Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment


Looks like Dertonarm has put his money where his mouth is and designed the ultimate universal alignment tractor.

Early days, It would be great to hear from someone who has used it and compared to Mint, Feikert etc.

Given its high price, it will need to justify its superiority against all others. It does look in another league compared to those other alignemt devices

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtnrm&1303145487&/Uni-Protractor-Set-tonearm-ali
downunder
Thou shall useth Lofgren and have no other geometries before thee.

For I am the light, the soul, the oracle, the mathematician, your audio deity.

Book of Raul
Chapter 1
Verse 1
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " Stevenson knew why he did went in other directions - he did so over 25 years later and with 8 years stereo available to the customer. " +++++

this proves that you are totally wrong again. Dertonarm you are " catched " in your own trick/trap that have no single " window or door " to come out.

In the example of that tonearm with 258mm on effective length Löfgren A at the last one inner groove has 0.809% against higher Stevenson figure that is: 0.962%. Even that you states that because Löfgren/Baerwald times were not the stereo ones and they don't take in count but you know that in those times as today: 2+2 is still 4, stereo or not microgroove or not.

Goech asks the same not only me and if you want I can show you here other Agoner's asking the same.

Read my last ( before this ) post, your call.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Isn't it true that the VPI jig that comes with the 10.5i arm is not based on Lofgren, Baerwarld, or Stevenson? I think I read somewhere that Harry used his ears along with some other method...

And how accurate can one align a stylus by eye and hand?
It is all about geometry, the two null points have zero tracing error and if the set up is off the null points will be different than what we think we have. If bad enough the inner null point could be on the record label for example. A tracing arc with a specific distortion curve should have the same geometric error and distortions regardless of the arm, cartridge stylus or if the record is stereo or mono, I thought?

You can't compare tracing error distortions to amplifier THD specifications, we all know there is more to the sound of an amp than THD figures, but picking a tonarm/cartridge set up geometry that has more tracing error will produce more tracing distortion, unless the mathematics used to figure these distortions are a lie. Or maybe a little extra distortion sounds better to some people.

Anyway, a protractor like the DT, if it makes precise alignment easier is a good thing for those who want to buy it. Getting close to perfect alignment even with the best tools takes time and patience and with practice gets easier and sometimes a little luck makes the set up go faster. Moving that cartidge in such tiny amounts and the eye strain always tests my patience. I still use a MintLP and some arc protractors I printed using the vinyl engine template generator.
Raul, I really get what you mean and what you are preaching. I have seen those figures and plots many times. You are saying "the facts", "specs" or "numbers" are the last word which I totally disagree.

Ask yourself, what are we after in this hobby? "facts/specs" or sound?

Back to Stevenson. He was 25 yrs after Lofgren. Did you ask yourself why he chose a curve with much inferior "facts" than Lofgren? I am sure he knew the Lofgren "facts" and equation before making his so called inferior curve. Did you think he was stupid or was he fixing some of the Lofgren shortcomings? We all know there is no perfect curve. All have tradeoffs.

Maybe Harry of VPI was also wrong. I guess in your books, he is worse than Stevenson by not using any of the famous curves. Did it ever occur to you that Harry chose a curve that sounds best for his tonearm but not with the best "facts"?