A Treatise on Cartridge Alignment

Preamble.
When I started listening to records again recently, the mysteries of cartridge alignment
still alluded me. Thanks to the many discussions which have taken place on this bulletin
board, and to the technical articles sent to me by Klaus Rampleman and Helge
Gunderson, I now believe I understand the topic very well, and have been planning an
article that treats the subject comprehensively for a couple of months. Many of the
regular posters won't find anything particularly new or enlightening in the rest of this
text, but it may serve as a useful piece for those who are attempting to set the their first
turntable, or it may be of some help to those who never really understand what alignment
was all about. Also I have tried to gather most of the useful formulae and data together, so
it can be used as a source of reference.
Where possible I included equations as an appendix so as not to weigh the text down with
lengthy mathematical formulae. However, I must stress that parts of what follows are still
a little heavy, and certainly if I could have included diagrams, some of the more wordy
explanations would have been trimmed.
For those who don't like using scientific calculators, I have made an excel worksheet that
calculates arm parameters and null radii etc based on the equations below. It is available
on request by e-mail.
Definitions.
Effective length (Le): The distance from the centre of the tonearm pivot, to the stylus tip.
Mounting Distance (Lm): The distance from the centre of the tonearm pivot to the platter
spindle.
Overhang (D): The distance between the stylus tip and the platter spindle when the
tonearm is positioned so that a straight line can be drawn through the stylus tip the
spindle and the centre of the tonearm pivot.
Note that D = Le - Lm.
Offset angle (theta): The angle between a projection of the cantilever on the record
surface, and a line which passes through the centre of the tonearm pivot and the stylus tip.
Tracking Error (e): The angle (in degrees) between a projection of the stylus cantilever
on the record surface, and a tangent to the record groove at the point of contact of the
stylus.
Linear offset: The perpendicular distance between a line through a projection of the
cantilever on the record surface, and the centre of the tonearm pivot.

Inner Null Radius (N1): The groove radius nearest the centre at which the tracking error
is zero
Outer Null radius (N2): The groove radius furthest from the centre at which the tracking
error is zero
Outer Groove Radius (R2): The groove radius, at which the modulation on the record
starts.
Inner Groove Radius (R1): The groove radius at which the modulation on the record
finishes.
Note in the text below, A*B means A multiplied by B; and R^2 means R squared.
Introduction
The whole issue of alignment (from a geometrical point of view) is based on selecting
three variables. These are the tonearm effective length, the mounting distance, and the
offset angle; these will be referred to as the arm parameters in the rest of the text.
In general the user cannot adjust all three arm parameters (though there are some
exceptions such as the Graham arm). The most common type of set-up includes a
tonearm which has a fixed pivot position and slots in the head-shell; this arrangement
allows movement of the position and angle of the cartridge. In this case it is not possible
to adjust the mounting distance (without making a new mounting board) so only two of
the arm parameters are adjustable: effective length, and offset angle.
Another type of set-up involves tonearms with adjustable pivot positions (all SME arms).
These typically have holes in the head-shell (no slots), and in this case the user can adjust
the mounting distance, and can also make limited range of adjustments to the offset
angle, but cannot change the effective length. It should be noted that with this type of
arm, the effective length depends on the cartridge used, as the distance from the stylus tip
to the headshell mounting holes on the cartridge vary from one manufacturer to another.
The overhang is just the difference between the effective length and the mounting
distance. Therefore in case 1 above, adjusting the effective length by a given amount, or
in case 2 above adjusting the mounting distance by a the same amount both give rise to
an identical change in the overhang. As a result the parameters often quoted for setting
arm alignment are the overhang and the offset angle.
Calculating tracking distortion.
E Lfgren and H.G. Baerwald both provided a detailed treatise on tracking distortion in
their papers on the subject of tonearm alignment in 1938 and 1941 respectively [1] [2] the later work is in English. The result is rather complex, and an exact solution is only
given for the case of a pure sinusoidal signal with a frequency f.

