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
melm, You seem determined to find something to disagree with, no matter what I write.  Yes, I did know that the UNI and Smartie are based on the Dennesen.  Was it necessary for me to say that in the context of the point I was trying to make?  I didn't think so.  I would also add, however, that the Acoustic Sounds protractors are so far and away superior to the original Dennesen in so many ways that it is not even important to note their common origins.  These include:

(1) 2-point alignment vs single point
(2) Use of a mirrored surface where the reflective component is very close to the surface of the glass (not several mm below the surface, as for the TB protractor or no mirror as for the original Dennesen)
(3) Separate mirrored templates for each tonearm
(4) Interchangeable spindle holes to compensate for slight variations in spindle diameter
(5) Precise location of the pivot from the spindle and precise measurement of P2S
And more...

As I hope I made clear, if you or anyone else does not want to spend $600 on a protractor, that's fine with me, and it is very understandable.  I held off buying the UNI for a long time, for that reason.  My advice in that case would be to opt for the free download of an arc protractor from the source cited above.  Or, for fewer bucks than the AS products, get the Feickert. Heck, some guys maintain that an arc protractor is the only way to go; I'm cool with that, too.  But this is how I would advise a neophyte.
Neither. VPI is bunk and Baerwald is phony. Use Lofgren A or B. What is there to think about?
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.
melm, I give up.  Re-read my last 3 posts. Or don't. 
Invictus, Lofgren A = Baerwald.  So, what is your opinion now?
I would never trust a printed on paper protractor on a high-end turntable. I’m an architect, and deal with skilled accurate drawings every day.  Even with good quality printers on good heavy gauge bond paper things can be ever so slightly off. First paper shrinks and expands based on humility. Second printers don’t necessarily print perfectly, depends on how they print and to how acutely the paper mechanism rolls the paper as print, thirdly and most importantly the hole needs to be man made and when fractions of a mm count that’s too much risk. Don’t get me wrong if all you want is a generally OK alignment then maybe paper is OK but I would never trust that on the high-end turntable. Factions of a mm matter.