i think that @dcc had his SAT adjusted on a different (than SAT modified Löfgren ) tangential curve and has reported an improvement. I believe that @silviajulieta is right
Analog Magik
- Thread starter Tirebiter
- Start date
you're right about tonearm geometry and explained it well. it's all related with the measurement of inner and outer grooves of an lp. Lofgren geometries are based on lowering maximum or rms distortion of a tonearm moving between two circles (inner and outer grooves).
but there is one thing you are not right
that's not quite right cause you only need pivot to spindle distance (P2S) of a tonearm for your calculations not the effective length (EL). then you can calculate offset angle and overhang according to the selected standard (IEC, DIN,JIS) and alignment geometry. and eventually null points.
EL=P2S+overhang
EL is a function of P2S distance, inner and outer groove radiuses (IEC,DIN,JIS) and desired distortion figures (A or B) in Lofgren's equations.
I installed a SAT CF-09 tonearm and used manufacturer's protractor. I listened to a lot of records with it and had no problems with distortion. but I should note that they were all Analog Productions issues which were not cut close to the label. so standard Lofgren A may be better with SAT and old records.
they're using fixed overhang which is 15mm for almost all tonearms (9, 10 or 12inch). it gives them convenience when aligning a new cartridge cause most of japanese tonearms have removable headshell and 15mm overhang can easily be adjusted with a plastic gauge before mounting headshell to the arm. it gives convenience but distortion figures are heavily effected. so it's better to align them to Lofgren A or B if headshell has space for required overhang and offset. at least that's what I do when aligning Japanese arms.
Dear friend: this is what I posted about, please read carefully:
""
In those original Löfgren alignment equations and calculation exist 3 input parameters ( it needs nothing else. ):
- tonearm effective length
-most inner groove distance
-most outer groove distance
the equations/calculations gives us:
-overhang, offset angle, linear offset, both null points and tracking error / tracking distortions.
The P2S distance is not an output of the calculations but is just the difference between the input effective length with the output overhang parameter. ""
there said: ORIGINAL and at the end " The P2S distance is not an output of the calculations "
Löfgren original calculation equations never took in count the P2S measure as a need it output on his equations because P2S is only a " difference " in between the output parametr calculations.
But in other of my posts here and the link I shared I said that we can change even the EL by 2mm-3mm and what means this is that we are manipulating and we can do it the final alignment parameters. I said that veen each one of us can have our " propietary " alignment because at the end all is mathematics and you can make what ever you want it. Even you can't make " new "calculations because you need a different overhang to mount your cartridge because in the already paramers calculations the overhang just not fits with the headshell slots.
Tha's what SAT did it as other tonearm designers or protractor sellers. Even through internet calculators there are the ones tha ask for the EL and others ask for the P2S. Which is rigth? well if we are ( as me. ) orthodox I " like " the ones that ask for EL but both kind of calculators give us the same parameter values for the tonearm/cartridge/turntable set up alignment.
MINTLP dedicated protractor asked to the tonearm owner for the P2S and why is it this way? because normally the owner tonearm it's already mounted at a very specific P2S and MINTLP wants to make things easy for the customer. Anyway results are the same after calculations.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.
In 1924 Wilson made it calculations that in 1938 Löfgren made it the final corrections and equations and today used alignments, this is something on Wilson:
"
lateral tracking error (LTE), and the resulting nonlinearity as lateral tracking error distortion (LTED).
Wilson calculated what alignment of the replay components would minimize LTE across the disc that this would also minimize the resulting distortion. To achieve this, he found, the radius of the stylus (needle) arc had to be greater than the distance from the arm pivot to the center of the disc, by a distance that today we term the overhang; and the pickup cartridge had to be twisted relative to a line joining stylus to arm pivot by an angle termed the offset. This overhang-plus-offset geometry, Wilson's great contribution to arm/cartridge alignment, is still used today, even though his equations for calculating the two parameters have been superseded.............
If we assume an arm effective length (that is, the horizontal distance from stylus to arm pivot axis) ...."
He never used P2S as Löfgren neither did it.
Look that everything starts with L= effective length. Those are the original equations. d=overhang and Rs the inner/outer frooves.
About the japanese tonearms your take is not exactly as you said. Examples manufacturer specs:
SAEC 506. : 9mm, 407 12mm.
