Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

Amendment: I did try another cart, Dyna Te Kaitora II, with Conductor II air-bearing arm...sorry for the mistake.

Dan

Hi Danwkw,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you tried the same cart on two different tables and arms, but never on the same table with both arms?

So, your test was PC-1/Conductor/Das Laufwerk, then PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Acoustic Solid Wood?

But never PC-1/Conductor/Das Laufwerk, then PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Das Laufwerk or PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Acoustic Solid Wood, then PC-1/Conductor/Acoustic Solid Wood?

That's two completely different turntable designs of completely different materials (Scheu's delrin/acrylic vs Acoustic Solid's wood/aluminum).

How do you separate out the the influence of the turntable from that of the tonearms in that test?

BTW, I own a Scheu Premier MK2 w/ the upgraded 80mm platter and their flagship Tacco tonearm AND the Cartridge Man Conductor linear-air bearing arm. Unfortunately, the Premier I own is not a 2-arm version, so I can't do both at the same time.

I wish I could, then I'd just get another Denon DL-103D and see for myself, or a couple of Music Makers.

Yes, Darkmoebius, Scheu with Conductor and Acoustic Solid with Ortofon but not vice versa. That was not supposed to be an official comparison for both arm designs(not solely for that purpose). However, that's the closest comparison we could have at that time. We also had time and other limitations, too. Fortunately, both turntables are high mass, rigid designs(Note: Acoustic Solid's 35kg platter had been covered with a 5-mm acrylic layer and a thin leather) with separate motors, string-driven, on identical Solid Steel racks, and all other rigs were basically the same, except the phono cable.

I have to stress that both TT setups were performing so well that no one of them could capture all our hearts at the same time. That is to say, when we play solo violin, Scheu combo prevails. When we played piano or vocals, both perform very well but in a rather different way. When we play pipe organ in the church, AA combo outperforms Scheu. But no one could predominantly outperform the other with all types of music we had thrown in.

Unfortunately, Scheu were only with 2 arm plates one mounted with Conductor and the other with Scheu's own unipivot. Both plates weren't made for an Ortofon. (Off the topis, we sometimes found a two-armed TT sonically less ideal...maybe due to the resonance of the idle one feedback on the TT.) At that time, we had removed Scheu's arm(for unipivot it was very easy) when playing with the Conductor II.

We had a Conductor mounted on Transrotor ZET 3 with Dyna Te Kaitora II later...the results were not as satisfactory as(thin sounding, no bass authority, etc) on Scheu with PC-1. Maybe it was due to wrong matching of arm/cart/other rigs' synergy. I wish I could have made more arms switching if I know you may ask me this question, Darkmoebius;)

Best regards
Dan

I see alot of discussion here about the theoretical downside of linear arms relative to forces on the stylus/cantilever, but not much real-world testing.

OTOH I have an article from High Performance Review circa 1986, where they used a special test device, the Orsonic Side Force Checker SG-1, to measure stylus deflection of the device mounted to an ET-2 arm compared to the device mounted to a pivoted arm (can't remember which arm right now, I'll have to go check). The pivoted arm showed much greater side-to-side deflection of the stylus during play as compared to the ET-2, the conclusion being that the pivoted arm was causing greater wear of the stylus and cartridge suspension. Unfortunately they haven't made the Orsonic for a while, as it would be interesting to make the same test with more modern pivoted tonearms.

I would agree (and the second link below seems to come to the same conclusion) that mechanical linear trackers (whether passive or active) do put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=155855

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/34126-opus-3-cantus-parallel-tracking-arm.html#post395258

The idea that a pivoted arm of correct effective mass is going to induce greater side-to-side excursion than an air-bearing straight-tracking arm strains credulity.

Re:Thegage
"I would agree (and the second link below seems to come to the same conclusion) that mechanical linear trackers (whether passive or active) do put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge."

I have read every post so far, and I appreciate (accept) the theory that state of the art pivoted arms are currently better, but where is the evidence that this "poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge" actually happens. I am beginning to suspect that the argument concerning the "best", is beginning to become the argument that the "other" in any form is unacceptably flawed. I protest.

This has been a most interesting thread. I started this thread off by saying that I thought linear tracking arms sounded better than pivoted arms that I had been used to. I still think my humble ET-2 sounds outstanding. However, in the interest of further education, I am going to switch back to a pivoted arm and see how it fares. I am conviced after reading all the posts that it is worth another try. The only dog I have in this fight is that I want the best sounding arm that I can afford. If the Fidelity Research FR64s sounds better than my ET-2, I will be one happy camper. I hope it does and from everything I have read, it should.

