Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Robob, I haven't worked with the SME 309 yet, but his headshell features single mounting holes and hardly any option to alter overhang and/or offset. As such it shares the very same "camp" with it's big brother the "V".
The SME V does feature - as Geoch pointed out - better ball bearings and is a dynamically balanced design ( which - at least IMHO - is an important feature in a pivot tonearm trying to set the state of the art ).
The SME V is - among it's brothers and offsprings - still the best tonearm. Due to superior attention to detail and better parts incorporated.
The other SME tonearms are "trickling-down-products" from the SME V.
Cheers,
D.

At last! For first time ever someone has noticed that a dynamicaly balanced pivoted tonearm is better.
I'm wondering do you feel that it is also neccessary (if it might be possible to integrate in) for the cardanic arms (Pluto 9A, Reed, Davinci, etc)?

The bearings are now the same (i.e. ABEC7) on all the Series V-derived models (= Series IV, 309 etc)and have been for a couple of years now.
You can hear this direct 'from the horse' mouth' if you look at a series of videos about SME on Youtube.Here is the URL of the first of the four (all relatively short):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8tbyVRsrKM
Best regards,

Dear Syntax,
Thank you for your nice photos.
It is clear that for ALL of my records, (your first photo) the prefered TONEARM'S ALIGNMENT is the Loefgren B.
The problem that I'm still have, is that I can't indentify those particular points on the TONEARM'S GEOMETRY, that dictates to a specialised/individual/unique alignment !
Not to be confused with the alignments of the B,L,S, IEC or DIN, (that depended by the way the LPs were printed on vinyl).
I'm really sorry that I'm posting about this again, but I've just figured a possible misunderstanding might occur about my quest.
What I mean is : When you look a tonearm, how can you see those points that require a modification in it's geometry ?
Is that all about setting new null points ?
I don't expect an answer, I'm posting this just to clarify.
Thanks again.

Dear Geoch, I do not want to step on any toes here, but in general, a "cardanic" = gimbal bearing does in no way hinder a design approach to give a tonearm dynamic balanced mode.
It is VERY difficult however to apply dynamic balanced mode to a uni-pivot tonearm (it is possible however..).
It is just, that there are "camps" in audiophile analog community and at least a few of them do not really "favor" dynamic balanced mode.
Why this is so, is beyond my limited horizon.
Interesting to note however, that many of those great japanese tonearm designs which have stood the test of time - Micro Seiki MA-505 and MAX, Pioneer/Exclusive EA-10/Pa3, Fidelity Research FR-64s and 66s - do feature dynamically balanced mode.
From the point of view of mere physics and technical engineering, dynamic balanced mode has a few good advantages vs static balanced mode - at least regarding guiding a cartridge with compliance through the groove of a record which is by nature NOT flat in a technical sense.
Cheers,
D.