Feickert analogue protractor....Owners impressions

Narrod,

I've compared the two. Ken's protractor is an excellent one to be sure. The MintLP protractor is the same essential concept, yet constructed on plate glass mirror (a big advantage for parallax reduction) and has extremely fine lines to better facilitate accuracy. While Ken's protractor will certainly get you extremely close, we're dealing with the LP groove here and ANY device that facilitates even better accuracy is worth it. I'd estimate the line pitch on the MintLP protractor to be about 5-8 times finer than those on Ken's unit - when microns are the unit of measurment, this can make a substantial diffference.

-Richard

Narrod,

I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. I'm just sharing my experience. Ken's protractor is fine, I'm sure, and if you are happy with it who cares what anyone, including me, says. Other people whose opinions I greatly respect and value are perfectly happy with their 2-point, one-size fits most, protractors. I do have a KWILLIS protractor file that Palasr sent me, but I have not printed and tried it out for reasons I'll explain below. If Ken would like to send me one that he designed and made for a TriPlanar VII I'd be more than happy to compare it to my MintLP protractor. ;-)

If a protractor is not mirrored there is a good probability of user error due to the parallax effect that Palasr posted about. If it is printed out on what ever printer one has to use, the thickness of the lines vary from user to user. This is another source of error. Perhaps Ken has a means to produce lines with a thickness of around .008". If so that would certainly boost the accuracy a user could achieve by using a protractor that he printed for them.

These issues also exist for the protractor that Thom sent around to some of us to try, which is also a printed out protractor. I doubt that Ken's is anymore accurate than what Thom designed. Perhaps Ken can print much more accurate lines. Even with these issues I was still able to get better results using Thom's printed protractor than with the mirrored protractor supplied with my TriPlanar. Still there is that parallax issue.

So for another $35 over the cost of a KWILLIS protractor, I chose to purchase a protractor that addresses both of these issues by offering more precise lines and a mirrored surface.

I see this as just a comparison between tools. I freely admit that this is getting into the realm of obsession over cartridge alignment. Even so, there is no disputing that the more accurately you can get the alignment, the more you will be rewarded from the sound from your cartridge.

My apologies to Stiltskin if I've helped steer too far off the subject of his thread.

Dan ed, I'm not challenging your opinion. I just want to know. I prefer Ken's to the Feikert. Both of which I bought. If the MintLp is actually, not just theoretically, better I will have to buy one. Most importantly, is there a difference in sound after a setup with each? $90 is a good price.

Narrod,

sorry if I missed your point. I think Palasr and I have pointed out the short-comings of printed protractors. I bow to Palasr as he's way out in front of me when it comes to evaluating a large number of protractors. I personally find the arc-style protractors more user friendly.

To your question, I found the largest improvement came when I first used Thom's protractor. I found that all notes, instruments, and voices were more articulate and clear. I did a few iterations of adjustments but didn't really attempt to optimize further. The improvements I heard convinced me to take a little risk and order the MintLP. It's more accurate so the results should be better. Right, I thought.

When the MintLP arrived I spent just 1/2 an hour improving the alignment I had from Thom's protractor. Here the improvements most notable was the way notes began to hang in the air much longer. At this point I'm starting to get increased details, articulation and harmonics. I believe I have finally unlocked my lp playback.

After getting to this point I sent an email to Yip, owner and manufacturer of the MintLP protractor. To generalize his response, he kind of yawned out "I'm not surprised" and then proceeded to gently lecture me that if I had only spent 1/2 hour there was no way my alignment was as close as it could/should be. (I understand that his personal protractor has even finer lines, but he won't market that because one would have to be completely nuts to try for that kind of accuracy. I want one like his even more, but I might change my tune once I tried to use it.) This response made me laugh with joy as I realized that there is even more magic to unlock. So I've tried to spend some time each weekend just attempting to get the alignment even better. Did I mention that this is bordering on obsession? :-)

I think Dan has touched on several key points: accuracy and obsession. My own quest for alignment accuracy started many years ago when I too struggled with making sense of "universal" two point protractors (db systems, dennessen, et al). When I tried my first Wallytractor seven or so years ago (when I owned my Linn), I knew I had found the ever-elusive path to the holy grail of alignment. When I got my Triplanar a couple of years ago, I tried in vain to get another Wally, and eventually used several printed card-stock arc protractors with varying degrees of success. I think Yip's (MintLP) protractor raises the bar even on the venerable Wallytractor with regards to precision for the reasons outlined above by both Dan and myself. The only failings I can see of the MintLP protractor comes from the user's end - bad magnification, bad lighting and poor eyesight (pick your order) ;-))

I think those of us who have invested substantial sums of money in both hardware and software (I've been collecting LPs since I was 11 or 12 and now have around 4500 or so) want to pursue analog to the lunatic fringe. And yes, it can become obsessive, but that's what being a hobbyist or enthusiast is all about, whether it's audio, coins, knitting, model airplanes or your dog. We're all about extracting maximum pleasure from our investments (and ourselves with regard to our hobbies).

So yes, obsession is part of the equation, and if struggling with the minutae - accuracy of measurement, parallax and overhang seems like too much of a PITA, then that's why there's both "close enough" and the compact disc. Good listening,

-Richard