Time to choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson ?

Dear @cousinbillyl :  """  Stop obsessing, you can't get it perfect, at least not for every album. """

Agree, we can't get it perfect. I was at the Doug place and I know that he really is " obssesed " with each LP and hee does " easy " but is him.

All of us have our each personal whole test/set-up process. I have mine that I try to " perfect " over the years. My take could sound easy: through my own process I have 9-10 tracks that are my references other than live music and I make the /tonearm/cartridge set up with " obssesion " to pass those 9-10 tracks and when passed then I'm " there "  but I'm not looking for a change with different LPs.
At the end what I love is to listen and enjoy MUSIC.

What's my main target is that the whole set up been made it with " absolute accuracy ", in this I'm extremely obssesed: ACCURACY.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, in that test overall process I have too a " fast track " alternative that I use with all cartridges I'm listening for the first time and if through it the cartridge performance is a promising one then I follow with the whole process.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/uni-din-versus-l%C3%B6fgren-b-just-clarify

A discussion from Fremer (w/ Wally M in the background) that shows choosing an alignment is partly a function of which position on the record yields more and less distortion for your alignment choice..  



 

Hi Lew,

I get that Stevenson has a significantly higher offset angle difference from (for example) Baerwaald than Baerwald does to Loefgren.  Re-reading my earlier post, I didn't make that clear.

I'll file this away for future experimentation, but know that my preference for Baerwaald over Stevenson is such that the effect you've observed would have to be significant to drive me to revert to Stevenson on such an arm.

Is it possible? Sure, and I'm always ready for a surprise.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design

Something just occurred to me:  Is the offset angle required for Stevenson much more acute than that which is required for Lofgren and Baerwald?  I think it's the opposite, because of the aforementioned need to twist the cartridge inward on a Stevenson tonearm aligned for L or B. This would mean that there is more skating force at the null points with these latter two geometries, compared to Stevenson.  That would be a point in favor of Stevenson.  Just a thought.