Dr. Feickert Protractor

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. 

Dear @lewm : Every time that you post explained why Stevenson alignment is ok makes less sense to me. Ovbiously that some one bougth in deep that idea/argument.

For me it does not make sense sacrifice 20 minutes of the recorded LP surface in favor of the last 5 minutes especially because over those 20 minutes the distortion levels goes really higher against Löfgren A or B.
In the other side cartridges normally are good trackers and normally has no problems to ride the inner grooves. In my enterely audio life I never found out a cartridge that can’t does that task.

You have your ideas and I respect that but again makes no sense to me sacrifice the more for the less. What kind of " change " is that? where are the real advantages? why it makes sense to you that " some one " listen to his whole LP collection with higher distortions all the time because Stevenson alignment ? ! ! is just out of my mind.

In the past I posted that whom has the same idea as you make a simple test: with a good tracker cartridge matched to an specific tonearm ( a decent one. ) listen the inner grooves with Stevenson set up against Löfgren B alignment looking for differences and make the same test in the outer grooves too. I did it not once but several times with different cartridges, please do it and share your results.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

My one experience is with the Dynavector DV505, which is unique, as you know, in having two independent pivots, one for horizontal and one for vertical motion of the arm wand.  The DV505 was designed for the DV alignment, which is very close to Stevenson, if not identical.  When I aligned the very same cartridge by Stevenson and then by Baerwald, in the DV505, I actually heard gross distortion with the latter alignment that was ameliorated by going back to Stevenson.  Please notice that I DON'T claim that this would be a general observation applicable to conventional pivoted tonearms.  I have written about this experience many times already.  

My hypothesis to explain my observation is that twisting the cartridge with respect to the long axis of the headshell, as one must do in order to achieve Baerwald in any tonearm designed for Stevenson, was placing some aberrant stresses on the cantilever (novel force vectors would be created) that might be more severe, and therefore more audible, with the DV tonearms than with conventional ones, because of the very short pivot to stylus distance with respect to vertical motion.  Persons who own other vintage Japanese tonearms might want to consider this issue, but I have no idea whether the problem would occur with those that pivot conventionally at a single point in both planes.  Further, I never claimed that inner groove distortion was either increased or decreased; I merely stated that for LPs with musical information close to the label, Stevenson makes some sense to try, especially if your tonearm was designed for Stevenson.  In other words, I do not dismiss Stevenson a priori, as you advise.

Actually, I really don't give a hoot what anyone else does; I'm just putting out my experience, just as you are doing. With my modern tonearms, I do use Baerwald, regardless of the LP.  But just because you have written something over and over again does not mean that I have to accept it.