Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
Sorry Marco, the two arms look similar with the 'cube-shaped' bearing housing. Personally, I prefer static balanced arms as these do not use springs which can ring. As long as the TT is level and one's records are flat, there is no real advantage to dynamic balancing.
Sure, however, I preferred the look of the 212-D, which also came with a much better reputation, based on the reviews I read, and so I have no reason to regret my choice

If you go onto the Vinyl Engine site and search for the thread entitled "Best Tonearm For TD-124", you'll see an interesting discussion on the subject, where both Ortofon arms are mentioned. Unfortunately, direct links to VE don't work on AoS, so you'll have to do it manually.

But I digress, both the RS 212 and AS-212 have identical geometry. To realise the optimum performance, the arm must be set up so that the radial null-points are at 58.5mm and 114.5mm. I assume Ortofon supply a protractor with these null-points marked.

If you try to set the arm up according to Baerwald you will have to skew the cartridge in the headshell by ~ 1.5 degree, as well as increase the overhang by ~3mm.

Ortofon/Jelco designed the arm to have a particular geometry which does not correspond to either Baerwald or Stevenson. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just to set the arm up as designed, you can't use arm alignment protractors that are marked with either the Baerwald or Stevenson null-points..

The errors in doing so are small, and probably inaudable - but if you are going to do the job, you may as well do it properly. As one supermarket says: "every little bit helps".
Yup, although the geometry corresponds more to Stevenson than Baerwald. My arm was set-up according to the null points marked on the supplied protractor, so all is spot on!

Marco.