Dr. Feickert Protractor

Vinyl engine has lots of printable protractors, and using a few of them to cross reference the results, can be quite useful.

The more common trick is to print the protractor and glue it to a piece of cardboard, for a more functional paper protractor experience.

Also, put some painter's tape on the edge of the protractor, a piece long enough to lock the platter and protractor into position, when it is in the correct spot. This lessens the potential of blowing out a stylus or cantilever.

If you only have one table and one arm I think the Mint would be the way to go.I have also used the Conrad Hoffman with good results. If you are like me and have 5 tables and 9 tonearms the Feickert is a blessing. It takes me about 10 min to setup a cartridge. It's just easy to use. Now all my buddies borrow it and I get a free six pack.

Where can I ship a six pack? lol

Thanks all for the input. I actually ended up getting it.  Relatively easy to use.  I wasn't there when dealer set up my table, but it was way off.  Sound actually made a difference.  I also got the Fieckert Adjust +.  It was fun to use, but since there was only a 0.25 degree adjustment in the azimuth, sound difference was not noticeable.  But hey, my cart should be pretty perpendicular to the grooves. Probably won't use both again until I get a new cart.

millanos - if you're in the Los Angeles area, you can borrow.

RK

If you're concerned with only one tonearm, then I agree with Raul that the Mint LP protractor, which you have to order specifically for each tonearm and each different alignment algorithm you may want to try, is more cost-effective.  However, if you're a devoted vinylphile who is likely to own several different tonearms over time, then the Feickert (and many other similar expensive options) makes a lot of sense, too.  If you are in the latter category, you made a great choice.

I don't agree with Raul's out of hand dismissal of the Stevenson alignment.  Some LPs, especially LPs pressed in the late 50s and 60s, contain musical information right up to or very near to the label; in other words, the run out grooves comprise a very narrow band near the label.  For such LPs, Stevenson is worth considering, because its inner null point is closest to the spindle of all the commonly used algorithms.  Also, many vintage Japanese tonearms were designed for Stevenson, in that the headshell offset angle is most compatible with Stevenson.  For such tonearms, some believe it is best to adhere to the Stevenson alignment. (This is controversial, I admit.)  

The best that ANY alignment algorithm can do is to give you two null points on the playing surface of an LP.  Where those null points will lie is to some degree be determined by the choice of algorithm. There's no reason to rule out Stevenson, unless you are consistently playing LPs with a very wide run-out area, where the innermost of the two null points afforded by the Stevenson alignment would be wasted.