Anyone notice different amounts of surface noise with different arms?

@mijostyn Sorry, you did say your table was a Sota Cosmos Vacuum table!

I had to he same thought as Raul, after reading that you hear no difference between analog and digital RIAA filtering, because you’re signal is in the digital domain AFTER RIAA correction. That added processing might obliterate differences that would otherwise be audible. Of course there’s also the possibility that there is no audible difference between analog and digital RIAA correction. Quien sabe?

- tonearms do not sound exactly the same

- setup is critical. Deviations measured in .0001 (I’m pulling a number outa my tuchus, but you get the idea) will make a difference

- it has been my experience that less expensive cartridges are livelier - maaaaybe to mask inferior quality? - and pick up more surface noise, but the liveliness often masks it. The more expensive cartridges have less surface noise, but you can hear it better. Could be for the reason someone on this thread alluded to. Milage may vary: I don’t expect everyone will have the same experience.

theaudioatticvinylsundays.com

Does the way a certain design for a Tonearm, create an interface with a Cartridge that improves the environment for the Cartridge to function in?

Hence, the Cartridge being mounted on a Tonearm that has a focus for the design, which is to create an interface that seen to be much improved for the Cart' to function in will create a difference for how the Cart's end sound is perceived.

If the Cart' is set up correctly at all interfaces, in numerous cases of listening, the TA>Cart' in use will be perceived by most who experienced the pairing as a change to the end sound, that is strongly suggested as being a betterment. 

Similar outcomes are also able to produced when other interfaces that are needed to replay a Vinyl LP are adequately addressed.

Mechanical interfaces are very capable of creating sound that is mix from assessments made, whether it is deemed an attractor or a repellent.

An end sound produced using a Vinyl LP's Modulation as the source for the Signal or a Digital Code used as the Source for the Signal, will also produce an end sound that is mixed in assessments of whether it is perceived as an attractor or as a  repellent. 

From my point of view today, my experience of Digital is proving fine for my needs. A Digital Code as a Source from my CDT >DAC, produces an end sound that I am classing as an attractor. The same method of producing an end sound, extends Cartridge Life as well.

If listening to less end sound produced from a Vinyl LP is the trade off, I am contented with such a outcome. I no longer want a one source system, but do like the mechanical and geometrical disciplines that using Vinyl has taught me. Does these disciplines leant, really have anything to do with listening to music? Music is being produced and enjoyed by multiples who use Vinyl LP's, where the multiples of users do not put too much emphasis on the mechanical and geometrical concerns that can be searched out and learnt about. 

As for the Surface noise, there are not too many causes, revisiting Cart' Alignment might help. Cleaning the Vinyl LP to the standard advised by Neil Antin in the PAVCR Educational Document, in my experience has done wonders for quietness of a Vinyl replay.   

@dhcod It seem you do not understand that the audio memory of humans is extremely short and severely subject to conformation bias. Differences of defects have to become very obvious obvious. Under blinded conditions most "extreme improvements" can not be reliably identified. I can drop 3 kHz 6 dB with a Q of 1 and you would never be able to tell the difference. At 12 dB q 1 an experienced would notice it immediately. The best listeners know what they want to hear. Most of us have no idea exactly what it is they want to hear because they never measure their system. Do you have a measurement microphone? Most audiophiles have never heard state of the art imaging because so few systems perform at that level and you can not know what SOTA imaging is until you have heard it. Fortunately, spatial cues are much easier to remember.  

@rauliruegas Raul, passive subwoofers and electrostatic speakers are totally analog. Do you know what raw digital sounds like? You ever heard a fax signal on a telephone? 

I can go back and forth between analog and 24/192 and nobody blinded could ever tell the difference and I do mean nobody. You have obviously no experience with the power of digital signal processing and don't say you do because I know for a fact you do not. Because I can correct room issues and differences between the channels my imaging is vastly superior to anything you have heard. Digital crossovers are more accurate with less distortion than any analog two way crossover. Because I use subwoofers I can adjust the bass any way I want without affecting the performance of the rest of the system. I have the most accurate. lifelike bass you have ever heard. Nobody has subwoofers like mine. 

If you think your system is great, I can make it greater and I mean so much greater blinding would be unnecessary. Differences between cartridges would pale in comparison.  My wife could instantly tell the difference.  Disagree all you want, but I would love to be able to prove that to you. I just digitized a system around Magico S7s and JL Audio subwoofers. The owner's jaw dropped and eyes went wide when he heard it for the first time. He has a Basis Debut turntable with a Graham arm and a zillion records. He will never use a purely analog system again.