To Baerwald or not to Baerwald...?

[nickbaba]

(Mods- I have posted this question here as even though its a general qu about cart alignment, it does relate specifically to Techie tonearms.)

I have been using the Baerwald arc protractor (downloadable from vinylengine) to set up my carts on my Techie 1210.
However, it does mention that Technics arms are not set-up for a Baerwald arc and the cart will need extra adjustment to sit parallel with the protractor lines.In practice this means that my cart sits a couple of degrees off parallel with the end of my headshell, slightly turned inward towards the spindle.
I have also noticed, when setting up a Funk FX-1200 tonearm headshell, that it also was not set-up for Baerwald, but follows the Technics arm in angle. (There is a groove cut in the FX headshell to fix the angle).
So my question is, if the Technics tonearm is not set-up to conform to this Baerwald angle, and neither is the FX-1200, should I be worrying about getting my cart parallel with the Baerwald lines on the protractor? Or should I just leave it parallel with the end of my headshell and forget about it?
Do forum members here use the Baerwald alignment? Or do you not bother? What difference, ultimately, does it make?

[Frankyc2003]

Interesting, as I was using this protactor
http://www.vinylengine.com/hfn-002-test-lp.shtml
The classic HFN test record. Using a classic Baerwald 2-point method.

With the original Technics Head shell and my Lyra, no problem whatsoever. The cart sits nicely parallel to the head shell, and it falls very nicely on each markings, parallel to the little lines in both positions.

I also made sure that the stylus edge is 52mm away from the rubber rim of the headshell plug (ie. the measurement that the white plastic Technics cartridge overhang tool measures...)

Weird?:scratch:

[nickbaba]

This quote comes from the vinylengine protractor download page:

Technics Arc protractor
Suitable for those Technics turntables that have an arm mounting distance of exactly 215mm, such as the SL-1200/1210/1300/1400/1500/1600 etc. Please check the tonearm database for the mounting distance of your arm before using this protractor. Also note that Technics arms do not use baerwald alignment as standard, so you may have to offset the cartridge in the headshell in order to align with arc.

In my case I do seem to have to offset to align with the arc - :scratch:

[nickbaba]

btw I also own that HFN test record & protractor. Just re-tested my alignment with the Baerwald 2 point method and the offset needed for my cart to sit parallel with the lines is exactly the same as with the vinylengine protractor. Still sits a couple of degrees off parallel with the headshell edge.

[Frankyc2003]

:doh:
That must mean I am doing something really wrong...
It looks like what you do is the right thing and the fact that your offset is constant and replicable is a good sign.

How does it sound to your ears though?
Does it sing, or do you feel it could improve?

;)

[nickbaba]

Hi Franky - Well yes I would say that my setup 'sings' - but how much of that is down to that couple of degrees offset is hard to say - can I hear a massive difference when it's not there? Tbh no, not really. But is my cart sitting properly centred in the groove without it? I guess not.
Anyone care to weigh in on why Techie arms are not set up to Baerwald alignment 'out of the box' if that's indeed the way the cart 'should' be aligned?

[John Gordon]

Anyone care to weigh in on why Techie arms are not set up to Baerwald alignment 'out of the box' if that's indeed the way the cart 'should' be aligned?
There is no "should". All tonearm alignments are compromises based on where the music starts and finishes on a record.

They are compromises because unless you align to only one record, and only ever play that record or ones with the same start and finish distance from the spindle, there will be differences in the amount of distortion with other records.

The alignments are also compromises because they are calculated to minimise distortion in different ways, depending on what is desired, whether to minimise peak distortion, average distortion, inner groove distortion.

So in the past, and to some extent still today, tonearm designers generally choose an alignment suitable for what they consider the user will need. Technics and many other Japanese manufacturers as well as Rega chose an alignment which favours the inner grooves and is arguably also better for playing 7" singles as well as LPs. This is close to a Stevenson alignment.

But for playing only LPs many designers choose Baerwald IEC (or Lofgren A IEC as it should properly be called) such as used in the SME V. There are other alignments. When I was designing arms I chose a Baerwald/LofgrenA DIN alignment which is similar to the current SME 300 series, and offers a compromise for LPs which have more recorded area. There is also Lofgen B which favours lower average distortion at the expense of higher distortion elsewhere.

However, if I was designing an arm now, I would do it such that parameters such as headshell offset etc are not fixed, but nominal, so that the user could easily use whichever alignment he or she wished.

John

[nickbaba]

Cheers John - that was very informative and makes a lot of sense.
I will stick with my Baerwald set-up then, as I mainly play LPs/12"s.
Thanks for the info!

[Qwin]

I just set up my SL-1200 II using the program on Vinylengine.
I set the pivot to spindle at 215mm and selected Lofgren "A" and IEC. Printed out the alignment protractor and set it up.

I then printed out the Technics Specific Baerwald Protractor, again from VE and compared the alignment. Like the OP I also found the cartridge was a couple of degrees out, which is quite a big difference!

I listened to both alignments using an Ortofon 2m Red and a Goldring 1042 and to my ears the Technics specific protractor gave better resullts on both of these.