To summarize the salient points of these calculations, for a pure sinusoidal signal with a
frequency f, the predominant distortion due to a tracking error (e) is 2nd harmonic (ie at a
frequency 2f). This is referred to as tracking distortion. The tracking distortion is
proportional to the tracking error (e), and inversely proportional to the groove radius R.
The distortion is also proportional to the peak groove velocity (v) (ie the velocity of the
stylus moving perpendicular to the record groove, due to the recorded signal), and
inversely proportional to the angular velocity of the record (omega).
ie tracking distortion = epsilon = (v * eta)/(R*Omega)--------------------------(1)
where v = Peak Recorded Groove Velocity (mm/sec)
eta = Tracking Error (***converted to radians***)
R = Groove Radius (mm)
Omega = Angular Velocity of Platter (radians / sec)
If the 2nd harmonic distortion is wanted as a percentage of the recorded signal, and for
the case of an LP record which rotates at a rate of 33.33 RPM; and if the tracking error is
given in degrees, then the above equation becomes.
Tracking distortion (percent)= 0.5 * (v*e)/R--------------------------------------(2)
Hence it can be seen, from equation (2), that for a tracking error of 1.75 degrees (which is
a typical for the edge of the record), at a groove radius of 145mm, and a recorded groove
velocity of 100 mm/sec, will give rise to a 2nd harmonic distortion signal with an
amplitude of 0.6% of the recorded signal. This distortion will decrease to 0.3% for a
recorded signal of 50mm/sec etc. The tracking distortion can be calculated for any groove
radius if the tracking error is known. The tracking error can be expressed in terms of the
arm parameters; however the equation is rather long, so I have included it in appendix
(1).
The above calculations do not take into account the effect of RIAA equalization on 2nd
harmonic distortion. Since the RIAA equalization in a phono stage attenuates with
increasing frequency, the distortion at the output of the phono stage will be less than the
values given above. Using a linear approximation for the RIAA curve, the attenuation is
approximately 3.87 dB per octave [3], and this effect will reduce the distortion fed to the
speakers to 64% of the values given above.
Selecting the null radii.
For a given set of tonearm parameters, provided these are chosen with a little care (see
appendix 2), there will be two groove radii at which the tracking error is zero. These radii
are called the null radii. Since the tracking error is zero at these radii, the tracking
distortion is also zero (though there may be distortion from other effects). Provided two
null radii exist (appendix 2), a graph of tracking distortion versus groove radius has curve
which is shaped something like a distorted W. That is the distortion begins with a high
value at large groove radii, drops to zero at the outer null radius, rises to a peak between

the two null radii, drops to zero again at the inner null radius, then rises again as the
groove radius decreases.
The object of aligning a cartridge is to choose the null radii so that the distortion between
the inner and outer radii is minimized. But before this can be done, the inner and outer
groove radii must be selected, and the method of minimization must also be selected.
Unfortunately there is no universal standard for inner and outer groove radii:- the IEC
standard specifies an inner radius of 60.325mm, and an outer radius of 146.05mm; the
DIN standard specifies an inner radii of 57.5mm and an outer radius of 146.05; and
audiophile records tend to have larger average inner groove radii than mass market
records. So the weakest point in the cartridge alignment procedure, is the arbitrary choice
of the groove radii between which the tracking distortion is to be minimized.
A further complication arises from the method of minimizing the distortion. Lfgren [1]
and Baerwald [2], both proposed a system based on Tchebichef's method. The Tchebichef
method has its most common application in RF filter design and is a system for
minimizing the difference between the actual filter response and the desired response.
The method involves defining some error function, and selecting parameters so that the
error function oscillates between its maximum and minimum value as many times as
possible over the frequency range selected. For the case of tracking distortion,
Tchebichef's method selects arm parameters so that the distortion reaches the same
maximum value at three groove radii. The distortion maxima occur at the inner groove
radius, the outer groove radius and at a point between the null radii. The radius of peak
distortion between the null radii is given below
R Max Distortion = 2*(N1*N2)/(N1+N2)-----------------------------------------(3)
The above is a rather mathematical way of putting it. To use more simple terminology,
the Tchebichef method, applied to tonearm alignment, minimizes the maximum distortion
between the inner groove radius and outer groove radius, and adjusts the shape of the
distortion curve so that the three maxima have the same value. In the rest of this text this
method is referred to as the "Peak Distortion Equivalence" method.
Another system is to calculate the RMS distortion between the inner groove radius, and
the outer groove radius, and to minimize the result. This method was proposed as an
alternative by Lfgren [1]. The benefit of this method is that it leads to a lower distortion
between the null radii, but at the expense of about two times greater distortion at the inner
radius. In my opinion the object of HiFi reproduction, is to achieve optimum playback
100% of the time, so this method is unsuitable for cartridge alignment. Often people
judge the performance of their systems by the number of times it fails to perform well,
minimizing RMS distortion, will guarantee higher peak distortion, even if the duration of
the higher distortion is shorter.
A further method was proposed by Stevenson [4]. Stevenson pointed out that other
distortions (such as tracing distortion caused by the difference between the stylus shape
and the shape of the cutter tip) increase as the groove radius decrease. He argued that

