Did you know the bumble-bee CAN'T fly, according to one school of theory? This is the thought that first came into my mind when I read the posts of 3-19-05 from Frank Schroder. (And I REALLY won't have time to keep this thing going, but sometimes a question just must be answered, before the wrong impression is left untouched for too long..!)
The point is that I think that, while heated debate among the hobbyists and consumers themselves is fine, it is not in good taste for us manufacturers to try and "suggest" something may be amiss in someone else's design, thereby planting the seed of doubt in the readers and potential customers.
In this case, the comment such as "your new design is well founded but not exactly revolutionary" is something that I, no matter what I may know or think of another design, would never utter. It's just not appropriate. I have high regard to many other tonearm designs, including Frank's, but if any of us where to try an take the time to suggest a "weakness" of some kind, we'd only be opening the door to the shortcomings in our own efforts, which are always present.
I am not aware of the article that Frank refers to, but I am VERY sure there was nothing like the horizontal stablizer that's now in Patent Pending status; we checked carefully into the history of tonearm designs and found nothing remotely like this.
OK, with the Philosphy and Ethics Class 101 dismissed, just a few points before I have to get back to work, REALLY, and off this thread, if I'm to get the necessary things done on time:
My reference to the jewel bearings in Rolex was only an off-the-cuff remark that superior bearing quality is not that much more costly to make the inferior materials. I'm aware of the properties of sapphire/ruby, as well as tungsten carbide and steel. Simply put, I went for the more exotic tungsten carbide as a high-quality, long-life bearing component, since the cost differential over the less-desirable steel wasn't so great. And I don't like to take the cheap way out, anyway, especially in something as central to performance as the main bearing.
The other technical detail that needs a little polishing is Frank's correct assertion that tracking force will be affected by interia as the arm moves up and down. Of course that's correct; however, I see no reason to let that fact be compounded in fact by having a balancing system which will CERTAINLY add it's own additional forces to the arm as it's negotiating warps. And this applies to ANY arm of any pivoting design that places the pivot point above the Center of Gravity.
And one last little jab that needs commenting on is the "question" that the magneglide has higher horizontal friction than vertical. Again, I'm sorry to keep reminding Frank of this, but it's painfully obvious that, like a good attorney, the answer is known BEFORE the question is asked; all the better to influence the jury. The answer is, of course, that yes, there is slightly more horizontal mass to deal with - but only slightly - and due to the combined quality of the bearings involved (tungsten carbide main pivot, and an ABEC-7 ceramic ball-bearing assembly for the Magneglide tracker) the additional friction is mostly theoritical, not practical. If it were otherwise, then I've really been barking up the wrong tree with this entire excercise! In measurements, I cannot find any appreciable (read: none that I could see at all!) difference between the horizontal drag of the 2.2 and the Phantom.
As I said before, I have high regard for all other designers that make good products, and this list would certainly include Frank Schroder, as well as Alistair Robertson-Aikman (SME), Harry Weisfeld, and others. We each have our strengths - and our weaknesses! - and it's up to the listener - not us - to decide which sounds best. And without vested interest input from competiting designers, even on a friendly basis. I just feel strongly that we, as designers, should place our designs and theories out there for the public (and reviewers) to analyize, and then step back and let the music be the guide, not our competitors.
Bumble-bees really DO fly, and to try and sugget they can't is plain wrong: just sit back and watch them go if you want to be convinced....
The point is that I think that, while heated debate among the hobbyists and consumers themselves is fine, it is not in good taste for us manufacturers to try and "suggest" something may be amiss in someone else's design, thereby planting the seed of doubt in the readers and potential customers.
In this case, the comment such as "your new design is well founded but not exactly revolutionary" is something that I, no matter what I may know or think of another design, would never utter. It's just not appropriate. I have high regard to many other tonearm designs, including Frank's, but if any of us where to try an take the time to suggest a "weakness" of some kind, we'd only be opening the door to the shortcomings in our own efforts, which are always present.
I am not aware of the article that Frank refers to, but I am VERY sure there was nothing like the horizontal stablizer that's now in Patent Pending status; we checked carefully into the history of tonearm designs and found nothing remotely like this.
OK, with the Philosphy and Ethics Class 101 dismissed, just a few points before I have to get back to work, REALLY, and off this thread, if I'm to get the necessary things done on time:
My reference to the jewel bearings in Rolex was only an off-the-cuff remark that superior bearing quality is not that much more costly to make the inferior materials. I'm aware of the properties of sapphire/ruby, as well as tungsten carbide and steel. Simply put, I went for the more exotic tungsten carbide as a high-quality, long-life bearing component, since the cost differential over the less-desirable steel wasn't so great. And I don't like to take the cheap way out, anyway, especially in something as central to performance as the main bearing.
The other technical detail that needs a little polishing is Frank's correct assertion that tracking force will be affected by interia as the arm moves up and down. Of course that's correct; however, I see no reason to let that fact be compounded in fact by having a balancing system which will CERTAINLY add it's own additional forces to the arm as it's negotiating warps. And this applies to ANY arm of any pivoting design that places the pivot point above the Center of Gravity.
And one last little jab that needs commenting on is the "question" that the magneglide has higher horizontal friction than vertical. Again, I'm sorry to keep reminding Frank of this, but it's painfully obvious that, like a good attorney, the answer is known BEFORE the question is asked; all the better to influence the jury. The answer is, of course, that yes, there is slightly more horizontal mass to deal with - but only slightly - and due to the combined quality of the bearings involved (tungsten carbide main pivot, and an ABEC-7 ceramic ball-bearing assembly for the Magneglide tracker) the additional friction is mostly theoritical, not practical. If it were otherwise, then I've really been barking up the wrong tree with this entire excercise! In measurements, I cannot find any appreciable (read: none that I could see at all!) difference between the horizontal drag of the 2.2 and the Phantom.
As I said before, I have high regard for all other designers that make good products, and this list would certainly include Frank Schroder, as well as Alistair Robertson-Aikman (SME), Harry Weisfeld, and others. We each have our strengths - and our weaknesses! - and it's up to the listener - not us - to decide which sounds best. And without vested interest input from competiting designers, even on a friendly basis. I just feel strongly that we, as designers, should place our designs and theories out there for the public (and reviewers) to analyize, and then step back and let the music be the guide, not our competitors.
Bumble-bees really DO fly, and to try and sugget they can't is plain wrong: just sit back and watch them go if you want to be convinced....