Tracking error distortion audibility


I recently unpacked my turntable from a couple of years of storage. It still sounds very good. Several times during playback of the first few albums I literally jumped from my chair to see which track was playing as it sounded so great. After a while I realized the "great" sound was always at one of the "null" points. They seem to occur at the approximately the proper place (about 125mm from spindle) and near the lead out groove. Questions:
Is this common? I have improved the resolution of my system since the table's been in storage but I don't remember hearing this before.
All others geometric sources of alignment error not defined by the null points (VTA, azimuth etc.) are essentially constant through out the arc correct? If so they should cancel out. I assume the remedy is a linear tracking arm but I am surprised at how obviously better the sound is at these two points.
Table - AR ES-1, Arm - Sumiko MMT, Cart. - Benz Glider, Pre - Audible Illusions, Speakers - Innersound electrostatic hybrid
Do linear arms really sound as good across the whole record as I hear at only the nulls with my set-up?
feathed
Dear Axelwahl, this way this is leading nowhere in an endless circle.
It would really make sense if you browse through Google and download the original papers by Baerwald and Loefgren about tonearm geometry and the complex interrelations. Reading them will answer 98% of all your questions and will set the whole theme in the right context.
Alternatively ou may send me a direct email (via Audiogon - just click on my alias dertonarm ) with your telephone number and I will call you up and describe the point in both our mother language. So far you still do missunderstand a few points in tonearm set-up and I will gladly clarify them in a short telephone call.
Greetings from a lakeside with view to the northern Alps (Zugspitze),
dertonarm
Hallo Herr Dr. Tonearm,
now this is getting somewhere, very good!
This pivot / spindle distance actually only came about because of our protracted discourse, and me having it measured, no effort lost, methinks.
Also, some bystanders may profit, all very beneficial, no?

That IEC-standard got pretty well lost in the general 'shrapnel' flying about in the other thread -- at least for me not having been into it earlier.

a)I have addressed, but as you confirm and mentioned, setting it is VERY marginal with the last resort to bore open the mounting holes of the SME arm. Something that I'm not too crazy on doing since the PW cart is not THAT much out of true --- yet it definitely is and previous (new) Ortofon Jubilee had the same issue. (Sent back 3 times, etc. etc.)

b) don't know if that is VTA, please explain to correlate...

c) since it's on-the-fly, easy to test with the SME, tried and found innocent. The distortion is actually ONLY during high energy passages soprano blasting, tenors also at full tilt, sibilants included, as well as higher pitch (mostly) instruments e.g. ff full orchestra violins and sundry crescendos.

d) +++ 2nd zero-error point already long passed when you reached the inner grooves (the SME uses an IEC-standard when calculating the zero-error-points. The 2nd point is pretty close to the 1st and in the inner grooves you are close to the maximum error
+++
I'm confident you got that standard sussed, and it would explain exactly what's going on then. Now, how far are these ICE null-points apart, be VERY interesting to know?!

++++ - why this IEC-standard was used and favoured by SME and Ortofon was explained in the "Prices for Oldskool tonearms"-thread. It has to do with the new way to master and cut LPs in the early 1980ies.
++++
I have my take, which may repeat what's been said on the other thread?
DG by example had decided to leave a LOT more dead wax to the end (early 80s, yes) to improve on the very IGD issue. That being so, it would explain why null-point 1. and 2. got moved closer together, wouldn't it?
Some GREAT ideas don't always do so good like e.g. RCA's Microgroove (...virus).

Now, what about Linn I ask?
Also gone IEC-standard?
Would be interesting to know (I hope you don't need to repeat all of this...)

Lastly if you want to drop the IEC-standard it will of course need to re-think / set all, by NOT going with the manufacturers supplied tools. Not a very cheerful thought, I say.

Greetings,
Axel
Hallo Herr Doctor,
Ich must geschimpfen!
Sending me on a wild goose-chase for your IEC-standard comments, eish!

None such that my searches will scratch out of this endless pandering stream of "Prices of oldskool tonearms"

Lots of FR tonearm info sure, (I happen to use a FR XF-1 type M SUT). Pitty they're dead and gone; but NOTHING like your mentioned IEC-standard stuff --- so,
say a, say b,
please let's have your take on all that DMM stuff etc.
You sound like you have worked for the "Pallas" (press-works, jawohl!)
Gruss,
Axel
Hi Herr Tonearm,
thanks for the offer re.: calling :-)
When I'm looking East (for long enough..) I'll see the Indian Ocean.
Methinks, that's gonna be too much phone-cost since we have no real discrepancy in perception anymore.
Ain't that something for a change.
That other thread is some 'free for all' and next they'll talk about who is better at soccer... no thanks.

Thank you for offering, I do appreciate your unquenchable enthusiasm, jolly good show, I say.

The remaining issue (for me only) is, if I want to change to another then the SME's alignment system --- maybe some day, we'll see. Meanwhile I'll have to stick to the IEC-standard that comes with that SME purchase.
Greetings from the Black-Continent.
Axel
Dear Axelwahl, all you are asking is explained during the course of the thread mentioned. You either have to keep on reading all through that thread or send me a direct email.
This is too much, to repeat all that was written in March during that sometimes very hot discussion in that thread.