Uni-Protractor Set tonearm alignment

Dear Geoch, Raul and I agree here to a large extend. I have not "discovered" any "paradox" here. I just questioned the universal used baerwald IEC as I know from personal experience with many tonearms and from a large record collection with many samples from the late 1950ies and 1960ies (i.e. cut close to the inner label...) that Baerwald IEC is not always the best possible.
The fact that it is the most widely used lead to the evolution that it is no longer questioned at all.
It is indisputably the best possible for a 9" tonearm AND for tracking modern records with longer lead out-grooves.
But there are 10", 10.5", 11" and other odd tonearms out there and there are many Mercury SR, DECCA SXL, Impulse, Columbia 6-eye tec. out there.
And Baerwald IEC is not ideal for them.
The records you play do have an important role here. If the majority of them is cut following and taking advantage of the wide area of DIN, then IEC is sub-optimal and an alignment following DIN might be better suited.
And no - an offset angle does not determine a tonearm's geometry. But if your cantilever when aligned is far off line with the offset of your tonearm, then that should tell you something .....

I did long research when designing the UNI-Protractor and I offer a wide range of universal as well as individual templates for good reason - and certainly not just to fill the books....;-) ...
Cheers,
D.

Dear Raul, thank you for your contribution.
Your words exactly were my belief in so many years.
Please read my argument with Dgad about this subject at the link below :
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1285867301&openflup&35&4#35
But I'm sure we are missing something.
Again, how we can explain the Phantom's unique alignment ?
By default ?
What is the point of concern in a tonearm's geometry to dictate it's prefered form of alignment ?
Our ears are the final judge, yes, but I don't think that the result is not predictable. It must be at least one crucial point in arm's geometry that can direct us to choose
what is best.
OK. but even then, how can anyone find the special & unique individual alignment that is different from all the B or L or S, IEC or DIN that we know how to calculate ?
Maybe the listening tests are cheaters and the only way for pure & neutral performance is the graphic diagram of distortion & tracking error. I don't argue about this.
But then, we must all stay at the side of Technics amplifiers with 0.003% THD and B&O speakers with perfectly flat freq. response.
It is not that bad to explore something new, even if it is radical and going against our traditional view.
It's the fun part that opens our horizon to new possibilities & maybe offers new & unfound pleasures.
Gullible & optimistic am I ?

Dear Dertonarm,
NO !
I don't appreciate to read behind your lines !

What is supposed to said by my cantilever if you accept the usual logic of only this matters & not the arm's geometry ?

What's the point of providing individual templates if you declare the usual & known alignments ?

Please be straight & specific about your thoughts to the subject this time. To confusing my or perhaps and others mind is not your will I would like to believe.

PS :
I'm greatful for your effort to offer this protractor to the community,
but remember that your act for doing this, was directed by your commitment to this hobby & your will to help us.

Dear Geoch: Graham unique?, well it is the same with SME V or other " unique " tonearm/cartridge geometry set-ups.

IMHO the only " unique " that has all those " unique " set ups are higher " unique " distortions and that's all.

Geoch, you can explore new things in the subject ( I love to explore and that's why I'm where I'm. ) but here is only mathemathics and only if you have a proved mathematical new " process " could change what we have today on that subject.
This is not that you can do it " by fault " or because " you think " is better some other way.

Now and IMHO, like with the Graham and other " unique " tonearm set ups: that a higher generated distortions likes you or likes other people does not means is right: it means only that you and those other people likes HIGHER DISTORTIONS and that's all.

You don't have to believe me, please put those " unique " tonearm set up ( any ) parameters in a " calculator " ( like the VE one. ) against the öfgren B ( IEC ) one and you can confirm what I'm saying.

Goech, distortions are not only gernerated by cartridge/tonearm tracking or tonearm/cartridge geometry set up, things are more more complex than that.
There are several other factors that " determine " any tonearm/cartridge quality performance level, this subject already was discussed in many other threads in the past.

Between those other factors are: type of tonearm pivot bearing, bearing build material, tolerance level on that bearing system, tonearm effective length, tonearm build materials, cartridge whole characteristics on compliance/stylus shape/MC or MM design/body build material/cantilever build material/etc/etc, arm board build material, etc, etc, and I can go on and on on this factor list.

I don't know where you want to go. Intrinsic tonearm resonances and cartridge resonances has almost nothing to " see " with those geometry equations.
IMHO if a tonearm was designed with a " unique " geometry set up equations on mind with greater distortions due to that geometry " unique " set up and even if you like it for me that tonearm design is a faulty one.

A good tonearm design must left ( very clear and precise. ) that you can discern between different set ups and not only that but that you can be aware that a higher distortion geometry equations set up almost always have to sounds with those higher distortions quality performance level, other way IMHO that tonearm design is not a good design.

Geoch, IMHO here it is not what we like but what is wrong or good/right.
This time and in this subject I'm with what is right. What other people could think on the same subject does not affect what is right because you can't change ( for the better ) that: 2+2=4.

IMHO your example of Technics/B&O has no aplication in this subject because we are not speaking of technology but mathematics: elemental mathematics for say the least.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Dertonarm: I think that the IEC and DIN subject is in someway " academic " because as you can read in the SAEC 308SX example the distortion " figures " in between are so small that I think no one but a bat could heard it.

So, for me Löfgren B is all what I have to say about and the IEC only for " calm in mind " and nothing else.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.