Question on FR 66s

Since we are talking about alignments, I would appreciate to get some answers from knowledgeable members here.

As I understand, there are 3 popular alignment curves, i.e. Baerwald, Löfgren, and Stevenson, and these curves aimed to minimize tracking error in different sections of the LP.

With the alignment jig that came with the Graham Phantom arm, I can see the difference in overhang of the 2 different alignment curves (forgot which 2) can be as large as nearly 1mm. I would assume this difference is way larger than the accuracy built into even the cheapest alignment protractors.

As such, I am a bit skeptical when some users of ultra accurate alignment jigs claiming they got considerable improvements with these jigs. It seems to me that, even with this ultra accurate alignment, you are simply trading less tracking error in a certain section of the LP for higher tracking error in other sections! So, unless you are judging the performance by only a certain section on a certain LP, a considerable performance improvement over the entire LP seems unlikely!

I am not questioning the experience of other members, but just want to know if there is any technical reason behind that! Or am I missing something?

Dear Thekong: +++++ " and these curves aimed to minimize tracking distotion in different sections of the LP. " ++++

correct and you can have as many curves as you want depending if you take IEC/DIN/JIS most inner/most outer groove as input to the equations or even your own values. You can " play " about to make calculations make the set up and decide which one works better for you.

+++++ " With the alignment jig that came with the Graham Phantom arm, I can see the difference in overhang of the 2 different alignment curves (forgot which 2) can be as large as nearly 1mm " +++++

that's the difference between Löfgren A and Löfgren B alignment.

+++++ " As such, I am a bit skeptical when some users of ultra accurate alignment jigs claiming they got considerable improvements with these jigs. It seems to me that, even with this ultra accurate alignment, you are simply trading less tracking distortion in a certain section of the LP for higher tracking distortion in other sections! " +++++

right and that is what I understand Dover posted, unfortunatelly always exist trade-offs.

Remember what I posted :

++++ " any change on VTF or VTA/SRA ( if we make those changes or the ones that happen during playback due to the LPs are not flat but full of waves. ) affect the whole cartridge/tonearm geometry set up meaning that distortions values overall the LP surface that were calculated on the choosed cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment has no " value " any more because the starting distortions calculated were on " perfect conditions/theory " in a STATIC way not DYNAMIC as during playback.

So in reality we are almost at random ( during playback ) about those tracking distortions generated on a pivoted tonearm choosed cartridge/tonearm alignment.... " +++++

Btw, Halcro you can manipulate any of the equations parameters only if you made the value changes in the other equations input parameters and the set up was made it with the new calculated parameters. If not everything is wrong, you can'T manipulate the overhang parameter with out the choosed equations new calculation. This is not aritmetic where you can add or rest somewhere and think that all is preserved but the overhang: mistake.
Anyway, I don't care what you are listening because I don't have to live with, as Dover I'm only trying to help.

Reggards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul,
Get off the Sangria and show me where I said anything like what you are talking about?
Is this figment of your imagination the same as the one about you owning and selling an FR-66s and owning a Signet TK-7LCa and having a Victor TT-81 and TT-101 beside your TT-71 in your system?
If I want your help......I'll ask for it.

Speaking about repetition. This is 33 1/2 time we dwell about tonearm geometry. The 1/2 one was the thread with only two contributions so it would be not correct to count
this one as a whole thread. I play my records only around the O points with the least possible distortion. Even Raul with his distortions obsession never got this idea. However his 'learning curve' still make some progress... Depending from the part of the record which one want to hear and enjoy in the most pure way one should of course use the geometry intended for this part.
I am however not sure if all 45 preadjusted headshells in Australia can be used in both tonearms (66 and 64) this way. Anyway it is impossible to use one half one way and
the other the other way. So the dilemma in this case is in which to use 23 headshells.

Dear Halcro: My first " high end " tonearm I owned was the 66, in those time my best experiences were with Denon tonearms. I sold it because I can't change directly my cartridges from one tonearm to other. I was really a rockie those times.

MY FR64 that I still own I bought it along a Luxman BD TT that still own too.

The TT-71 was really something I was not looking for but when I saw an auction the JVC tonearm that I was looking I bought it and things were that the tonearm came mounted in a TT-71 and as a " bonus " with the great JVC X-1 cartridge!. The 81-101 were not mines and heard it briefly in my system one borrowed by a friend and the other by an audio dealer.

About the Signet all the history is already in the other thread.

Please don't share the same way of thinking of those " flat head " persons , you are better than that.

In the other side I took this from Dover post:

+++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. " +++++

normally Dover is a trusty gentleman, if the post is a wrong one then my mistake and please delete my posts, sorry for that and good to know that you really understand the whole tonearm/cartridge geometry set up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.