Question Setting up my LP12 with new headshell

[jonpol3000]

Hello good people, I have a question regarding the correct set-up for my newly acquired Linn Sondek LP12 which came with the Audio-Technica AT-1005 Mk2 tonearm fitted with an Audio-Technica MG9 headshell and Goldring 1012GX cartridge. Now, I decided that I did not like the MG9 as it was quite oxidised and unattractive and it also has a very small finger lift and, given that I have no arm lift fitted to the tonearm, it was quite tricky to place the stylus in the groove accurately. And so, I have now changed the headshell for an Audio-Technica S8, which I believe is the one that would've come with the arm before the MG9 'upgrade'.
In order for me to set up the alignment correctly I purchased a Linn LBL 025 'A' protractor with both the A and B alignment markings (see photo). However, I found that in order to get the cartridge to align with both marks (more on this later), I had to twist the cartridge in the headshell more than it had been twisted in the MG9 headshell previously, although I had not previously checked that the original alignment was correct. It just seems odd that the cartridge has to sit at such an angle in the headshell as can be seen by the position of the screws (see photo).
So I had a look at the original tonearm specifications and discovered that my tonearm base hole to turntable spindle distance is approximately 220mm compared with 225mm specified by the manufacturer. This would explain, I believe, why my cartridge has to be rotated in order to align it properly, although it still doesn't align with both A and B points perfectly. I've also calculated that my 'overhang' is 18mm rather than the 15mm in the original specification.
I guess my question is: does the position of the cartridge (offset angle) in the headshell matter if my alignment is good (but not perfect) and the overhang distance is 3mm greater than specified, or should I make further adjustments of the cartridge? Many thanks and apologies if this seems long-winded!

Note: Photo 1 shows everything; photos 2 and 3 show my best alignment, though position B looks very slightly off and that the cartridge wants to be rotated counter-clockwise very slightly, although this would then throw position 'A' off ; photo 4 shows how much the cartridge is offset in the headshell.

 

[nopiano]

Interesting that the arm wasn’t accurately installed from the word go, but the previous owner was probably oblivious for decades. Given that “ it is what it is “ then I’d aim to get it as well lined up as you can at point A. The rest you’ll have to live with, but in the scheme of things it shouldn’t be ultra critical.

So, as you’ve pictured, align the cartridge to the parallel lines and try to ignore the headshell looking askew. Point A rather than point B because the inner grooves are harder to track than the outer ones, so that’s where the accuracy is most beneficial.

 

[jonpol3000]

Thanks, yes it is odd that it's probably never been set up properly in it's 40-odd years... I couldn't understand why the headshell wasn't perpendicular to the grooves, but because it is 'further forward' because of the mounting hole being incorrect, then that makes sense. My point A alignment is fine, so I'll leave it at that; it plays beautifully, by the way. What is the deal with the overhang distance, though? Also, the Goldring cartridge is very rounded and hard to align compared to more modern square designs...

 

[nopiano]

Thanks, yes it is odd that it's probably never been set up properly in it's 40-odd years... I couldn't understand why the headshell wasn't perpendicular to the grooves, but because it is 'further forward' because of the mounting hole being incorrect, then that makes sense. My point A alignment is fine, so I'll leave it at that; it plays beautifully, by the way. What is the deal with the overhang distance, though? Also, the Goldring cartridge is very rounded and hard to align compared to more modern square designs...

The overhang is another way of measuring where the cartridge sits in the slots. One assumes the arm is correctly sited when it comes as a package - like my Technics, for example. It’s also related to the misalignment of the arm base in your case.

Instead of the universal protractor that you use - as I have done too over many years - Technics give you a little plastic gauge that slots over the headshell. You simply slide the cartridge to or fro until it lines up. I had a similar gauge with a Dual from the 1970s. (The last new cartridge I fitted in my Dual was a Goldring 1006, the junior model to yours. And yes, it is a bit rounded!)

