• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Aligning cartridge

DaWoofer

DaWoofer

Super Member
Most protractors have the lines on them to get the cartridge straight (parallel to the lines). The problem I am having is that to keep the cartridge parallel to the lines means that it is not parallel to the edges of the headshell. And my marantz owners manual says use the supplied 45 adapter (which has a dot on it for overhang purposes) but make sure that the cartridge sides are parallel to the headshell. But if done the marantz way the cartridge would be way off from the protractors parallel lines. I'm stumped on which method would be best. The turntable is a marantz 6200. They protractor is the one on enjoythemusic.com and I believe is a Stevenson type but here is a link to it:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0900/protractor.htm
Thanks for any insight you might have.
I want to add that using the protractor and the 45 adapter I can get the needle to position perfectly on all three points, its the angle of the cartridge that concerns me.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Not unusual at all. It just means the stock overhang gauge and headshell were designed around a different geometry than Stevenson.

Bottom line - align it to the protractor and don't worry about "out of square" orientation in regard to the headshell.
 
G'day mate, I personally think the Marantz instructions for setting overhang should be followed. Although well regarded, I am of the belief that the 'enjoythemusic' protractor is not a 'universal' protractor, being designed for 'specific' tonearm parameters.

This has been discussed quite a bit here at AK. I have actually tried the enjoythemusic protractor approach on my three turntables some time ago and I found it did not give good practical results although indicated as such on the protractor.

Some have found that the platter needs to be 'rotated' when using this protractor however the intructions suggest that this is not really necessary but may need to be done. :scratch2:

I prefer to use Baerwald using a two point protractor as detailed in here. http://www.mds975.co.uk/Content/vinyl07.html
However I would trust the Marantz method. Regards, Felix aka catman.
 
Last edited:
catman said:
G'day mate, I personally think the Marantz instructions for setting overhang should be followed. Although well regarded, I am of the belief that the 'enjoythemusic' protractor is not a 'universal' protractor, being designed for 'specific' tonearm parameters.

This has been discussed quite a bit here at AK. I have actually tried the enjoythemusic protractor approach on my three turntables some time ago and I found it did not give good practical results although indicated as such on the protractor.

Some have found that the platter needs to be 'rotated' when using this protractor however the intructions suggest that this is not really necessary but may need to be done. :scratch2:

I prefer to use Baerwald using a two point protractor as detailed in here. http://www.mds975.co.uk/Content/vinyl07.html
However I would trust the Marantz method. Regards, Felix aka catman.
Click to expand...

Does this work well with the dual 12 series. I have a 1229 that I want to put my christmas gift shure m97xe on. The cart adapter seems tricky to me whenever doing a cart upgrade. So far I have been using the m44e that came on it. :yes:
 
I fully understand what's been said so far, but my thinking is, wouldn't there, or isn;t there a null geometry that could be used, where everything is in harmony, that the set up doesn't look asthetically wrong, where somebody can come along, and say "hey man, you didn't align your cartridge properly?

I gotta agree, it looks damn stupid, that with all the protractors, jigs, 45rpm adapters telling you one thing, and the cartridge is positioned so stupidly crooked, it ain't funny.

Then there's the long gone theory I once read, about Marantz wrongly drilling every one of thier Tables, to some mystically wrong S-P distance. Not sure there's any truth to that though. Bottom line IMO, there's gotta be a better way!

It there a end user way to figure true effective length, overhang, spindle-pivot distance without holding an engineer's degree? Mark
 
Let's say, forget all jigs, protractors, 45rpm adapters etc, and I came along, mounted XYZ Cartridge nice, and purty on this 6200 Arm, everything looks right to the world.

Wouldn't there then be "some" null points that the Stylus then intersects?
As we all know, any pivotal arm is just like a broken clock, correct only two times as it traverses the vinyl. Or will my haphazard alignment be less than optimal, with only one null achieved? That's probably the answer! Mark
 
G'day mate, well I use a simple two point (Baerwald) protractor and that's good enough for me!

That approach doesn't require any real knowledge of maths or an engineering degree and it works 99.9 percent of the time. Regards, Felix aka catman.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Felix's original post. The turntable manufacturer's instructions should be followed in the event of disagreement between that and some protractor.

Why try to reinvent it all?

In the event of no instructions, do whatever you want. \:^)

Doug
 
G'day all, yes I concur with Doug. Try the Marantz approach first and follow their instructions as well as you can. Regards, Felix aka catman.
 
I'd probably also go with the Marantz stuff. If you don't like the results, its certainly possible to try something different.
 
There's nothing to re-invent.
Virtually all Japanese Tonearms adher to, or closely adhere to Stevenson Null Geometry.

And in those cases, Baerwald might work, but create the cockeyed situation described earlier. Mark
 
I guess reinvent wasn't the word I really wanted to use. \:^)

What I meant was why try to redo what engineers already have worked out for a given table?

