First time cart alignment, can this be right?

MacNoob said:
Should, but doesn't always. Cantilever is not always perfectly aligned with cart body due to production/quality variances. So align the cantilever, not the body of the cart.

If the cant happens to be properly aligned with the cart then it's easy!
Click to expand...
Unless something like DL-103 visual reference points NEVER symetrical
Do NOT align check verify accuracy using cartridge body visual cues
USE CANTILEVER and STYLUS TIP ONLY
I do not care what cartridge $29 or $29,000
JJ
 
Northwinds said:
You lost me JJ, cantilever and body should align true together. You move the body when aligning, not the cantilever or did I misread you? I use a 1200mk2 also and I try to keep it in spec with the manufacturers recommendation. If overhang is 220mm, then that's where it's locked in
Click to expand...
After that check with mirror grid and twist IF needed to align cantilever
People say if use conical then not that big deal but not true you want generator assembly centered best possible in neutral no matter tip type
JJ
 
JimmyEJames said:
Unless something like DL-103 visual reference points NEVER symetrical
Do NOT align check verify accuracy using cartridge body visual cues
USE CANTILEVER and STYLUS TIP ONLY
I do not care what cartridge $29 or $29,000
JJ
Click to expand...

Sometimes its pretty hard to see the cantilever. Maybe OK with MC, but with many MM or MI, it can be difficult. What I do is what a few others have stated, I look at the cartridge body and the cantilever before the cartridge is mounted to the arm. If all looks straight and square to the world, I use the cartridge body (and yes I do peak at the cantilever, too) to align it.
 
WaynerN said:
Sometimes its pretty hard to see the cantilever. Maybe OK with MC, but with many MM or MI, it can be difficult. What I do is what a few others have stated, I look at the cartridge body and the cantilever before the cartridge is mounted to the arm. If all looks straight and square to the world, I use the cartridge body (and yes I do peak at the cantilever, too) to align it.
Click to expand...
Yeah hard to see part of game
That is what correct tools lighting for
You guys do what makes happy
JJ
 
Marantz turntables were the absolute worse mass market tables for proper cartridge alighnment. It was like they did not bother to even do the math. We did not sell Marantz but saw them at the turntable clinics we would regularly host. We always used a Denneson protractor back then and I still have mine.

We used to joke that Marantz moved in the pivot point to save shipping cost.
 
WaynerN said:
Every turntable is designed around a particular alignment (they have to start somewhere). However, if one so chooses and the slots in the headshell are long enough, different alignments can be used and these alignments will not be "square to the world" as with the original (Stevenson) alignment. In each case, they (Baerwald, Lofgren B) have longer overhangs, and therefore different offset angles so the cartridge will look "crooked" in the headshell. They (Baerwald and Lofgren B) also have different null points which shift the tracking error (and amounts of tracking error) to different portions of the record's playing area.

The Marantz (and many, many other 80's era tables) was designed around the Stevenson Alignment which puts lots of tracking error at the beginning of the record, but has almost no error at the end. To understand this in more easy understandable terms, think of the record side divided into 5 areas. The first area is the outer part of the record, the second is the outer null point, the third is the area between the 2 null points, the forth is the inner null point and the fifth being the area after the inner null point (before the label).

Stevenson thought that it would be best to put the most error at the beginning of the record (area 1), and he did this because he thought it was (and it is) important for the very compressed music at the end of the record to have the least amount of tracking error. This was very important, especially for longer recordings that went deep towards the label (such as classical music).

Baerwald and Lofgren had a different idea, that the tracking error be more evenly distributed along the record playing area, putting less at the beginning then Stevenson's, some in between the inner and out null points and some after the inner null point.

Lofgren did his a little different (but not much different), but ended up with the least amount of "averaged" tracking error through the record surface.

So basically there are 3 widely used alignments: Stevenson, Baerwald (also known as Lofgren A) and Lofgren B. They all have different overhang distances, they all have different offset angles and they all have different null points, all of which are totally dependant on the distance of the tonearm pivot to the turntable platter's spindle (center to center).

In the case of the Steveson alignment, it was easy for the manufacturers to design a tool for users to align their cartridges to. They simply had to keep the cartridge straight with the headshell, and line up the stylus with a mark on the tool. When other alignments are used, things get twisted.

Wayner
Click to expand...
Excellent and informative explanation.
 
Fishead said:
View attachment 826599

View attachment 826407

Look familiar? Rest easy, this is a cartridge that is carefully aligned using the protractor that the manufacturer (Nottingham) provides. After all, it is the precise position of the stylus on the cantilever we are attempting to ascertain, and this one lines up with the grid on the protractor as it should. The only exception to the rule is a linear tracking turntable, for example my Yamaha PX-3, where the screws will be more or less the same distance front to back.
Click to expand...
Looks like the alignment I get on my Nottingham. Great arm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom