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
If I was as (informed) as you all on this subject, I'd be more interested in listening/vs/arguing.
Dear @slaw : That's precesily what I do each single day_ Enjoy the Music.

If you know enough in what ever audio subject and you read a non-sense post as the one by syntax where he only speaks because has mouth but he gave no single fact where he founded his post:

Do you stay quiet when those kind of false almost stupid post only contaminates to each single audiophile?
Maybe you can stay quiet but I think that each one of us that post something in audio forums have a responsability with all other members and the first responsability is not share false statements.

Well, that's me.

R.
melm,  I wish that HW would get on this thread and confirm or modify your interpretation of what he supposedly prefers in terms of cartridge alignment. Because your description of his preference doesn't make complete sense.  If one wants only a single point of tangency on the playing surface of the LP, for whatever reason, one is best off using an "underhung" tonearm, of which there are only two that I know of: the RS Labs RS-A1 and the Viv Float.  These tonearms have no headshell offset angle;  doing away with headshell offset may afford some sonic advantages in and of itself, based on my experiences with the RS-A1 tonearm.  Underhung tonearms develop quite a bit of tracking angle error as the arm moves away from its single point of tangency to the groove, much more than conventional tonearms. Yet I hear no problems I can relate to tracking angle error when using the RS-A1.