Protractor Confusion: Bearwald, Loefgren, or Stevenson?

[lplover]

Looking at these three protractors on Vinyl Engine confuses me. I also have the cardboard one you can buy from Enjoy the Music. Which one do I use? It has something to do with "effective length", but a precise measurment of this is difficult. I have two Technics and a Realistic LAB 400 (Hitachi PS 48), all made in Japan. I noticed that Howard (Hakaplan) said that Japanese turntables should use Stevenson. It's easier with Technics with the overhang gauge. I'm also eyeing a Hitachi HT 350. So do I use Stevenson for the Hitachis? Recommendations?

 

[catman]

G'day mate, I've standardised on using Baerwald alignment. I've used it on three different turntables with excellent results on all three (Akai, Pye and Dual).

Baerwald gives the lowest tracking error across the whole disc. This article that I put together recently may assist in the proper use of a two point protractor gauge. http://www.mds975.co.uk/Content/vinyl07.html Regards, Felix aka catman.

 

[hakaplan]

Catman's article is excellent, but I respectfully disagree about Baerwald giving the lowest tracking error across the disc. If it did, then Stevenson, Loefgren and the Enjoy the Music guy wouldn't have developed their systems. The truth is that Baerwald null points are 66, 121 and Stevenson is 60, 117. That's hardly an earthshattering difference. But using Baerwald on an older vintage Japanese tt pushes the cartridge far forward and can make it difficult to align unless using a headshell with longer slots that sit farther forward.

The Technics overhang gauge is simply a shortcut for using a protractor with Technics own null points. Those null points produce the published specs: Arm length, overhang, offset angle. You keep the cartridge square with the headshell--that sets the offset angle. You set the stylus at 52mm--that sets the arm length/overhang. Once you use a different system, you are no longer using Technics null points, and so you scrap their specs and are creating your own. With Baerwald, the arm length and overhang will increase by about 4mm, and the offset angle will change (cartridge will be tilted).

If you have the adjustability room in the headshell, you can use any system you like. There is no absolute correct one. Your ears will be the judge. Catman likes Baerwald, but I know others who've tried it and were dissatisfied and when returning to the mfr's null points, preferred them.

I usually suggest using the manufacturer's null points, since it's easy, but they're not always readily available. For example, Marantz included a 45RPM adapter with markings on it to line up the stylus. But those adapters are long gone and so there's no way to know what Marantz's geometry was. In those cases I suggest Stevenson, because it appears to work better in older, shorter headshells which were used with most vintage Japanese turntables. You can swap to a Technics/Stanton/DJ headshell, which has longer slots, and use Baerwald, or anything else, if you like.

 

[Sansui Louie]

I second Howard's post.

I've tried Stevenson, since most of my turntables were supposedly designed for them, but I do prefer Baerwald. It does mean that I have to be careful about my headshell - cartridge matchups as the cart will sit further forward and slightly tilted inward to be aligned correctly for Baerwald on most Japanese arms. Your mileage may differ. There's no right or wrong way to do this, just different ways.

Howard has posted the following specs many a time: Pioneer - 49mm from gasket to tip (meaning gasket on the headshell's bayonet plug to the stylus tip) and Technics - 52mm. Most Japanese tables seem to be 49mm. You can try that measurement on the Hitachi and if it sounds funky, then get out a Baerwald and give that a try. Stanton makes a headshell that has no ridge in the front, so one can slide just about any cartridge as far forward as one would like.

 

[ChairSpud]

For years no matter what the turntable, I aligned the cartridge using Baerwald null points with a DB Systems protractor. I figured a good expensive protractor was the answer. After being dissatisfied with sound of my new Technics I turned here for an answer and probably read one of Howard's post recommending Stevenson null points on Japanese s-shaped arms. I tried it and the cartridge did indeed sound better. Since then I use the Technics overhang gauge which yields equally good results but is much easier.

My suggestion is use Stevenson on your Hitachi but if you've got the time try both and see which sounds better to your ears.

 

[melofelo]

i found this page on vinyl engine most helpful when setting up an akai ap-206c..

http://www.ls3-5a-forum.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=vynile;action=display;num=1133882494

but I do prefer Baerwald. It does mean that I have to be careful about my headshell - cartridge matchups as the cart will sit further forward and slightly tilted inward to be aligned correctly for Baerwald on most Japanese arms.

:yes:ditto...i found the same on my first japanese table bought recently
...i either need a slightly longer headshell for the original akai cartridge...or another cartridge who's stylus sits further forward from the cartridge body..like an at95e perhaps..to achieve alignment for baerwald null points

 

[lplover]

I have a Technics gauge. I could mark 49 mm on it and try it that way.

 

[Dogman]

Ohhh, now I get it!!!

I have a sony PS-X70 that I am trying to dial in and found that if I used the overhang specs from the service manual (49mm from gasket to stylus as indicated by "Louie" below) the overhang was about 4-5mm shorter then either the Baerwald or Lofgren settings determined with a Feickert protractor (as Howard has suggested). This was driving me nuts as I was expecting the Baerwald or Lofgren null points to at least approximate the Sony setup!!

So would this suggest that most Japanese manufacturers applied the Stevenson null points, or that each company created a table specific set of null points that tended to approximate Stevenson?

And how does one get an accurate measurement between stylus and gasket? I used an electronic caliper measurement tool, set it to precisely 49mm, then "eyeballed" the stylus to gasket length compared to he caliper as best possible. Is there a better way to do this and get improved accuracy?

Thanks all!!
Barry

 

[hakaplan]

I have a Technics gauge. I could mark 49 mm on it and try it that way.

Yes, you can modify a Technics gauge for any length. I think Hitachi might be 50mm.

 

[hakaplan]

So would this suggest that most Japanese manufacturers applied the Stevenson null points, or that each company created a table specific set of null points that tended to approximate Stevenson?

Exactly.

And how does one get an accurate measurement between stylus and gasket? I used an electronic caliper measurement tool, set it to precisely 49mm, then "eyeballed" the stylus to gasket length compared to he caliper as best possible. Is there a better way to do this and get improved accuracy?

That's what I use. Alternately you could measure with the caliper and use that to make a cardboard or plastic jig. You could use the Technics gauge and simply mark 49mm on it.

 

[beej]

There are some Pioneers (single digit series for example) that have a gasket to stylus tip measurement of 56 mm but it appears that those are the exception. Regardless, I've found Baerwald produces the best results for me. And, yes, although it is rather an exacting process it is hardly an exact science. Good luck.

 

[hakaplan]

There are some Pioneers (single digit series for example) that have a gasket to stylus tip measurement of 56 mm but it appears that those are the exception. Regardless, I've found Baerwald produces the best results for me. And, yes, although it is rather an exacting process it is hardly an exact science. Good luck.

Well, that's a straight arm, so the measurements are different.

 

[catman]

Good morning all, it's nice to see a bit of discussion on this rather interesting subject. Re Baerwald, in thinking about it, Hakaplan (Howard) is probably right but essentially it comes down to 'definitions'. Each of the alignment approaches attempt to optimise slightly different things.

I use Baerwald simply because it attempts to provide near optimum and equal, (and low tracking error and therefore distortion) across most of the record playing surface. Certainly I don't have any tracking errror and distortion issues anywhere (at least according to my ears!). Baerwald works fine for me!

It is possibly instructive that the two point gauges provided by cartridge manufacturers that I 've seen (Shure and Ortofon) are both 'Baerwald' protractors. This says something important, I think.

This quite long thread from over at the 'Vinyl Engine' is worth reading on this interesting subject. http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/v...s=0&postorder=asc&highlight=bearwald&start=30

Thank you all. Regards, Felix aka catman.

 

[Dogman]

Howard, is Stevenson still the best option for Japanese tables with straight arms? I have a PF-1000 that I am looking to set up as well.

Where could one find the Technics gauge?

And why the heck did I spend $250 on the Feickert protractor when it includes setup for Baerwald and Lofgren and neither Baerwald or Lofgren produce the best results on Japanese tables and all I have is Japanese tables??!!!

Barry

 

[dualhead]

Catman's article is excellent, but I respectfully disagree about Baerwald giving the lowest tracking error across the disc. If it did, then Stevenson, Loefgren and the Enjoy the Music guy wouldn't have developed their systems. The truth is that Baerwald null points are 66, 121 and Stevenson is 60, 117. That's hardly an earthshattering difference. But using Baerwald on an older vintage Japanese tt pushes the cartridge far forward and can make it difficult to align unless using a headshell with longer slots that sit farther forward.

