Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?


My answer to this question is yes. Linear tracking arms trace the record exactly the way it was cut. Pivoted arms generally have two null points across the record and they are the only two points the geometry is correct. All other points on the record have a degree of error with pivoted arms. Linear tracking arms don't need anti-skating like pivoted arms do which is another plus for them.

Linear tracking arms take more skill to set up initially, but I feel they reward the owner with superior sound quality. I have owned and used a variety of pivoted arms over the years, but I feel that my ET-2 is superior sounding to all of them. You can set up a pivoted arm incorrectly and it will still play music. Linear tracking arms pretty much force you to have everything correct or else they will not play. Are they worth the fuss? I think so.
mepearson

Showing 5 responses by oilmanmojo

I currently use an Maplenoll apollo with its Linear tracking arm (very short wand)and have experience with the arms on the ariadne series. I have modified the ariadne arms to develop a lightweight arm vs the original aluminum arms that were originally offered. Once set up they are outstanding but do take some time to tweak from time to time. I do not have experience with the higher quality pivot arms but the raw numbers tell you that many people feel the pivots are equal to or better than many of the linear tracking arms. That being said, the arm is just one component in a complex system that ultimately makes music. It is difficult to make broad statements about the superiority of one piece of a system without fully testing out the system. A pivot arm on a gyrodec works well but I would not even consider a linear tracker.
I have used the airbearing arm on three maplenoll tables and have never had a cantilever issue as has been reported in this thread concerning air bearing arms. My experience with the maplenoll is only 5 years but i have been very impressed with the performance. as for hours of use, I spin anywhere from 5 to 15 albums a week so i have racked up quite a few hours on these arms. As i have stated before, i have never owned one of the premier pivot arms so my comparison of the linear arm is to either stock arms on dual and denon tables or a rega rb300 on a gyrodec. But the ability to track tough passages has never been an issue with the maplenoll arms. As for as tracking warped records, my basic ariadne out performed the gyrodec with a rb300 easily. The apollo table with the vacuum hold system has been spectacular. I have modified the original tonearms to move from Aluminum or brass wands to carbon fiber wand along with replacing the headshell and vta adjustment to include an on the fly zlift vta adjustment on my two earlier ariadne tables. These mods had a significant improvement to the performance which i attributed to the increased stiffness of the assembly. These tonearm assemblies are pretty light mass especially since i use the zyx line of cartridges which are pretty light anyway. Having said this, part of the setup is the level adjustment. When properly adjusted, a very slight pressure will move the assembly with ease. When compared to my rega RB300 on my gyrodec, the movement of the airbearing arm is so much smoother. as for the bearing slop, i do not understand the comment completely so I can not comment on it. Sut the arm is very stable. I do dampen my arm slightly. I do not have the breath of experience on all of the tonearms and tables as compared to some of the other guys so please take my comments accordingly. That being said, i do like the maplenoll arms compared to my previous experience with the rega arm
I have been doing some research on the issue of stylus pressure that a pivot arm vs a linear arm exerts as the record progresses from the outer edge to the inner grooves. There is some pretty good information on the airtangent and Kuzma airline arms concerning this issue. In fact i found one reference where a reviewer compared the Airtangent to an SME arm on a VPI table. In addition, I had several discussions with some pretty good engineers who helped me understand the issue a little better. After going over it several times, I recognize now what Dertonarm, Raul, Atmasphere, and others were trying to relate. The easiest way to say it is that for two tonearms of equivalent mass, the pivot arm will result in less pressure applied to the stylus and suspension system of a cartridge as the stylus moves across the record. If you state the issue as forces applied and represent the forces as vectors in the xy horizontal plane. (assume x axis is the path of the linear arm), the linear arm forces are entirely represented by the x vector. As the pivot arm actually strikes an arc across the record, the distance the stylus moves is further and part of the forces is represented in the x axis and part of the forces are in the y axis. In addition, the pivot point also reduces the net force needed to move the arm. It is a similar to why a lever can lift a 100 pound weight with less than 100 lb downward force. Having said this, the better linear arms attack this issue by having less total mass that a typical pivot arm. The airtangent site clearly indicates this issue and explains how they attach this issue by using the spindle as a fixed part and using a bearing sleeve as the moving part as well as using a carbonfiber armwand to decrease weight without giving up stiffness. In addition, the manufacturing tolerences of the arm is pretty small to minimize the "Slop" that Dertonarm indicated was an issue with these types of arm. Similar comments are also on the Kuzma site outlining their approach to the problem. I ended up addressing this issue (by accident) as I modified the maplenoll arms by eliminating the aluminum wand and heavy, cumbersome vta adjustment bracket with a carbonfiber arm, spindle and wood headshell. My arm on my apollo is a very short ceramic armwand and very lightweight spindle. I have not compared the total weight to my modified arm on my ariadne signature but i believe it is lighther due to the very small length. Obviously, without the vacuum platter, this short length would be an issue. I appreciate the various contributors to this string as it opened my eyes to some more opportunities to continue to improve the system i have. I have invested pretty heavily into some top notch cartridges and understanding this issue better will help me protect that investment. Having said this, I do like my modified arm and look forward to trying to develop a smaller mass arm for my apollo.

Dgarretson
I have the apollo table which has a very short arm approaching 2 inches. It requires the vacuum hold down to get the best performance. It is an extremely light arm though i have not weighed it yet. it is a ceramic wand and brass headshell designed by lloyd walker. Compared to the aluminum wand that was standard on the apollo, this wand is spaceage in comparison. Being ceramic, it is light and extremely stiff. I do not know how to measure resonance as you ask. I do have the armwand dampened with an oil that is designed to offset the resonance or "wobble". It tracks as good as any arm i have used. the sound is exceptional. My concern after following this thread is the possible damage that could occur. The previous owner had a Sumiko cartridge that he used for 8 years without any issue. I started with it, but put my airy3 then universe on this table. So far, I am sold on the results. My disclaimer is that I do not have experience with the high quality pivot arms to compare.
Interesting comments from Arthur Salvatore in my quest to learn more about the issues of stress put on by the different types of tonearms. I will point out that once i had a better understanding of the issue, i can not disagree with the principles of moving mass of a tone arm system and the impact on the stylus (since that is where the force is applied as the grooves modulate the stylus (music) and as the grooves spiral inward leads the stylus and arm toward the center of the record. The question is whether the differences in forces between the two types of systems will result in premature fatigue on the cartridge and do the fundamental differences impact the sound. As some of you know, Arthur has a website that compares many types of equipment and has compiled his (and associates) ratings by category of the various components. His experience is not the end authority, but another data point as is everyone who contributes to this site. I will point out that he is a long time proponent of the forsell turntable which has an airbearing linear arm. However, His knowledge and wide experiences does IMHO lend credence to his assessments. That being said, his comments were that in his experience and experience of his associates that cartridge life was not impacted by this issue. He went on to state that he has personal experience of one cartridge that lasted over 10 years without a performance problem and he has never experienced a deflected cantilever from use of his linear tone arm. He did say he would do an informal discussion with some of his associates that use both style of arms including the triplanar which he rates as a very high quality arm approaching the performance of the Forsell; Kuzma and airtangent arms. Again, this is not the end statement in performance but does bring a different perspective from someone with significant experience.