It seems that most 1210mk2 users either go with Technics factory alignment, or goes with Lofgren A (better known as Baerwald) as alternative, so let me start with my short insight of them.
As known, Technics factory alignment is variant of Stephenson, with null points somewhat closer to the spindle. What bothers me with both is tracking distortion rising fast above inner null point, reaching higher max. value between null points compared to Lofgren A. So, at 70mm from the spindle, which is still close to the last groove, distortion is quite high.
From my experience, Lofgren A gives overal improvement in sound but with inner null point at 66mm last groove performance may be compromised, especially with cheaper carts/styluses. Also it requires 2,82mm of extra overhang and 1,66deg of extra offset, so cart looks weird in a headshell. Some carts even cant be aligned like this with original headshell beacuse you cant move them far enough to the front.
So, I came with two custom alignments between these two, both offering some improvements. I worked with them for the last four years with no negative effects on my records or carts, so they are safe to try. They will work on all Technics TT models with arm pivot to spindle distance of 215mm.
Results are calculated and presented with graphs made with vynilengine Alignment Calculator Pro. Thank them very much for this wonderfull online tool.
First custom alignment has extra 1mm overhang and extra 0,5deg offset angle compared to factory setting, giving 16mm and 22,5deg total values. Null points are 62,35 and 114,45mm. This gives same distortion level in a last groove (at IEC 60,3mm), so performance at this point is not compromised, but with reduced distortion between null points and at first groove. As result, average rms distortion drops from 0,53 to 0,46% and max rms distortion drops from 0,9 to 0,84%. Distortion is increased below 60,3mm but still only half compared to Lofgren A. Since very small number of my records have modulated grooves there, I found this aligment much better compromise compared to factory setup and its now my "official" alignment for this TT. With this, you get best of both worlds. Some of reduced distortion from Lofgren A, especially between null points, and improved last groove tracking from Technics alignment. Also, appearance of cart in a headshell is not compromised beacuse you practicaly wont see visual difference.
I made this setup with hand-drawn arc protractor and tried it with few combinations of Grado Prestige carts and styluses. Blue1, Blue1 with Red2 styli and now my old Gold(no number) with Red3 styli. All at recomended 1,5gram vtf, antiskating at 1,65 and arm heigt at 1-1,5 for most of my records and with original platter mat. Iam very pleased with performance which resembles Lofgren A setup. Regarding IGD, those Grados are not known as pristine trackers, but so far they behaved very well. No problems on good, well preserved records. But be careful with styli which are of quite mediocre quality. From my experience they dont last long and deterioation in performance may occur with less than 150 hrs of play. When that happens, it will become worse fast, so dont hesitate to order a replacement. And dont try to prolong the life of worn styli by increasing the vtf unless you want to screw your records.
Here are the graphs, showing tracking distortion and tracking error for custom 16mm/22,5deg alignment (yellow), Technics alignment (red), Lofgren A or Baerwald (blue) and Stevenson (green). I will present second custom alignment in my next post. Be free to comment and share your experience with alignments for 1210mk2.
As known, Technics factory alignment is variant of Stephenson, with null points somewhat closer to the spindle. What bothers me with both is tracking distortion rising fast above inner null point, reaching higher max. value between null points compared to Lofgren A. So, at 70mm from the spindle, which is still close to the last groove, distortion is quite high.
From my experience, Lofgren A gives overal improvement in sound but with inner null point at 66mm last groove performance may be compromised, especially with cheaper carts/styluses. Also it requires 2,82mm of extra overhang and 1,66deg of extra offset, so cart looks weird in a headshell. Some carts even cant be aligned like this with original headshell beacuse you cant move them far enough to the front.
So, I came with two custom alignments between these two, both offering some improvements. I worked with them for the last four years with no negative effects on my records or carts, so they are safe to try. They will work on all Technics TT models with arm pivot to spindle distance of 215mm.
Results are calculated and presented with graphs made with vynilengine Alignment Calculator Pro. Thank them very much for this wonderfull online tool.
First custom alignment has extra 1mm overhang and extra 0,5deg offset angle compared to factory setting, giving 16mm and 22,5deg total values. Null points are 62,35 and 114,45mm. This gives same distortion level in a last groove (at IEC 60,3mm), so performance at this point is not compromised, but with reduced distortion between null points and at first groove. As result, average rms distortion drops from 0,53 to 0,46% and max rms distortion drops from 0,9 to 0,84%. Distortion is increased below 60,3mm but still only half compared to Lofgren A. Since very small number of my records have modulated grooves there, I found this aligment much better compromise compared to factory setup and its now my "official" alignment for this TT. With this, you get best of both worlds. Some of reduced distortion from Lofgren A, especially between null points, and improved last groove tracking from Technics alignment. Also, appearance of cart in a headshell is not compromised beacuse you practicaly wont see visual difference.
I made this setup with hand-drawn arc protractor and tried it with few combinations of Grado Prestige carts and styluses. Blue1, Blue1 with Red2 styli and now my old Gold(no number) with Red3 styli. All at recomended 1,5gram vtf, antiskating at 1,65 and arm heigt at 1-1,5 for most of my records and with original platter mat. Iam very pleased with performance which resembles Lofgren A setup. Regarding IGD, those Grados are not known as pristine trackers, but so far they behaved very well. No problems on good, well preserved records. But be careful with styli which are of quite mediocre quality. From my experience they dont last long and deterioation in performance may occur with less than 150 hrs of play. When that happens, it will become worse fast, so dont hesitate to order a replacement. And dont try to prolong the life of worn styli by increasing the vtf unless you want to screw your records.
