Tracking error distortion audibility


I recently unpacked my turntable from a couple of years of storage. It still sounds very good. Several times during playback of the first few albums I literally jumped from my chair to see which track was playing as it sounded so great. After a while I realized the "great" sound was always at one of the "null" points. They seem to occur at the approximately the proper place (about 125mm from spindle) and near the lead out groove. Questions:
Is this common? I have improved the resolution of my system since the table's been in storage but I don't remember hearing this before.
All others geometric sources of alignment error not defined by the null points (VTA, azimuth etc.) are essentially constant through out the arc correct? If so they should cancel out. I assume the remedy is a linear tracking arm but I am surprised at how obviously better the sound is at these two points.
Table - AR ES-1, Arm - Sumiko MMT, Cart. - Benz Glider, Pre - Audible Illusions, Speakers - Innersound electrostatic hybrid
Do linear arms really sound as good across the whole record as I hear at only the nulls with my set-up?
feathed
Hi Raul,

You may be one of the exceptions, and that would put you in Frank Schroeder's class of setup wizards. I was of the same opinion that you were before I started experimenting with this last Spring.

I have an old Ortofon, mirror-backed acrylic, two point protractor that I never let out of my sight. I dreaded losing it because it had very fine lines which gave me great insight into correcting for parallax when aligning at the two null points.

It now sits in my historical archive (a.k.a. "junk bin").

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
FWIW Maybe not on the current subject as I don't wish to debate protractor merits.
Since audibly my null seemed to be at about 128mm and since Lofgren B seems to be most correct as I don't hear inner groove distortion and both Lofgren B nulls are nearer the middle grooves, I increased my cartridge overhang and it did seem to sound better. I wouldn't suggest trial and error by ear as at least I can't be that precise with just my ear so I got out my protractor. I use the DB Systems. I found it very easy. Lofgren B did require about 1mm greater overhang and 1.000 smidgen units counterclockwise rotation.
Regarding alignment tools that require input of pivot to spindle length, I can't accurately measure that because of my arm's pivot design. For the system cited above where one uses the manufacturers pivot to spindle distance, No one drills the arm board where the tonearm maker specifies do they? Unless of course you have fixed cartridge mounting holes. If you have slotted mounting holes one should always mount your arm further from the spindle so as the maximize effective length and minimize tracking error. I've not read about this but I just assumed everyone did that.
What about alignment of the stylus to the cantilever? A misaligned stylus renders all methods discussed above (except maybe listening) null and void. They are utterly and completely useless.
Dear friends: There are two or three very interesting subjects ( that I experienced ) on what we are talking, let me to explain, example:
normally we have to align the cartridge cantilever and I find some cartridges that in static way its cantilever is not align with the cartridge body so I aligned not with the body but with the cantilever but guess what: that cartridge/cantilever when is running/dynamic state/way the cantilever is not mis-aligned from the cartridge body but it is aligned ( in " automatic " ) with the cartridge body, so I have ro re-align with the cartridge body: why is that/happen? I can't say it but it happen.

Other very important issue is that the two point protractors usually use the Baerwald/Lofgren parameters and the tonearm geometry parameters are different: VPI, Rega, Lustre, SAEC, Micro Seiki, Ikeda, etc, etc.

Why is that? are they wrong ?, certainly not IMHO those tonearm designers decide to choose different trade-offs against the Baerwald/Lofgren or other tonearm geometry parameters, so what happen when you re-align according to different geometry parameter through a different protractor like the one mentioned in this tread, easy it sounds different ( many say better, I don't agree totally with this. ).

I try several times/tonearms to go with different geometry parameters ( on the more orthodox " road ". ) and always likes me in the short time and till to know never in the long run, I always return to the manufacturer instructions/manual about.

I'm totally sure that those tonearms un-orthodox designers have a precise reasons of the why they do it in that way and IMHO everyone of them are just right and with al respect to everyone of you when you change those geometry parameters on the tonearm/cartridge alignment you are changing the designer " job/targets ", I don't do it anymore I try to follow the tonearm designer " feels ".

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Feathed, how are you verifying pivot to spindle distance?

One can adjust a cartridge to one or two null points all of their life and never get anything close to correct if the pivot to spindle distance is not dead on. This is what an arc protractor designed for a specific p2s provides the user. None of this getting "close enough". It is possible to get it dead on at a point past the spindle and at a point off the edge of the platter. That is how you know it is tracing the proper arc in the proper location. You can't do that with any other type of protractor. If you get p2s correct, aligning to the null points HAS to be more accurate regardless of which alignment style you use.