 

[jonpol3000]

I'm still perplexed as to why the arm was not positioned in a hole made to the manufacturer's specification in the first place; admittedly if it was 5mm more to the right it wouldn't look central on the LP12's arm board - could that be why? It bothers me a bit, but it's better that I replaced the headshell and in so doing found the problem. I guess if I'd tried to align the cartridge in the MG9 headshell which has fixed screw receptacles rather than slots, I would've become very confused as to why I couldn't align it... from the earlier reply it seems that it's not a big deal and that I shouldn't go and buy a new arm board and have the tonearm remounted... and it does sound very good, probably better than it ever has.

 

[Al ears]

Unfortunately that doesn't look right at all.
That arm doesn't look like anything like a good fit and the non angled headshell does not look right either.
Where did you buy this combination??
The arm looks too long for the deck, these used to have a lid that would be impossible to fit looking at that set up.
My advice would be to ditch that tonearm.

 

[jonpol3000]

Ah, the photo is a little off due to parallax... the lid closes fine - see photos below. I bought the deck off a friend who has owned it since 1979 / 80 and I'm sure never had the tonearm changed, just the headshell, although he can't recall that far back now. The thing is, wouldn't a new tonearm require a different mounting hole in a new tone board, unless I found a tonearm with a 220mm mounting distance... but I really can't afford to go changing things now and it's playing fine. Oh dear, I hope I haven't opened a very expensive can of worms here...

 

[nopiano]

I was just checking the spec out of curiosity, and this extract from the template shows where the 15mm overhang is defined.

 

[jonpol3000]

Yes, I have that drawing and I understand that the overhang is the effective length minus the mounting distance. In my case the mounting distance is shorter by approx. 5mm, therefore my overhand is slightly greater, approx. 18mm (I say approx. because I've been unable to make an exact measurement as yet). But what effect does a greater overhang have, I wonder? If I were to move the cartridge further back in the headshell to achieve the 15mm, then it would be much harder to align the cartridge and to lower it onto the grooves because it would be less visible.

 

[nopiano]

Yes, I have that drawing and I understand that the overhang is the effective length minus the mounting distance. In my case the mounting distance is shorter by approx. 5mm, therefore my overhand is slightly greater, approx. 18mm (I say approx. because I've been unable to make an exact measurement as yet). But what effect does a greater overhang have, I wonder? If I were to move the cartridge further back in the headshell to achieve the 15mm, then it would be much harder to align the cartridge and to lower it onto the grooves because it would be less visible.

The protractor is measuring the overhang too, but in a way that’s less likely to damage your cartridge. It’s also giving you the parallel lines, which overhang alone can’t - though as I said above most arms are pre-fitted so this is less important. You’re having to compensate for the incorrect mounting so it’s a bit of a compromise.

If you want to test your brain power, take a look at this! TLDR - there are countless ways to align, but they all differ slightly. (You may need to register to view this, I can’t be sure as I’ve used the site regularly)

Tonearm Alignment Calculator Pro - Vinyl Engine

 

[jonpol3000]

Thanks, given that I have a less-than-perfect initial set-up, I don't see the point in trying to make things any better than they are at present, where the cartridge is aligned with my (very basic) protractor (or is it just an alignment guide and a protractor is actually something else? Please see my photo above). Another option, of course, is to purchase a new tonearm board from Linn (about £100) and to remount my existing AT arm... hmm, I wonder if it's worth it?

 

[Al ears]

Thanks, given that I have a less-than-perfect initial set-up, I don't see the point in trying to make things any better than they are at present, where the cartridge is aligned with my (very basic) protractor (or is it just an alignment guide and a protractor is actually something else? Please see my photo above). Another option, of course, is to purchase a new tonearm board from Linn (about £100) and to remount my existing AT arm... hmm, I wonder if it's worth it?

I think that very much comes down to how much you value vinyl playback.
A poorly aligned cartridge isnt going to do it, your vinyl, or the resultant sound any good at all.