The Technics overhang gauge is simply a shortcut for using a protractor with Technics own null points. Those null points produce the published specs: Arm length, overhang, offset angle. You keep the cartridge square with the headshell--that sets the offset angle. You set the stylus at 52mm--that sets the arm length/overhang. Once you use a different system, you are no longer using Technics null points, and so you scrap their specs and are creating your own. With Baerwald, the arm length and overhang will increase by about 4mm, and the offset angle will change (cartridge will be tilted).

If you have the adjustability room in the headshell, you can use any system you like. There is no absolute correct one. Your ears will be the judge. Catman likes Baerwald, but I know others who've tried it and were dissatisfied and when returning to the mfr's null points, preferred them.

I usually suggest using the manufacturer's null points, since it's easy, but they're not always readily available. For example, Marantz included a 45RPM adapter with markings on it to line up the stylus. But those adapters are long gone and so there's no way to know what Marantz's geometry was. In those cases I suggest Stevenson, because it appears to work better in older, shorter headshells which were used with most vintage Japanese turntables. You can swap to a Technics/Stanton/DJ headshell, which has longer slots, and use Baerwald, or anything else, if you like.

Howard, to my ears Baerwald sounds better on my Technics 1210. But, now you have me wondering. Are you saying that not using Stevenson may be incongruent with the Technics arm? Obviously, we always have to trust our ears first, but I'm wondering if an Arm designed around certain null points might actually function best around said null points and not other ones? Man, the bottom line is that little plastic overhang gauge is just too easy and simple to work right! LOL.

 

[Sansui Louie]

Howard and I have had the PL-570 discussion a couple times regarding Baerwald vs. Stevenson.

I swear I can hear a very audible difference for the better when setting my PL-570 up for Baerwald, and I think Howard has his PL-570 set up Stevenson.

As mentioned before, there really isn't a truly wrong answer, it's what you find that you prefer. Whatever system you pick, there's only a couple points in the swing of the tonearm arc where it's dead on, and those are your null points. The rest is mostly theory and where you care to split the difference.

 

[dualhead]

So, you aren't creating errors across the playing surface by choosing a system that deviates from the one the designers had in mind? I swear the Baerwald does better on my rig too. I've got a 1700 MK1 I'll set to Stevenson just for fun and see what I think of that (I've got a couple Shure M97's I'll use one on both table).

 

[hakaplan]

So, you aren't creating errors across the playing surface by choosing a system that deviates from the one the designers had in mind?

Not at all.

 

[charliemcd]

I've used the MFSL Geo Disc for a long time, and understand it's based on Baerwald alignment geometry. It's worked fine with my Shure V15 Type V-MR, Audio-Technica AT440ML, and AT14S cartridges mounted on several tables.

I've put these three cartridges on several tables including Pioneer PL-518 and PL-630, a Yamaha YP-701, and a Sony PS-X7, and never had any problems with adjusting them in the headshells. They do end up closer to the front of the headshell when aligned, so it does look like these tables were intended to use something more like the Stevenson alignment. But you have to keep in mind that all of the different types of alignments are very similar, and that ANY alignment geometry is a compromise that tries to minimize the tracking error as the arm swings across the record. I don't know of any good reason why it would not be OK to use a different alignment from what a turntable's user instructions said or the included setup tools (like an overhang guide) provide.

So I'd say the best advice is to either pick one and don't sweat it, or try 'em all and make up your own mind which sounds best.

 

[Sansui Louie]

I've used the MFSL Geo Disc for a long time, and understand it's based on Baerwald alignment geometry. It's worked fine with my Shure V15 Type V-MR, Audio-Technica AT440ML, and AT14S cartridges mounted on several tables.

I've put these three cartridges on several tables including Pioneer PL-518 and PL-630, a Yamaha YP-701, and a Sony PS-X7, and never had any problems with adjusting them in the headshells.

If my memory serves (and it's suspect), I think Grado Prestige series cart bodies have issues with some headshells when going Baerwald. The standard Pioneer PL-570 and 550 headshells had an issue in that the front of the Grado banged into the ridge at the front of the headshell.