Denon 309 14mm 308 12.5mm
Exel 1000 17.25mm
FR66 12mm
Stax 13mm
Toho 14mm
Last edited:
Technics 15mm almost all arms
Dynavector 15mm almost all arms
Ikeda 15mm almost all arms
Micro Seiki 15mm almost all arms
Pioneer 15.5mm almost all arms
Ortofon RS309D 15mm
as I said before not all but most of the major Japanese companies are using fixed overhang.
you say P2S is not mentioned. please read underlined sentence from your post.
I did not say P2S distance is the output of calculations.
I know how you can measure lowest and highest effective length for a tonearm but it's a better and normal way to start with P2S distance as MINT LP protractor manufacturer does. if the arm has a sliding base like SME then it's a whole other story cause effective length is determined by the distance between tip point and mounting screws of the cartridge.
Dear friend: that statement is incredible. My native language is spanish and my english is to bad and I make several mistakes about. I already fixed because the word I wanted to post was USED but your post is incredible too not only because you had no patience with me about but because the main issue was not what you posted but that the Lófgren input parameters in his equations were 3 and no one of them was P2S. Maybe you don't like it that I posted your misunderstood about.
I own or owned all vintage Technics tonearms and no one calculation according the 250 Technics EL spec gives you 15mm.: IEC, DIN or JIS. The nearer is IEC Stevenson A with 14.59mm.
Same with Dynavector that I owned where the nearer is Stevenson A 15.17mm.
Micro Seiki that I owned exactly same problem the nearer again is Stevenson A with 15.45mm
Ortofon made it by japanese Jelco neither approach those 15mm.
So what do you want to state with your statement " against " what I posted about? I know why that 15mm japanese spec. Try to investigate about because is not for what you posted, no way.
better? not for Löfgren or even Stevenson or Baerwald.
Seems to me that you are just argue with out no foundation and a target that can help all of us. Vienna and bazelio that agree/like your post have a misunderstood as you have.
My posts states and are true and pristine as any thing you can think.
Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS.
I got your point you wanna start from scratch. it’s long way but perfectly alright.
my intention is not to start an argument with people and it’s normal to make mistakes while writing due to language barrier as you mentioned. English is a foreign language for me too.
I think it’s better for us to come to a conclusion that all arms can be aligned to Lofgren geometries either A or B and work well.
My wife's Christmas present to me this year was the purchase of AnalogMagik. In support of the product I ordered the recommended ART phono plus sound card. The sound card has arrived and the AnalogMagik is "out for delivery" today. (there goes the weekend...) My question is do you use the sound card powered only off the USB computer connection or is it preferable to use the optional wall plug power?
Thank you for the reply. It does not ship with a wall wart but I have noted some “optional” ones being sold for use with it. Just thought I would reach out for confirmation that it was not a preferred method to power the ART phono plus.
I was the same as you. You're really going to like AM. Version 2 is meant to be coming out very soon (currently being beta tested). Richard has always said version upgrades will be free to existing users, but as there is more functionality we might need to pay for new test LPs.
I predict another Fozgometer goes up for sale shortly.
Looks like one new function which will be great to have in Version 2 is a Zenith function. I already use the VTA track to fine tune Zenith, so it'll be interesting to see how the new Zenith function reports my alignment. Also, just to clarify, while the software upgrade will be free, users will indeed still need to pay for the new LPs to go along with it.
RM is in our local audio group. He messaged me that it would be about 90days for the new vinyl release. I suppose supply chain issues are quite possible as well given the current state of the world. I admire his progress with this tool.
Last edited:
You can go to the AM website for detail. AM claim there is a relationship between VTF and THD for a series of test tones. Your objective through the software is to set VTF for the lowest THD. This is their claimed optimum. Any change in any parameter will affect another.. all interactive and you will learn that less is more with adjustments . As to thickness of LP ... sure but then it really does not matter what method of set up you prescribe to. Album thickness is going to impact each parameter differently for different pieces of software regardless. There is never any true perfection with vinyl.
Well one could simply set vertical tracking angle by ear using the records he usually listens to. That would seem a better method than using a test record and measurementsa test record that is a different thickness.
i’m just speculating as I’ve never used this program.
i’m just speculating as I’ve never used this program.
Or one could use the program to set things up and then use their ears to make tweaks. This is an excellent set up tool.
It’s better to power ART Phono from computer via usb cable. It’s the recommended method for AM measurements.