 

[jonpol3000]

Thanks, as you can see from the photos above, my alignment with point A is perfect and that with point B is just slightly short of perfect. I don't know why I can't achieve a perfect alignment with both points, but that may have to do with the incorrect mounting described above. Having spoken with Linn this morning, it seems that the Audio-Technica arm would not have been supplied with the original turntable, so the previous owner must've added the AT arm... but as the original Linn arms would all have had a mounting distance of 211/212mm and I have now accurately measured my mounting distance as 219mm, it seems that my arm board was neither set for the original arm or the AT arm... how odd. It's like forensic detective work!

 

[Al ears]

Thanks, as you can see from the photos above, my alignment with point A is perfect and that with point B is just slightly short of perfect. I don't know why I can't achieve a perfect alignment with both points, but that may have to do with the incorrect mounting described above. Having spoken with Linn this morning, it seems that the Audio-Technica arm would not have been supplied with the original turntable, so the previous owner must've added the AT arm... but as the original Linn arms would all have had a mounting distance of 211/212mm and I have now accurately measured my mounting distance as 219mm, it seems that my arm board was neither set for the original arm or the AT arm... how odd. It's like forensic detective work!

Odd indeed. The turntable would have originally had a Linn arm fitted I feel sure, possibly the Akito which had a mounting distance of 211 with 18 overhang.
The AT arm is certainly an unusual choice.

 

[jonpol3000]

Well, elsewhere on the Internet I found an article (see photo) saying that if the A point is lined up fine but the B point is turned inwards, then the cartridge needs to be moved back. So I did this and now I have as good as perfect alignment at both points and have reduced my overhang to 17mm. I just put on Steely Dan's Aja, listening via my Quad 33/303 and MA Silver RS6 speakers and I have to say the album sounds awesome. And the AT 1005 mk2 arm does get good reviews, so I feel I've nothing to worry about. As for why that arm was fitted - who knows? And as to why my mounting distance is 219mm.... I guess I'll never know and from now on, I won't care. Music sounds brilliant on my system, well at least the albums which were well produced, which is probably only about 10% of my collection!

 

[nopiano]

Well, elsewhere on the Internet I found an article (see photo) saying that if the A point is lined up fine but the B point is turned inwards, then the cartridge needs to be moved back. So I did this and now I have as good as perfect alignment at both points and have reduced my overhang to 17mm. I just put on Steely Dan's Aja, listening via my Quad 33/303 and MA Silver RS6 speakers and I have to say the album sounds awesome. And the AT 1005 mk2 arm does get good reviews, so I feel I've nothing to worry about. As for why that arm was fitted - who knows? And as to why my mounting distance is 219mm.... I guess I'll never know and from now on, I won't care. Music sounds brilliant on my system, well at least the albums which were well produced, which is probably only about 10% of my collection!

Cartridge alignment can vex even the keenest enthusiast, and it looks like you’ve reached a good compromise. And best of all it sounds great!

Just out of curiosity, I looked back at the 1978 Hifi Year Book, and you’ll see it pictures a turntable like yours with the lid stay hole, and a pre-Valhalla on/off switch. Back then, Linn hadn’t yet developed its own arm, so the options were the Japanese imported Grace (I loved this at first sight), and the timeless British SME3009.

 

[jonpol3000]

Thanks, that's really interesting... even Linn didn't know that they had produced decks without their own arms when I spoke to one of their team today! And another dealer got a bit shirty when I challenged him about my early LP12 having a mounting distance of 219mm rather than the Linn arm distance of 211/212mm... so it would be interesting to know if either the Grace arm (which I've never heard of, but could be a Grace 707 Mk2 ?) or the famous SME 3009 have that mounting distance, though why the arm would've been changed...?? More sleuth work needed! And, yes, it sounds great to my ears, which is what matters as you suggest, but it's also fun to try to figure out its history.