Here are the graphs, showing tracking distortion and tracking error for custom 16mm/22,5deg alignment (yellow), Technics alignment (red), Lofgren A or Baerwald (blue) and Stevenson (green). I will present second custom alignment in my next post. Be free to comment and share your experience with alignments for 1210mk2.
Last edited:
And this is second custom alignment I came up with. What if you like Lofgren A (Baerwald) on your 1210mk2, and you seek possibility to further reduce average rms distortion? You may try Lofgren B, but with inner null point at 70,29mm inner groove performance will be compromised. Lofgren B gives highest max. rms distortion among three standard alignments, 1,03% at worst location, inner groove. For comparison, Stevenson has 0,78% at outer groove, where traction is not a problem. For that reason I never tried Lofgren B myself.
This alignment has extra 2mm overhang and extra 1deg offset angle compared to factory setting, giving 17mm and 23deg total values. Null points are 65,78 and 115,52mm. It combines properties of three standard alignments, and it will work on all Technics TTs with arm pivot to spindle distance of 215mm. Inner null point is almost identical as Lofgren A, giving almost identical performance below that point, with marginal reduction of distortion. Between null points distortion is reduced giving some of Lofgren B flavor, and at outer groove distortion is increased, giving max. value of 0,78% which is same as Stevenson. Average rms distortion is 0,4% which is in between Lofgren A at 0,42% and Lofgren B at 0,37% So, it might be a nice alternative to Lofgren B, giving some benefits without compromising inner groove performance.
Other reasons to use this alignment might be: you dont like weird position of the cart in a headshell with Lofgren A so you wish to improve appearance, or you cant move the cart far enough in a headshell to achieve it. In both cases this setup might help, with closer geometric resemblance to Lofgren A then first custom alignment I showed in this thread.
Again, I made this setup with hand-drawn arc-protractor and tried it with Audio-Technica AT95E cart at 2gram vtf, antiskating 2,3 and arm heigt 1-1,5 for most of my records and original platter mat. Previously, this cart was set to Lofgren A, but with different speakers so I cant make direct comparison. Overal, sound seems a bit cleaner, less colorated, but that might be due to speakers as well. Regarding IGD, AT95E is not as good as Grado Prestige carts set with first custom alignment, but still very good and with no negative effects compared to Lofgren A setup. I mostly use it as my spare cart, for less than perfect records, so this is not a problem.
For end, I wish to point I dont want to re-invent the wheel here. Just to share some positive experience with this four year experiment. And I claim no magic properties. Differences in sound between alignments are subtle. Will you here them or not and how will they sound to you, depends on the whole system and your personal taste. Alignments wont cure shortcomings caused by other factors. I hope someone will find these alignments interesting, and try them with his Technics. I especially recommend the first one from previous post.
Here are the graphs, made with vynilengine Alignment Calculator Pro (many thanks again). First set showing custom 17mm/23deg alignment (yellow), Technics alignment (red), Lofgren A or Baerwald (blue) and Stephenson (green)
Second set of graphs with green line showing Lofgren B
This alignment has extra 2mm overhang and extra 1deg offset angle compared to factory setting, giving 17mm and 23deg total values. Null points are 65,78 and 115,52mm. It combines properties of three standard alignments, and it will work on all Technics TTs with arm pivot to spindle distance of 215mm. Inner null point is almost identical as Lofgren A, giving almost identical performance below that point, with marginal reduction of distortion. Between null points distortion is reduced giving some of Lofgren B flavor, and at outer groove distortion is increased, giving max. value of 0,78% which is same as Stevenson. Average rms distortion is 0,4% which is in between Lofgren A at 0,42% and Lofgren B at 0,37% So, it might be a nice alternative to Lofgren B, giving some benefits without compromising inner groove performance.
Other reasons to use this alignment might be: you dont like weird position of the cart in a headshell with Lofgren A so you wish to improve appearance, or you cant move the cart far enough in a headshell to achieve it. In both cases this setup might help, with closer geometric resemblance to Lofgren A then first custom alignment I showed in this thread.
Again, I made this setup with hand-drawn arc-protractor and tried it with Audio-Technica AT95E cart at 2gram vtf, antiskating 2,3 and arm heigt 1-1,5 for most of my records and original platter mat. Previously, this cart was set to Lofgren A, but with different speakers so I cant make direct comparison. Overal, sound seems a bit cleaner, less colorated, but that might be due to speakers as well. Regarding IGD, AT95E is not as good as Grado Prestige carts set with first custom alignment, but still very good and with no negative effects compared to Lofgren A setup. I mostly use it as my spare cart, for less than perfect records, so this is not a problem.
For end, I wish to point I dont want to re-invent the wheel here. Just to share some positive experience with this four year experiment. And I claim no magic properties. Differences in sound between alignments are subtle. Will you here them or not and how will they sound to you, depends on the whole system and your personal taste. Alignments wont cure shortcomings caused by other factors. I hope someone will find these alignments interesting, and try them with his Technics. I especially recommend the first one from previous post.
Here are the graphs, made with vynilengine Alignment Calculator Pro (many thanks again). First set showing custom 17mm/23deg alignment (yellow), Technics alignment (red), Lofgren A or Baerwald (blue) and Stephenson (green)
Second set of graphs with green line showing Lofgren B
I had tried many different kinds of custom alignments years ago on my Graham 2.2. The basic idea was to move the inner null close to the last run of the groove. Stevenson may be too extreme. I liked Uni-din. But did the different alignments make any significant difference? No. It is because pivot arms are fundamentally flawed.