Question on FR 66s

Halcro, thanks for your help. It is kind of strange, Air Tight sounds fine with 230mm P2S being close to the furthest point away on the headshell with Baerwald. I think that if my XV-1s can be mounted with plenty of wiggle room with both 230/231.5 mm as you have with no problem then I just assume it is one of Air Tight quirks. If I have similar problem with XV-1s then I guess I do have a problem (keep my fingers crossed!)

At the Munich High End Show is a Manufacturer with a new calculated Alignment System (some here know it) and what amazed me totally was the amount of visitors, dealers and Importers who showed a very huge interest in that. Whenever I was in the area of that their arguments were ALWAYS the same: way too much nonsense out there (I agree with that btw.). I also saw wrong alignments, Arms with a Geometry which made me wonder....and the discussions among audiophiles what .... everyone is a specialist with deep knowledge :-)

The problem with using protractors based on fixed pivot to stylus and overhang is that any deviation in mounting distance or cartridge/headshell constraints render the protractor useless. I prefer to use a universal protractor such as the 'Stupid' Universal here
http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge-alignment-protractors.shtml
It uses 2 inner and outer null positions and you have to adjust overhang and alignment of the cartridge together to minimise the error.
Using a universal protractor will enable you to align for any mounting distance distance from 230-231.5mm.
For the FR64S and Dertonams suggested 231.5mm, you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct.
Going from 230mm to 231.5mm mounting distance is a tiny reduction in tracking error, but having said that I have mounted my FR64S at 231mm and it sounds much smoother than 230mm.
The other factor in Dertonams recommendations is using an outer null point closer to the inner null point which will increase tracking error on the outer grooves but reduce it on the inner 2/3 of the record to provide better tracking of inner grooves.
You can easily make your own protractor with revised optimisation of inner grooves by using the Baerwald template above and simply moving the outer null point/grid closer to the centre.
Interestingly the Naim Aro that I own uses this same philosphy as Dertonams recommendation of optimising the geometry for the inner grooves.
I prefer Baerwald A for all my pivoted arms including the Dynavector which was designed for Stevenson.

Dear Dover/Suteetat: +++++ " The problem with using protractors based on fixed pivot to stylus and overhang is that any deviation in mounting distance or cartridge/headshell constraints render the protractor useless.... " ++++

and not only that, we have to add here that any change on VTF or VTA/SRA ( if we make those changes or the ones that happen during playback due to the LPs are not flat but full of waves. ) affect the whole cartridge/tonearm geometry set up meaning that distortions values overall the LP surface that were calculated on the choosed cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment has no " value " any more because the starting distortions calculated were on " perfect conditions/thery " in a static way not dynamic as during playback.

So in reality we are almost at random ( during playback ) about those tracking distortions generated on a pivoted tonearm choosed cartridge/tonearm alignment.

+++++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. " +++++

absolutely right. The tonearm mounting distance is the " subject " down there.

Now, any one can " play " with the calculators/comparator tools you linked ( VE. ) to find out which geometry parameter set up like it you more ( lower distortions for example or that the cartridge could " fits " better in the headshell or whatever you imagine. ).
You can change effective length and choose between IEC/DIN/JIS inner/outer groove distance that will give you different set up parameters with different null points too.

IN the FR you could choose " whatever " you like on effective length till you can make overhang adjustement. Why 231.5mm and not 232.00mm ? Dover likes 231.0 and Suteetat a different one.

There are no rules about we can change the input values for the geometry set up calculations. Any change gives us different distortion values at outer/inner grooves and between null points but all these are in static mode in theory that during playback always change.

I like you Dover use a simple 20.00 dollars protractor, like you I think we don't need nothing more: is in practic useless. I think that in the past I used no less than 10 different protractors including the Denessen one. It makes a difference which one I used?, really not and not only because what I posted here but because cartridge/tonearm choosed geometry set up as critical and important as it is is only one factor of several other factros that has main influence in what we heard.

I know for sure for example that mounting a cartridge in a different headshell build material gives me more differences on what I hear that changing from 240.0mm to 241.00mm on tonearm mounting/effective length.

Way before we had therads/posts on that different geometry cartridge/tonearm set up/alignments I was and heard several top home audio systems here in México and USA too, in all of them and with LPs that I know very well I can't heard neither the owners that famous " inner groove distortions " because the choosed geometry alignment. I heard other things and confirm some other things like the importance to make a good overall set up independent on what geometry alignment we choose.

I think that we have to choose the alignment that wroks better in each one system with each one cartridge/tonearm combination.

Now, I think that information always gives us a better way of thinking and as better we can understand the whole cartridge/tonearm alignment as better we can decide what to do in specific, the next white papers on that kind of alignments is IMHO a good point to start for understand the subject but remember that all those equations and the values we achieve trhough the different calculators are the theory when everything is perfect and we know LP is far away to be perfect during playback.

This is something that I posted somewhere in the forum:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the only known " solution " to cartridge/tonearm geometry set up are the Löfgren equations ( 1938 ), all the other " solutions " are clones from Löfgreen ones ( Baerwald ( 1941 ) Stevenson ( 1966 ) and the like. ).

The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in error between these points.

The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking error of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method.

Both solutions are Universal ones and can be use it with any pivoted tonearm with slots in the headshell it does not matters the tonearm geometry design. If the tonearm is J or S shaped or what you " imagine " is not important for the set up.

This two Löfgren solutions/equations calculate ( in any set up ) the next set up parameters: overhang, offset angle, null points, linear offset and mounting distance.
These calculated parameters comes from the equations that have three known and only three parameters: tonearm effective length, most inner groove distance and most outer groove distance, there is no other single parameter need it or taked in count for the overall calculations: so the geometry tonearm design does not matters for this calculations, the only tonearm design factor important is that be a pivoted one.
Of course that you can make changes on this starting calculations parameters, this is that we can change the tonearm effective length for a different calculated set parameters or we can change the most inner groove distance tooo if we like it. Every time we made one of these changes we are changing too the traking error and tracking distortion values for that set up.

As you can see does not exist: that this or that kind of calculations is better for this or that tonearm, you are free to use it as you want: Löfgren A or B, there are no more, as I told you all the other " solutions " are mathematically identical to the Löfgren ones but only with different notation and arrangement.

It is ironic that for many of us Baerwald is more " familiar " name than Löfgren when was LÖfgren the creator of those two and only solutions.
The Baerwald solution is identical to Löfgren A as is the Stevenson B and the A has the difference that has the lowest distortions at inner grooves over the Löfgren solutions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

if any one of you want to know more deeper information the in this link you can read about, only make click on DOWNLOAD:

www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Syntax: As always you don't leave to be the marketing manager of that gentleman.

++++++ " (some here know it) and what amazed me totally was the amount of visitors, dealers and Importers who showed a very huge interest in that.... " +++++

I think that you can change a little your statement. When are we interest on something? well when we want to see/know on something new or when we are ignorant on the subject that the item gives a " solution ".

Dealers and importers mainly looks for $$$$$$ and visitors/audiophiles because a " new " item like several that we can see in any Audio Show.

Now, the ones that because that Audio Show buy/bought it they did or do it because a very high ignorance level because they don't undesrtand the whole alignment subject that Dover pointed out where a " Stupid VE " free protractor makes the job a good job an accurate job.

Why are you amazed when you are an audiophile and already knew on that item?, because after all these years are you still ignorant of the whole subject?

I don't see your post relevance other that your high ignorance level or that you confirm you are the marketing manager of that item. You are very good on that marketing job as very good photographer as you are very good car dealer. Good for you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.