BaerWald vs VPI setup protractors


Which is more accurate? Recently I decided to check my setup on a Scout using both the VPI gauge and a Baerwald protractor. Using the Baerwald the overhang is dead on in both locations, using the VPI the stylus misses the mark forward by about half a millimeter. Can this small amount of variance have a sonic impact? Has anyone else found this differene and what was your solution? 
128x128gillatgh

Showing 7 responses by melm

One possibility for Baerwald is the inexpensive, mirrored, turntablebasics.com protractor.  Will work for any cartridge/arm.
In my experience, the Turntable Basic protractor is fatally flawed in that it does not permit the user to precisely locate and align the spindle with the pivot point of the tonearm. You've got to aim it by eye at the pivot, which is usually several inches beyond the edge of the protractor surface. Yes, it can be modified by the user to allow for closer approximation, but that's still a big problem with the original design. And to say it will "work" for any cartridge and tonearm is really to say it will approximately work, because there are minute differences for which it cannot account. Take a look at the UNItractor or the SMARTractor from Acoustic Sounds, and you will appreciate what those tiny tonearm to tonearm variables might be. Or even the Feickert. This is why Mint protractors are made one by one for each tonearm.
Sure, a SMARTractor costing $600 will make HTA a bit easier to set than the $20 turntablebasiscs device.  But if you simply mount the turntablebasics on a piece of card stock and extend the line to just about touch the base of your tonearm, you will have achieved what the SMARTractor does.  If you think these sort of devices (whose geometry is fundamentally the same) cannot be absolutely as accurate as an arc protractor made for a specific arm, you don't understand the geometry of these devices.

Audiophile insecurity and smart promotion drives many hobbyists to the most expensive devices when the simple one will do the job.

Hey, it's your money.  Spend it as you wish.  
lewm, first of all, all we are trying to do is set a tangent at two different radii. It is not brain surgery. When you wrote, "This is why Mint protractors are made one by one for each tonearm." it seemed you were ascribing greater precision to them, which would be incorrect. IMO the arc protractor, which was introduced originally by Wally Malewicz, as a marketing effort by him to make vinylphiles believe that they needed a custom, hand made and expensive device to do what the one-size-fits-all devices had been doing successfully for years. It worked, and when Wally couldn’t/wouldn’t deliver consistently, Mint stepped in.

And in case YOU don’t know it, the SMARTractor and the UNItractor.are copies of the original Dennison Geometric Soundtractor which had been around at the dawn of the stereo era. Either the patent has run out or was purchased/licensed

I cannot imagine anyone spending $600 for such a device unless, perhaps, if they do TT set-ups professionally (and write off the expense). With just a little care the simpler ones, like my Cart-a-line or the turntablebasics an do the job just as well for a hobbyist.. IMO, though, a mirrored protractor is a must as one should be aligning the cantilever and the mirror forces you to get that right.

I often think there’s too much emphasis on HTA anyway. One successful pivoted TT arm even avoids that totally. Some people think accuracy in azimuth and SRA are far more important. And anyone who wants to spend unnecessary big bucks on devices to adjust these will also find willing purveyors.

lewm, You may enjoy using an expensive over-engineered device, but if you think that with your $800 machine you get a more precise alignment than I with my Cart-a-lign, you're deluding yourself.  Eventually you, like I, have to set the cantilever in a mirror.  With 2 points of tangency the setting is verified.

The point-to-the arm devices are made as precise as necessary by extending the pointing line.  Lately btw I've been using my carpenter's level to throw a laser line to set the direction to the arm--using the edge of the laser beam, it could hardly be more precise.  But I was doing fine before this.
This issue of horizontal tracking angle (HTA) is an interesting one.  There is no single correct setting for a pivoted offset arm.  This is unlike azimuth where there is an unambiguously correct setting and we all try to get as close as possible.  It is also unlike SRA where (at least for each record thickness, or possibly record) there is only one correct setting.

When we deal with HTA we understand that it will be wrong most of the time except at two (or even one) radii.  So we make a choice of where we want the various levels of distortion to appear. Each of the proper names associated with HTA (including HW) prefers their distortion in another part of the record.

I am always amused when I read posts claiming that after getting the newsuperdupercustommade protractor the sound of the system blew away anything heard before.  It is sometimes alleged to have made a cheap TT sound like an expensive one.  Since we are almost always tolerating HTA tracing distortion, using instruments with medical precision is not really necessary.  But as for me, as long as I'm bothering, I try to get it as close to Lofgren A as I can.  At least it makes system evaluaton more consistent.

As I wrote earlier, I find all the fuss about HTA to be overblown.  A well received arm, the Viv Lab Rigid, is a pivoted arm without an offset and its HTA tracing distortion is probably the highest on record.  But respected reviewers write that given other positive attributes the distortion which so tortures us, and this discussion, is virtually unheard.  Go figure!

As a lover of analog, I'm more concerned with azimuth and SRA using my ears as the best instrument.  
Has anyone tried the DB Systems protractor?
This is an old design that is intended to align the cartridge, and then is most useful only if the cartridge has straight, square sides.

It does not align the cantilever.  That would be considered a fatal flaw by many.

@rauliruegas,

I wouldn’t call someone ignorant because he takes a different point of view than you do. There is no one "correct" way to set HTA. There is no consensus on what theoretical distortions can be heard. There’s no consensus as to whether a theoretical distortion on an outside groove is more or less disturbing than the same theoretical distortion on an inside groove. There is no consensus about the relative importance of HTA, azimuth and SRA. Though I try to set Lofgren A as close as possible, I am amused with all the talk here about extreme precision. One protractor, believe it or not, actually has a vernier gauge.

Case in point, HW of VPI, who I think has been accepted an a perceptive analog listener by the audio community, has written that he prefers to listen to an HTA setup that is quite far from the conventional alternatives. IIRC he prefers the 2 tangencies to be set: one relatively close in the inner grooves and one outside the grooves entirely. This yields high theoretical distortion numbers. Apparently, though, his hearing perception is most disturbed by the crossover from inside to outside the tangency, so he limits it to only one per record side. He also writes that regardless of the theoretical distortion measure, distortions nearer to the inside grooves are more disturbing to the listener.

As I wrote earlier, there being no correct HTA, each person is free to put the distortions where thy want. Since there is HTA distortion all over the disk, except at one or two grooves, your admonition: "enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS" is kind of ridiculous in this context.