aligning a cartridge so that the three peaks in the tracking distortion are equal (at the inner
groove radius, the outer groove radius and between the null radii), will actually result in a
larger distortion at the centre of the record than at the edge of the record, after taking into
consideration distortions due to other phenomena.
This is a valid point, however Stevenson did not derive new null radii based on this fact.
Instead he proposed, as a compromise, that the cartridge should be aligned so that the
inner null radius occurs at the inner groove radius, and that the distortion at the outer
groove radius should be equal to the distortion between the null radii. Using Stevenson's
method, the distortion curve has only two peaks between the inner and outer groove radii,
- as opposed to three peaks for the "Peak Distortion Equivalence" method or the
"Minimum RMS distortion" method.
Formulation of the equations
The equations in the text below give the arm parameters etc in terms of the null radii.
This represents a departure from the standard approaches [1] [2] [4] which give equations
for the overhang and offset in terms of the inner and outer groove radii. The are two
reasons for this new formulation: firstly the equations below are more simple, and even
those with a complete aversion to using scientific calculators can calculate the arm
parameters for their own set-up.
Secondly I think it is more logical to use the null radii as the variables in the equations.
Expressing the tonearm parameters in terms of the inner and outer groove radii, is a bad
idea, as those equations depend on the method used for minimizing distortion. It is
preferable to give the arm parameters in terms of the null radii, as these relationships are
based on geometry alone. The null radii can be calculated from the inner and outer
groove radii after the method of minimizing distortion has been selected - see below.
A third point to note is that, when Baerwald and Lfgren wrote their papers on the subject
of tracking distortion, turntables came with tonearms attached, and without the
opportunity of adjusting any of the tonearm parameters. Therefore, at that time it was
logical to define the overhang and offset angle in terms of the groove radii, as these
parameters were set in the factory. At that time, the null radii had no practical
significance. In fact Baerwald gave equations for the null radii only as an incidental point
in his lengthy paper.
The idea of interchangeable cartridges, and user set alignment, came more recently, and
with that the need for some kind of alignment tool. The most practical method for setting
aligned is to use the null radii. For the user, setting overhang directly is difficult as this
requires measurement of effective length and mounting distance, and setting the offset
angle directly is almost impossible. Today almost all alignment tools are based on setting
alignment at one or both null radii.
For the above reasons, it seems more logical give the equations in terms of the null radii.

Equations for the null radii.

Peak Distortion Equivalence
Using the "Peak Distortion Equivalence" method of minimizing tracking distortion, the
equations which give the null radii in terms of the inner and outer radii, are given below.
2/N1 = [1+sqrt(0.5)]/R1 + [1-sqrt(0.5)]/R2----------------------------------------(4)
2/N2 = [1-sqrt(0.5)]/R1 + [1+sqrt(0.5)]/R2----------------------------------------(5)
For the IEC standard (ie inner groove radius of 60.325, and outer groove radius of
146.05mm), these equations give null radii of 66.00mm and 120.89 mm.
For the DIN standard, the null radii are 63.10mm and 119.17mm.
It is a fortunate coincidence, that equations (4) and (5) are not a function of the arm
parameters themselves. This means that the same null radii apply regardless of the
tonearm parameters, and hence a tonearm can be aligned without knowing the arm
parameters.
Equations (4) and (5) can be rearranged to give the inner and outer playing radii in terms
of the null radii.
2/R1 = [1+sqrt(2)]/N1 + [1-sqrt(2)]/N2--------------------------------------------(6)
2/R2 = [1-sqrt(2)]/N1 + [1+sqrt(2)]/N2--------------------------------------------(7)
Minimum RMS Distortion
Using Lfgren's alternative method of minimizing the RMS distortion, the null radii are a
little different. In fact Lfgren did not provide a complete solution the "Minimum RMS
Distortion" method. He gave the optimum overhang for a particular linear offset in terms
of arm length and inner and outer groove radii. However he didn't calculate the optimum
linear offset, and didn't provide equations for the null radii. Graeme Dennes [5] (to the
best of my knowledge) was the first person to calculate the null radii that result from this
method. He calculated the null radii that result for a linear offset of 93.445mm - ie the
same linear offset as that for an arm aligned using the "Peak distortion Equivalence
Method" for the IEC standard inner and outer groove radii. The results are 70.29mm and
116.60mm.
I have supplied equations for the null radii using Lfgren's "Minimum RMS distortion"
method as an appendix (3). These equations are given in terms of the groove radii and the
linear offset.
A numerical solution for the null radii, independent of mounting distance, can also be
obtained for Lfgrens "Minimum RMS Distortion" method using proprietary software
such as Microsoft Excel. This method has the advantage of being independent of linear

offset, but does not give equations for the null radii, just the values for a particular arm
effective length, or arm mounting distance.
A latter-day expert on the subject of tonearm alignment by the name of John Elison has
drawn up an EXCEL spreadsheet to do just that. This spreadsheet can be downloaded
from the internet at [6]. Using an EXCEL spreadsheet based on his method, applied to the
IEC standard groove radii, the null radii which give minimum RMS distortion for typical
tonearm dimensions are 70.15mm and 116.23mm.
Remarkably, for the IEC inner and outer groove radii (60.325mm and 146.05), Graeme
Dennes result (which uses a mounting distance of 93.445mm) and John Elison's
numerical calculation (which is independent of linear offset) are almost the same.
Whether Lfgren realized it or not at the time, his method of providing null radii for
"Minimum RMS Distortion" using the same linear offset as "Peak Distortion
Equivalence" appears to be valid. In other words the same linear offset will give correct
alignment (almost) for either Lfgrens "Minimum RMS Distortion" method, or Lfgren
and Baerwald's "Peak Distortion Equivalence Method".
The significance of the above point is that the user can switch from one alignment to the
other relatively easily [7]. And this fact has been used by cartridge alignment tool
designer Wally Malewicz, whose arc type protractor can be used to set alignment for
"Peak Distortion Equivalence" or "Minimum RMS Distortion".
For the DIN standard the "Minimum RMS Distortion gives null radii of 67.41mm and
114.86mm using Lfgren's calculations. Using EXCEL numerical calculation, the null
radii are 67.29mm and 114.53mm.
Stevenson's Method
Using Stevenson's Method, the inner null radii occurs at the same radius as the inner
groove radius - equation (8), and the outer null radius is given by equation (9) below.
N1 = R1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------(8)
[1+sqrt(0.5)]/N2 = [1-sqrt(0.5)]/R1 + sqrt(2)/R2---------------------------------(9)
For the IEC standard groove radii, Stevenson's alignment method gives null radii of
60.325 and 117.42mm. For the DIN standard groove radii, Stevenson's alignment method
gives null radii of 57.5 and 115.53mm.
Calculating the arm parameters
Once the null radii have been selected, and one tonearm parameter is known, it is
possible to calculate the other two parameters. The following equations give the tonearm
effective length, and the offset angle in terms of the null radii and the mounting distance.
Le^2 = Lm^2 + N1*N2--------------------------------------------------------------(10)

Sin(theta) = (N1+N2)/(2*Le)-------------------------------------------------------(11)
Equations for arm parameters are often presented in a different form, however I have
selected the above form as it is the most simple - see section entitled "Formulation of the
Equations".
If the known arm parameter is not the mounting distance (for example most SME arms
have a fixed effective length, and an adjustable mounting distance) then it is straight
forward to rearrange equations (10) and (11) to give the required result.
Similarly equation (10) can be used to give an expression for overhang, D, using the fact
that D = Le-Lm
D = Le-sqrt(Le^2-N1*N2)---------(12)
Significance of linear offset
Another useful geometric property of tone-arm geometry is called the linear offset. The
linear offset can be visualised by drawing a line along a projection of the cantilever on
the record surface. If this line is extended back past the arm pivot, then the linear offset
will be the perpendicular distance from that line to the arm pivot.
The linear offset may seem to be a rather irrelevant arm parameter. It is not an
independent variable, being equal to the effective length times the sine of the offset angle.
But the explanation which follows will show that in many ways the linear offset is the
key arm parameter.
The linear offset is given by equation (13) below
Linear Offset = Le*Sin(theta)-------------------------------------------------------(13)
Using equation (11) above, it can be seen that
Linear Offset = (N1+N2)/2----------------------------------------------------------(14)
That is, the linear offset is equal to the average of the two null radii.
The most common type of tonearm design has slots in the headshell, and when the
cartridge is aligned according to the designers intentions, the cartridge is squared up in
the headshell. Moreover if a line is drawn through a projection of the cantilever on the
record surface, this line is will be parallel to the headshell slots. In this case, sliding the
cartridge backwards and forwards in the headshell slots, so that it moves along the above
line, does not change the linear offset of the arm.
The importance of this point is that that neither mounting distance nor the effective length
are such a critical values for setting up a tonearm correctly. For example, with tonearms

which have headshell slots, the effective length is adjusted to match the actual mounting
distance according to equation (10) above, and the linear offset is set according to the
manufacturers design when the cartridge is squared up in the headshell. Changing the
mounting distance does not effect the angle of the cartridge in the headshell that is needed
for correct alignment. The only condition for mounting distance in this case, is that it
should be selected so that there is sufficient room in the headshell to set the correct
effective for a range of different cartridges. SME arms have neither a fixed effective
length or a fixed mounting distance: the effective length depends on the distance between
the stylus tip and the headshell mounting holes in the cartridge being used. For SME
tonearms the mounting distance is adjusted to match the actual effective length in
accordance with equation (10). The linear offset is constant, provide the cartridge is
mounted so that it is squared up in the headshell.
In cases where the manufacturers recommended linear offset does not conform to one of
the standard systems of alignment above (for example 93.445 for the IEC standard), the
user may choose to ignore the recommendations and in this case the cartridge will be
skewed in the headshell no matter what mounting distance or effective length is chosen.
Of course, all tonearms do have a recommended effective length, and this length
determines the arm effective mass, and the calibration of the tracking force dial. If the
manufacturers recommended effective length is not used, this will throw the calibrated
tracking force dial off slightly. However, a typical arm length is 240mm, so provided the
user keeps to within a few millimeters of the recommendations this effect will be in the
order of 1%, which is hardly measurable and certainly not significant.
Manufacturers intended null radii - to ignore or not to ignore.
If the arm parameters are given, it is possible to calculate the null radii, by using the
above equations in reverse, the results are
N1 = Le * Sin(theta) - Sqrt{[Le * Sin(theta)]^2-[Le^2 - Lm^2]}--------------(15)
N2 = Le * Sin(theta) + Sqrt{[Le * Sin(theta)]^2-[Le^2 - Lm^2]}-------------(16)
By substituting the null radii given by equations (15) and (16) into equations (6) and (7),
the corresponding groove radii that give "Peak Distortion Equivalence" in accordance
with the manufacturers recommendations can be calculated. It should be noted here, that
the results of the above equations and calculations are often rather strange. Some
manufacturers (like SME and Graham) adhere rigorously to one of the conventional
systems, but frequently the manufacturers intended null radii seem to have been selected
arbitrarily. The corresponding inner and outer groove radii that give "Peak Distortion
Equivalence" have no meaning.
For example many tonearm designs place the inner null radius near 60mm, and the outer
null radius around 110mm, but this gives peak distortion equivalence at 54.8mm and
132.9mm, and these numbers have no apparent relationship with the dimensions of a LP

record. Null radii of 60mm and 110mm are close to the results of applying Stevenson's
method to the IEC groove radii, though not exactly correct.
In fact Stevenson's method is more common than people realize. When the accompanying
literature with a tonearm specifies tracking error as being from minus one angle to plus
another angle, it often refers to the case when the tonearm is aligned so that the tracking
error at the inner groove radius is zero (Stevenson's method). The following is a list of
tonearms with recommended null radii at or near the IEC inner groove radius
(60.325mm):- Audio Technica AT1009; Audio Technica AT1010; Dynavector DV 505;
Hadcock Super Unilift MKIII; Infinity Black Widow GF; Keith Monks M9BA Mk3;
Series 20 PA1000. In addition the Rega tonearms (perhaps), and many integrated
turntables from Japan appear to conform to this system. Perhaps the popularity of
Stevenson's method relates to the predominance of British engineering in turntables and
tonearms.
Regardless of the above, the user can ignore the manufacturers recommendations, and
align in accordance with whatever system they choose. However if the manufacturers
intended null radii are not selected, then the linear offset may differ from that intended by
the manufacturer. Remembering that linear offset is the average of the two null radii. This
will mean that the cartridge may be slightly skewed in the headshell, and this will give
rise to two slight effects.
The first effect is that the antiskating force may vary slightly from the settings on the
tomnearm scale - see below.
The second effect relates to alignment of the vertical bearings. Modern tonearms are
generally designed so that the vertical bearing axis is perpendicular to a line through a
projection of the cantilever on the record surface. The significance of this point is that
variations in record thickness, or up down movement of the stylus due to warp, will not
change the azimuth alignment of the cartridge. If the user sets the cartridge so that the
linear offset is different to that intended by the manufacturer, then variations in the height
of the stylus on the record surface will have a slight effect on azimuth. However this
effect should not be overestimated. It is very small indeed. Moreover it should be
remembered that older arm designs (SME 3009 SII) and unipivot arms, do not have
aligned bearings to begin with. The SME vertical axis is approximately 30 degrees
displaced from perpendicular. Even with such grossly misaligned bearings, the effect on
azimuth due to a change in stylus height of 1mm is less than 0.25 degrees. While this
effect may be worthy of consideration when choosing between tonearms using aligned or
misaligned bearings, the effect on azimuth of an alignment error of a few degrees (which
would be typical of selecting an alternative linear offset to the recommended value) is
absolutely negligible.
Antiskating force
The skating force, is a torque about the tonearm pivot that arises because a tangent to the
record groove at the point of contact of the stylus is offset from the tonearm pivot. The

line of action of the frictional force does not pass through the tonearm pivot, so a torque
is generated. This torque tends to turn the tonearm inwards towards the centre of the
record. If the perpendicular distance from a tangent to the record groove at the point of
contact of the stylus and the tonearm pivot is defined as the groove offset, then the
skating torque is proportional to the groove offset times the frictional force between the
stylus and the record groove. The skating force is not constant across the record surface,
it is largest at the inner and outer groove radii, and is minimum somewhere between the
two null radii. To counteract the skating force, an antiskating force is applied.
Conveniently, when the stylus is at one of the null radii, the groove offset is the same as
the linear offset so the following equation arises.
Skating torque at null radii = Friction * linear offset.----------------------------(17)
Clearly, if the user selects an alternative linear offset to that preferred by the
manufacturer, the required antiskating force will be different to that when the intended
linear offset is used, in this case the antiskating force should be adjusted after alignment,
using a test record instead of using the scale on the tonearm.
Equations of Lfgren and Baerwald.
The equations (10), (11) and (12) give the arm parameters in terms of the null radii and
this is the most logical form. As stated above it is also possible to give the arm parameters
in terms of the inner and outer groove radii if the Tchebichef method of minimising
maximum distortion is used. The result is the form in which the arm parameters are
usually presented, and is the form presented by Lfgren and Barewald.
In equations (4) and (5) the null radii are expressed in terms of the inner and outer groove
radii, so rearranging gives
N1*N2 = 2*P/[1+A^2/P]------------------------------------------------------------(18)
and
(N1+N2)/2 = 2*A/[1+A^2/P]-------------------------------------------------------(19)
In this case
A = (R1+R2)/2
P = (R1*R2)
These results can be substituted into equations (10) (11) and (12) to give the following
expressions for mounting distance, overhang and offset angle.
Lm^2 = Le^2 - {2*P/[1+A^2/P]}---------------------------------------------------(20)

D = Le *(1-sqrt{1-2*P/[Le^2*[1+(A^2)/P]]}-------------------------------------(21)
Sin(theta) = {2*A/[1+A^2/P]}/Le--------------------------------------------------(22)
However it can be seen clearly that these equations are rather more cumbersome than
equations (10), (11) and (12) above. Note that Baerwald's final result - which is not
included here - was an approximation for overhang, which in fact is quite an inaccurate
approximation so should not be used..
Conclusions.
Setting tonearm alignment involves selecting three parameters. Mounting distance
effective length and offset angle. The null radii are defined by this selection.
The difference between the square of the effective length and the square of the mounting
distance is the product of the two null radii.
The linear offset is equal to the average of the two null radii.
The necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of two null radii is that the square
of the linear offset be greater than or equal to the difference between the square of the
effective length and the square of the mounting distance - appendix (2).
The radius of maximum distortion between the null radii is given by the equation (3),
which is given again below.
R Max Distortion = 2*(N1*N2)/(N1+N2)-----------------------------------------(3)
It can be seen that this radius is identically equal to the product of the null radii divided
by the average of the null radii. From the opening lines of this section, it can be seen that
the radius of maximum distortion between the null radii is also given by the difference
between the square of the effective length and the square of the mounting distance
divided by the linear offset.
The optimum alignment system is based on Tchebichef's method and was proposed by
Lfgren and Baerwald. This system minimises the maximum tracking distortion between
a given inner groove radius and a given outer groove radius.
Using this system of alignment, the three maxima in the distortion curve have the same
value (Peak Distortion Equivalence). The three distortion maxima occur at the inner
groove radius, the outer groove radius, and at a radius given by equation (3) above.
For this method, a one to one relationship exists between the null radii and the groove
radii. Correspondingly the tonearm parameters can be given in terms of groove radii
instead of the null radii. (For example the equations of Lfgren and Barewald).

For this method, another expression for the radius of maximum distortion exists, and is
given below in equation (23).
R Max Distortion = 2*(N1*N2)/(N1+N2) = 2*(R1*R2)/(R1+R2)------------(23)
Which is just the product of the null radii divided by the average of the null radii OR the
product of the groove radii divided by the average of the groove radii.
For the IEC standard groove radii, the "Peak Distortion Equivalence" method gives null
radii at 66.00mm and 120.89mm. For the DIN standard groove radii, this alignment
method gives null radii at 63.10mm and 119.17mm.
The null radii that result from the "Minimum RMS Distortion" method can be calculated
numerically. Applied to the IEC standard groove radii, and for typical tonearm
dimensions, this method gives null radii of 70.15mm and 116.23mm. For the DIN
standard groove radii, this method gives null radii of 67.29mm and 114.53mm.
Lfgrens "Minimum Distortion Method", which uses the same linear offset as the "Peak
Distortion Equivalence Method" gives almost the same null radii as those above.
67.29mm and 114.53mm (IEC); 67.41mm and 114.86mm (DIN).
Stevenson's method, is essentially a modified form of "Peak Distortion Equivalence".
Using Stevenson's method the inner null radius is placed at the inner groove radius, and
the peak distortion between the null radii is equal to the distortion at the outer groove
radius. Stevenson's method, applied to the IEC standard groove radii gives null radii at
60.325mm and 117.42mm. For the DIN standard groove radii, Stevenson's alignment
method gives null radii of 57.5 and 115.526mm.
Appendix 1. Calculating the tracking error for a given set of arm parameters
For a given set of arm parameters (Effective Length, Le; Mounting distance, Lm; offset
angle, theta), the tracking error, e varies with groove radius, R.
The relationship between tracking error and the arm parameters is given below.
e = Arcsin{[(Le^2-Lm^2)/R +R]/(2*Le)} - theta
In terms of the null radii, and the tonearm effective length, the above expression is
equivalent to
e = Arcsin{[(N1*N2)/R +R]/(2*Le)} - Arcsin{(N1+N2)/(2*Le)}
Appendix 2. Necessary conditions for the existence of two null radii.
The null radii were given in terms of the arm parameters in equations (15) and (16)

N1 = Le * Sin(theta) - Sqrt{[Le * Sin(theta)]^2-[Le^2 - Lm^2]}--------------(15)

N2 = Le * Sin(theta) + Sqrt{[Le * Sin(theta)]^2-[Le^2 - Lm^2]}-------------(16)
The necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of at two null radii is
Le * Sin(theta)]^2 > [Le^2 - Lm^2]
This is equivalent to the condition that the square of the linear offset must be greater than
the difference between the squares of the effective length and the mounting distance.
It should be noted here that some tonearms (Dual CS5000 for example) have
recommended parameters that fail the condition above. Adopting these parameters will
result in an alignment that give zero distortion nowhere!
Appendix 3. Lfgren's Minimum RMS distortion Null Radii.
For minimum RMS distortion, Lfgren gave the following equation for the product of the
two null radii in terms of the linear offset.
N1N2 = 3Rp(Lo*Rs-Rp)/(Rs^2-Rp)
Where
Lo is the linear offset,
Rp = R1*R2
Rs = R1+R2
This can be rearranged to give an expression for the null radii in the same way as
equations (15) and (16) were constructed, as follows
N1 = Lo - Sqrt[Lo^2-3Rp(Lo*Rs-Rp)/(Rs^2-Rp)]
N2 = Lo + Sqrt[Lo^2-3Rp(Lo*Rs-Rp)/(Rs^2-Rp)]
As stated in the text above, these expressions for the null radii are not a full solution to
the "Minimum RMS Distortion" method, as the result depends on the Linear Offset, Lo.
That is, to determine the null radii, firstly a linear offset must be selected. According to
Dennes, (an English translation of the Lfgren paper is not available) Lfgren argued that
the linear offset which results form the "Peak Distortion Equivalence" method should
also be used for the "Minimum RMS Distortion" method. This has a value of 93.445mm
for the IEC standard groove radii, and this gives null radii of 70.29mm and 116.60mm.
For the DIN standard groove radii, the linear offset is 91.138mm, and this gives null radii
of 67.41mm and 114.86mm.
References

[1] Baerwald : Analytic treatment of tracking error and notes on optimal pickup design,
Journal of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers 1941, p.591
[2] Lfgren: ber die nichtlineare Verzerung bei der Wiedergabe von Schallplatten
infolge Winkelabweichungen des Abtastorgans (On the non-linear distortion in the
reproduction of phonograph records caused by angular deviation of the pickup arm)
Akustische Zeitschrift, Nov.1938, p.350
[3] http://www.riaa.com
[4] Stevenson : Pickup arm design, Wireless World, May 1966, p.214, June 1966, p.314
[5] Graeme Dennes: "A comparison of six major papers on tracking distortion" Available
directly from the author.
[6] http://www.enjoythemusic.com
[7[ http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/44594.html