The various gauges and stuff are based upon getting the tip of the stylus in the correct position just like the protractors. It's just that it's easier to use the gauges.

Does that sound better?

Doug
 
DaWoofer I'v been down that road with a few TTs trying to align the cartridge with 45 adapter used as a overhang guage. Two tools I use are a Technics SL-1200 overhang guage (15mm) and a Denon overhang guage that came with a DL-160 that covers 45-55mm. Allmost all TTs/TAs owners manuals list the overhang and useing these two tools I'll set the overhang and then use a protractor. I'v got a few protractors and useing this system they all agree. For TAs that don't have a removable headshell I use a Dennesen SoundTractor and I'll double check the results against another protractor. I'v been happy with the results, the cartridge will sit squarely in the headshell and the sound is excellent.
 
If I understand the issue correctly, it's that a manufacturer may specifiy a given overhang, but that is not the ONLY geometry that one can use. The overhang the mfg. suggests (and hence supplies the gauge to set it for) is only one of perhaps several possible geometries that will do the job. Each geometry is a compromise (unless it's a tangential tracking tonearm).

Thus, the question of which geometry is the best one for a given tonearm and cartridge is something that I think can vary.

Here's a good explanation of the choices and the limitations (compromises) each makes.
 
Doug G. said:
I agree with Felix's original post. The turntable manufacturer's instructions should be followed in the event of disagreement between that and some protractor.

Why try to reinvent it all?

In the event of no instructions, do whatever you want. \:^)

Doug
Click to expand...

Not so sure... In fact, I disagree totally. Let us see for the Marantz 6200:

The datasheet for this table gives:

Effective length: 213mm

Overhang: 14mm

The offset angle is not specified.

If you experiment with different offset angle, using this alignment comparator

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_...&m_oh=14&m_oa=22.5&compare=i&submit=calculate

you will find that an offset angle of 22.5 degrees will give only one null point but this is the alignment (if you stick to the 213mm/14mm) that gives the minimum value of the maximum distortion (1.14%).

It is possible that 22.5 degrees is indeed the offset angle of this arm, I don't know.

For any offset angle larger than 22.5 degrees, the maximum distortion will be higher than 1.14%. For example, for an offset angle of 23 degrees (consider that it is only 0.5 degree difference, you must have a good eye!) the distortion rises to 1.5%.

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_...13&m_oh=14&m_oa=23&compare=i&submit=calculate

For an offset angle lower than 22.5 degrees, the distortion will be lower toward the end of the record but will be higher at the outer groove. For example, for an offset angle of 21.5 degrees you will have 1.5% distortion at the outer groove.

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_...&m_oh=14&m_oa=21.5&compare=i&submit=calculate

My opinion is that you should follow the protractor Löfgren B or Baerwald and never, never follow the manufacturer alignment.

You should understand one important point. In most turntable the Pivot to Spindle distance is fixed by the construction. We can not change this value. We have some latitude with the Effective length and the Offset angle. But the ideal spot is not wide. Compare the Löfgren B and Baerwald alignments, they differ by only 0.5mm and 0.06 degree in this example.

Forget the aesthetic and go for the music. Don't hesitate to modify the headshell with a small file if you can't move the cartridge enough to satisfy the Löfgren B or Baerwald alignments.
 
So, are you suggesting that the engineers who worked up the specifications for tables they designed had absolutely NO clue as to what they were doing?

EDIT: Actually, I shouldn't even have put that in the form of a question because that is exactly what you are suggesting.

Doug
 
Last edited:
G'day all, well this is all quite interesting and personally I advocate the use of the Baerwald overhang alignment for 'low' tracking error across the whole record and I've set up all my four turntables to this standard, which works fine.

However the manufacturer's suggestions should be respected as well. The Marantz approach is essentially a sort of 'shortcut' approach which is frequently recommended here at AK, and does work well in practice.

It is worth remembering that in the end, what we want to achieve is a generally low level of tracking error with a pivoted tonearm across the whole record playing area. All of the popular overhang alignment approaches do that with some 'favouring' specific areas of the record, for example the inner grooves, which is fair enough.

With pivoted tonearms some degree of compromise is inherent. The best we can hope to acheive is a low and acceptable tracking error across the whole record, and that is easily achievable if care is taken with set up with the overhang 'distance' and also sometimes the cartridge offset angle, if necessary. :yes: Regards, Felix aka catman.
 
Last edited:
I went through the same thing with my Mitsubishi DPEC7 turntable. When adjusted using the Baerwald two point protractor, I had to push the cartridge body way out to the end of the headshell and twist it noticeably from being square in the headshell. The Mitsubishi comes with an overhang gauge and the instructions just say to set the overhang and square the cartridge in the headshell. So I used Excel to plot the tracking angle error for the Baerwald and the Mitsubishi settings. The Baerwald was far better across the entire path. So I went with the Baerwald alignment, but had to wonder why the Mitsubishi designers selected their settings?......

Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom