrong when you don't even understand what they have said due to you poor English skills and reading comprehension, and you seem to have a bad habit of setting up straw-men arguments such that the only person you are actually arguing with is yourself.
Do yourself a favor and engage the services of someone fluent in English and who knows the basics of expressing oneself logically with the written word (irrespective of language).
The truth is that what Mike Fremer wrote is true in the abstract and that what Lewm wrote is more specific-Lewm's definition applies to "correct overhang for a given tonearm and mounting". Mike Fremer was not speaking to specific overhang for a given tonearm and mounting distance so his definition is also correct. Now do yourself that favor I just referenced above and have someone assist you with the distinction I have just written above and maybe, just maybe, you will have a rare episode of true self-awareness. An epiphany awaits you.
OK Lewm, since you say the above, if you have first obtained correct alignment for a given geometry on a specific turntable and someone were to ask you, "what overhang did you end up with?", how would you measure the amount of overhang?
I fail to see why you are still disagreeing with my response to Raul when you yourself six posts before this one wrote;
but "overhang" is conventionally defined as the distance by which the stylus tip overhangs the center of the spindle, when proper alignment has been achieved.This is exactly the point I made to Raul so what exactly are you still disagreeing with? I said it to Raul and I will say it again, Fremer's definition is true in the abstract and you yourself have admitted the same. His definition did not specify CORRECT overhang.
Or, if we must belabor this non-disagreement even further, let's assume someone installed their cartridge and set their alignment incorrectly and someone wanted to know nonetheless what overhang they presently have. How would you go about measuring this sub-optimum or if you will, this "INcorrect" overhang?
The quibbling here is silliness. It reminds me of a scene in Monty Python's "The Search for the Holy Grail" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BpfwazhUA
... how would you measure the amount of overhang?
The answer is pretty easy. Am i missed something?
Look at the black plastic overhang gauge (near headshell on my picture), it’s provided by Victor for this tonearm, and it’s very easy to measure overhand of the stylus by placing the stylus under or directly on this gauge, it’s like a ruler but designed for precise overhang measurement of the stylis tip from the center of the spindle. Put it on the spingle of your turntable and you can always measure overhand of any cartridge on any toneam. There are many different devices to measure overhang of the stylus.
Chakster-have you read up far enough in this thread to see what we are talking about or did you just focus on my single response? Now we have you, me, and Lewm talking past one another. This entire needless segue pertains to the definition of "overhang" that Mike Fremer published that I quoted 6 posts above this one, and whether Mike mis-spoke or not. Lewm insists he did and I disagree. You quoted me out of context. The context of what I said is that regardless of whether the overhang is optimum (or "correct" or "accurate" or "meeting the two preferred null points for your type of music :-)) or not, there is still overhang and it has to be defined (what I meant by "measured" in the language you quoted out of context). As long as it is an overhung and not an underhung arm, there is overhang whether the cartridge is installed optimally or not. And the overhang of any given installation would be defined by the distance from the spindle to the stylus if they were in (or defined) a straight line with the pivot point.
Dear @fsonicsmith : I was polite when I posted to you that you have a misunderstood in the whole alignment subject when in reality what you have is a very low knowledge levels about, at least is what you already showed in all your posts ( lattest. ) in this thread.
In the other side that low knowledge levels made that you posted to me something that has nothing to do with what you or me posted before but because you have not facts due to that knowledge levels you choosed as a " subject " the overhang definition that’s the less important issue here other that what @lewm posted about:
""" However, I think it is important that we all share a common understanding of the meaning of these terms, if we are trying to discuss tonearm alignment. """
I agree with lewm overhang definiiton that’s the abstract Lôfgren definition and shared by the people that really know on the overall alignment topic.
Here other example that’s coincident with the lewm one ( comes by internet. ):
""" Term Definitions:
Spindle centre to mounting hole centre (normally the same as pivot to spindle distance)Pivot To Spindle
Spindle centre to horizontal pivot point of the armEffective Length
Stylus tip to horizontal pivot point of the armOverhang
Stylus tip to spindle centre overhangOffset Angle
Angle between cantilever and a line drawn between the stylus tip and the horizontal pivot point of the arm (not to be confused with headshell angle). """
That’s the overhang definition and it does not matters if the tonearm/cartridge overhang set up is correct or incorrect. Overhang meaning is the same.
I posted that MF is wrong because I know he is wrong due that he has a " misunderstoods " in the whole cartridge/tonearm alignment subject where he was not an " expert " as you think and I have facts that proves that:
your link came for 2013, well in 2014 in that same site ( his site. ) he followed with his misunderstoods on the alignment subject when he posted in other thread:
""" Submitted by Michael Fremer on Sun, 2014-11-09 :
Not sure what "pattern" you are looking for in the graphs. The geometric solutions worked out by the various individuals produce those results. Remember that each one puts the stylus tip at a different distance from the pivot point, thus producing a different "overhang". That different position produces the two differing null points. """
I don’t try to put in evidence MF but in reality your knowledge level that’s lower that what you think when you took as a " reference " a wrong statement.
But another fact that proves what I’m posting to your knowledge levels is what you posted here:
""" Long story short-mounting the arm column using the tonearm builder’s specified P-S meant slamming my Benz Glider all the way back in the head shell slots to get alignment. So after a lot of head and chin scratching, I purposefully re-mounted my tonearm 6 mms further back using the Feickert. And in the meantime I had purchased a Van den Hul Crimson.
do you know what you did it? yes?, please let us to know it. I know you just don’t know and what you did it was incrementing your cartridge/Reed combination traking distortions and tracking error.
Do you know why? yes? then share with us.
Another fact that proves your low knowledge level in the overall regards we can read it in other of your posts here:
At the end of the day, P-S serves as an average mounting point for obtaining proper overhang with a variety of cartridges when you have a slotted head shell. """""
P2S: average mounting point?... How is that? please do it a self favor and explain it to us.
""" (Baerwald, Lofgren A and B, Stevenson) ""
it does not exist those 4 alignments only 3 of them. I already explained.
" once again that P-S does not need to be static or precise.. """
it must be precise, really accurated.
""" Sonic, no matter how you slice it """"", unfortunatelly you are wrong or have a bad explanation about.
Yes, my English is really poor, sorry for that.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
Raul, Raul, Raul;
I will be polite.
You too have quoted me out of context with this one;
" once again that P-S does not need to be static or precise.. "
The context here was discussing the SME paradigm in which the headshell mount is fixed and only the pivot point can be moved-on a sled that moves fore and aft in relation to the spindle.
Are you claiming that SME's style of setting P-S and thus overall effective length and overhang is inherently flawed?
It is certainly amusing Raul that you think everyone is wrong on every subject. Your track record speaks for itself. Even more amusing is that half the time, it appears that you are disagreeing with others without understanding what it is they said in the first place.
Dear @fsonicsmith : """ that you think everyone is wrong on every subject... """
well, NO and that's why I agree with lewm overhang definition.
I disagree with MF because was not really true what he stated in that threads.
I know that there are a lot of gentlemans that disagree with my takes/opinions but unfortunatelly never posted why I'm wrong, only that disagree or that I'm wrong.
Now, do you disagree with what I posted ? or only dislike the " way " I post? because through my posts I'm not trying to insult/offend you. It's only a way to say things, that's all.
No Raul, I think you mean well.
I have no need to prove myself right on this topic.
It is pure silliness to take this hobby too seriously.
It is an idle past-time for most of us.
It is not even my number one hobby.
Wine is number 2.
Music is three.
BBQ is probably 4.
So being a gear-head (audio gear that is) is probably 5 for me.
It is what I do when I am not on my bike or not smoking a brisket.
Luckily I can use my audio gear and listen to music and drink wine at the same time. I just can't drink wine and install a $5,000 phono cartridge.
I guess you would claim that stone-cold sober I lack sufficient mental resources to properly install a phono cartridge :-)
@fsonicsmith Hey, i don’t care what Michael Fremer posted about overhang, i know for sure: if a pivot to spindle distance is correct then overhand will be exactly as specified by the manufacturer with given alignment method. As you, i also have Reed 3p, but "12 inch early version. First thing to do with tonearm is to set up a pivot to spindle correctly. The manufacturer clearly explained in the manual: the pivot to spindle, the overhand and one preferred alignment method. When you alter the alignment method you alter the overhang slightly, but pivot to spindle distance doesn’t change. So i have no idea what you’re talking about. I can’t remember any problem with cartridge alignment in the slots of Reed 3p (i’ve tried many different cartridges).
chakster", i don’t care what Michael Fremer posted about overhang"
This reflects you're own ignorance, lack of knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles of tonearm alignment Mr. Fremer is a widely acknowledged and respected expert and authority and for you to reject, dismiss, and ignore the science he has shared is an indictment of your own authority in this field.