 

[nopiano]

Thanks, that's really interesting... even Linn didn't know that they had produced decks without their own arms when I spoke to one of their team today! And another dealer got a bit shirty when I challenged him about my early LP12 having a mounting distance of 219mm rather than the Linn arm distance of 211/212mm... so it would be interesting to know if either the Grace arm (which I've never heard of) or the famous SME 3009 have that mounting distance, though why the arm would've been changed...?? More sleuth work needed!

They definitely came with blank, uncut arm boards back then, or pre-cut for SME. My early Sondek was called an Export model, but I’m pretty sure it came pre-cut because I bought the SME3009/III which had just recently been launched. I’ve still got the receipt somewhere!

The Grace was often paired with a Supex900 moving coil cartridge, and it was one of the first MCs to begin a trend away from the very delicate MMs that were fashionable from the likes of Shure, ADC and Stanton.

 

[jonpol3000]

I found a drawing of the SME 3009 and it has a mounting distance of 8.92 " = 226.82mm (photo 1) so that can't be it... and the Grace 707 was clearly used with the LP12 (photo 2) but has a mounting distance of 222mm, though the drawing is incomplete (photo 3). So, case not yet solved!

 

[jonpol3000]

And my LP12 is very old as you've spotted, with the groove in the plinth for the cover stay (which got upgraded to a sprung hinge type, thankfully). Interestingly, the Grace mounting hole in the Linn board is off-centre while my arm is mounted on the board very centrally, which is better aesthetically, I think, though that shouldn't have been the consideration... or was it?

 

[nopiano]

And my LP12 is very old as you've spotted, with the groove in the plinth for the cover stay (which got upgraded to a sprung hinge type, thankfully). Interestingly, the Grace mounting hole in the Linn board is off-centre while my arm is mounted on the board very centrally, which is better aesthetically, I think, though that shouldn't have been the consideration... or was it?

Quite possibly it was fitted by eye, without regard for the instructions!

 

[jonpol3000]

Ah, that's possible, but a bit shabby! Do you think it's possible that the turntable could've come with the AT arm? But then, surely it wouldn't have been incorrectly fitted. But why change the original tonearm? The answer may be buried by the mist of time...

 

[nopiano]

Ah, that's possible, but a bit shabby! Do you think it's possible that the turntable could've come with the AT arm? But then, surely it wouldn't have been incorrectly fitted. But why change the original tonearm? The answer may be buried by the mist of time...

I’m struggling to recall the scene back then, but I did work Saturdays only in a Hifi shop (1973-1987 ish), so had a few insights. For sure, Linn wasn’t so precious about who they sold to back then - in the ‘70s. I think that came in early 1980s, once they launched their Ittok arm. Then it became very strict.

So my point is, almost any dealer could have bought it and fitted the arm, and I can’t imagine any owner removing a SME and replacing with an AT. Frankly it was probably a lower cost way to get a Linn on the road, as it were. Not many years later Linn launched their Basik arm, a Japanese budget model to fulfil that need, while the high-end was served by their luxury Ittok arm.

 

[Al ears]

I found a drawing of the SME 3009 and it has a mounting distance of 8.92 " = 226.82mm (photo 1) so that can't be it... and the Grace 707 was clearly used with the LP12 (photo 2) but has a mounting distance of 222mm, though the drawing is incomplete (photo 3). So, case not yet solved!

You will notice that the Linn / SME baseplates have a slot so it is possible to change the mounting distance depending on the arm you have.
Or so it would seem.

 

[jonpol3000]

Thanks, that's very interesting. I believe my friend paid £400 - £500 for the deck, probably in 1979. He is not a hi-fi geek (though I am becoming one!), so it's unlikely that he would've changed the arm and, as you say, the AT arm isn't likely an upgrade from an SME... but the AT-1005 Mk2 does seem well spoken of so I'm happy about that. I'm assuming that he 'upgraded' the headshell to the MG9 from an S8, in which case he could not have managed to align it, so not much of an upgrade. Can a non-aligned cartridge have a detrimental effect on the stylus, do you think?