Will SME-V, etc benefit with non-stock alignment?


Hi,
it was suggested by some most knowledgeable member(s) on the subject of tone-arm alignment, to start a dedicated thread for 'fixed' stylus-to-pivot measurement arms.

To my knowledge those would be ALL SME arms, as well as ALL Linn arms -- there might be others.

The issue in particular is the method of overhang adjustment by moving the pivot (bearing arm post) a la SME to accommodate slight variations in cart design. Linn does not even offer that (go buy their cart(s), and get a life :-)

In the case of SME, the expected mounting hole to stylus tip distance being 3/8" or in more 'current metrics' 9.52 mm. (sorry not US quite as yet, i.e. both are valid)

If a cart has this design criteria, AS WELL AS! the cantilever in the centre AND STRAIGHT with respect to the cart body / mounting screw holes, and more recently all with a tapped thread in it, they would HIGHLY qualify, or?
BUT, how do you see, or know this is the case in the first place, when purchasing a cart?

Given ALL is right-on within spec. you then are 'stuck' with the alignment that, e.g. was decided (for you the purchaser).
As soon as you'd like to try some other alignment scheme, and there are some: Löfgren A (Baerwald) -- the SME point of view/choice, Löfgren B, Stevenson, plus in fact you may make up your own, that may be to your liking. BUT NOT with any of the 'fixed' type arms, since it'll play havoc with the arms intended alignment geometry. (Ask DerTonearm if you don't believe me. He'll give you the low-down right to the 100th of a millimetre!)

So far, so good. You can go to one of the expert template makers, state your case, give your cart and arm parameters and ask him to make on for you. 100$ ---- to 500$? somewhere around there.
BUT WICH alignment then please?!

One you think is better? The same? Why bother for the same?!
And IF different, will it actually work for you?

Well, if not, go spend some more 'greens' on the next try?

Of course if you are aware of these issue, you just go and buy another arm, right?
Hallo, but what about synergy for SME decks, ditto Linn decks and arms?

So hope to have made the point sufficiently clear. So let's see what we can learn, that we do NOT know as yet.
Could get interesting, I hope so.

But please keep it informative and don't come tell us a dentists drill will be a better choice than XYZ tonearm choice.
Thank you for reading,
Axel
axelwahl
Hi all,
seems that thread got exhausted quite quickly. And what I take from it:
There is NO benefit with non-stock alignment.

Jolly good to know, it will save me some bucks spending on any of these aftermarket protractors.

Thank you for sharing,
Axel
Axel,
My answer is YES. The MINT Tractor was a big improvement over my stock SME protractor. Once I supplied Yip with my exact cartridge specs (stylus tip to mounting hole distance) he made a protactor for my specific cartridge/arm combination. I found that my overhang was off by about 1.5mm and zenith or offset angle was off by a couple of degrees. There is no way to accurately confirm offset angle with the SME tools, but it is very easy to align the cantilever with the parallel lines on the MINT tractor and rotate the cartridge until everything is correct at the null points. The sound of my system improved considerably, and I assume that it is because the cartridge is better aligned and now I hear less distortion. The cost of $110.00 was easily worth it for me.
Raul: Yes, I think that to insist on 9.52 would be a severe limitation on cartridge designers. I can easily envision configurations which would tend to be shorter than 9.52, and I can envision configurations which would tend to be longer, too. Of course, if cartridge designers all avoided architectural diversity and only used configurations which fit into the 9~10mm range, 9.52mm would be OK (grin).

One other major variable is the rubber damper systems used in most cartridges. In the small sizes used in cartridges, rubber is not a very consistent material. The characteristic that you are looking for primarily from a damper is consistent damping behavior, but due to the variable nature of the material, consistent damping behavior is not the same thing as consistent thickness, or even consistent pressure. When I was just starting out in cartridge design and still inexperienced, I thought that a consistent pressure system would be perfect for adjusting the dampers and suspension, and would make a major step towards consistent dimensions. So I designed a calibrated adjustable weight system to apply consistent pressure to the dampers and suspension during the building process, and instructed a batch of cartridges to be built like this. The dimensions were fairly consistent (albeit not absolutely so). However, the performance measurements were all over the place, really bad, and that batch of cartridges needed to be built again.

I learned the hard way that each damper is unique, it is better to let a trained and experienced cartridge craftsman adjust the dampers individually, and accept whatever dimensions that arise from this.

You can, of course, prioritize consistent dimensions (like I did decades ago), but most likely you will find that the cure leads to worse diseases in other areas.

One thing that I haven't seen yet in these threads is an effort to _quantify_ the change in distortion that will occur if a cartridge is not precisely 9.52mm, what happens to the distortion if the base is shifted backwards (assuming an SME), how much the headshell offset angle needs to be changed to compensate, and how much slack you need between the headshell screwholes and mounting screws to accomplish the requisite change in offset angle. Cartridge alignment is never going to be perfect - for example a Baerwald alignment only results in zero tracking distortion at two tiny places over a span of 100mm or so. If we are going to talk about distortion, at least let us try to first quantify it, and then we can decide for ourselves if the level of distortion is acceptable or not.

FWIW, also note that some other tonearms with fixed screwhole headshells, like the Naim Aro, appear to have been designed with a much shorter cartridge in mind, From what I can tell, these were designed for cartridges of 7.5mm or 7mm pitch. The same applies to the Linn arms, if you use the third hole.

cheers!
Hi Jonathan,
GREAT post, thank you!
Hell, and I just had though my thread's gone stone dead.

You mention the rubber damper, I guess it's what some older folks call the 'gummi' right?

If that is so, than there is that other item, 'Spanndraht' tension wire? , which more than anything else seems to contribute to compliance, if you can confirm this.

Still with the damping, there is as always yet more. I think of Ortofon's 'mixed bag of gummi, gold and what not flux-damping rings --- and the more obvious flux-damping coils on Dynavectors V flux bracket, yes?

Now, why I ask this is related to the effect(s) of these. Your Dorian, is very 'open' and with exemplary channel balance -- BUT it goes 'dilly' past 10kHz and needs some good old down-loading i.e. to 'clamp it down' before it goes screaming at you. No fux damping here by design choise, yes?

So, no way of running this cart into 47k i.e. un-loaded.

Now we look at the other two mentioned, using flux-damping, they perform jolly nicely into 47k.

And here's the kicker, a statement by some guru: "The better the cart, the less loading it needs." That so?

Would be nice to get your take on this, plus to correct some possible misconceptions on my side. No harm done, promised.

Greetings,
Axel
Dear Jonathan: Thank you for your explanation. The whole subject is try to find a " number " to be a standard but I can see is very complex.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.