For the here and now, I have torn my table down (VPI TNT) in anticipation of the FR64s arriving. I have removed my Benz Glider and have it safely installed back in its box. The ET-2 arm and mounting board have been removed. I took my TNT bearing to my local machinist for a check up. He didn't like the fact that the tolerance between the platter shaft and the bearing bushing was .004". He pressed out the original bushing and machined a new bushing and line bored it so it now has a tolerance of .001". My bearing should now be better than new. I am waiting for the new blank armboard to arrive from VPI as well as the FR64s arm and Orsonics headshell. This should be interesting.

FWIW, I have referred to my TNT as a MKIII but I know now that is not true after studying some pictures of the TNT evolution. I believe it is an original TNT that had new corner feet installed like the TNT III. I had previously removed the two extra pulleys from the T-bar and snapped in covers from VPI to cover the two holes that were drilled in the plinth. I have replaced the motor with the 300 RPM version and I have a new SDS that I bought to replace the PLC.

02-26-10: Danwkw
Yes, Darkmoebius, Scheu with Conductor and Acoustic Solid with Ortofon

I forgot to mention that the Das Laufwerk is a dream table for me, I would love to own one(especially in slate). I also came very, very, close to owning an Acoustic Solid "One" a few years back, but could not find a reliable way to have it crated and shipped cross country. Both are great manufacturers.

I dug out the old article (High Performance Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, by Ted Simmons/David Tarumoto). Here is what it says: "...normal pivoted arms must confront this same dynamic alignment issue. To look into this motion we mounted an Orsonic Side Force Checker SG-1 in ET2 and SAEC WE 407/23 (double knife-edge pivoted) arms. The SG-1 is a cartridge complete with cantilever and stylus that has an indicator pointer attached to the cantilever to show the relative motion of the stylus. It's a very handy device to check the amount of side force correction to dial in with pivoted arms. Here we're using it to measure more dynamic changes.

"In this case, we used it to see the relative side-to-side motion when tracking sample LPs. Normal LPs, plus those with obviously off-center holes and those with definite warps were tried.

"Surprisingly, SAEC's WE 407/23 showed a much wider side-to-side movement of the pointer than the ET2 on all of the sample LPs that we used. This happened when playing both test records (produced very precisely) and typical mass market pressings."

Interesting, but only one data point, and not able to be easily verified.

Following a near 3 decade hiatus from records, I acquired via AudiogoN a VPI HW-19 MKIV with an ET-2/Benz Glider combo...I've been mesmerized by tangential arms since I first saw the beautiful Rabco ST-7, as a teenage nascent audio-enthusiast, in magazine adverts and the beguiling B&O 4002, in person...I favored the Transcriptor Vestigial for radial arms. I suppose I'm examining it from a different angle :-)

Enjoy!
Sam

Atmasphere is absolutely correct.

"The idea that a pivoted arm of correct effective mass is going to induce greater side-to-side excursion than an air-bearing straight-tracking arm strains credulity."

I would even say it neglects fundamental aspects of mechanic and physic.
But nothing in physics can be obvious enough not to be questioned if it doesn't fit the preference of an audiophile. Must have been a test of true insight and scientific brilliance.
Oh my.

02-27-10: Dertonarm
I would even say it neglects fundamental aspects of mechanic and physic. But nothing in physics can be obvious enough not to be questioned if it doesn't fit the preference of an audiophile. Must have been a test of true insight and scientific brilliance.
Oh my.

Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: dial. snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906

1 : crotchety, snappish
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

— snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb

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.

Dear Oilmanmojo, let me briefly add that the vertical mass in the best linear trackers does indeed match the mass in most pivot tonearms.
But the horizontal moving mass is a completely different manner. In the pivot tonearm the mass in more or less equally dissipated on both sides of the bearing - i.e. on two antagonistic levers.
As it is moving around a center it puts no additional force on the stylus (if the bearing is any good....) especially so, as the bearing, armpipe (aside from slight off-set...) and cantilever are in line.
In the linear tonearm the horizontal mass is pushed forward by one (cruel...) lever only and at the tip-toe of that lever is the stylus /cartridge while most of the mass is far away but has to be moved by your stylus and the suspension.
The force pulling from 90° off which is not what your cartridges' suspension system was made for.
This dilemma was minimized by attempts as the ones of Lou Souther and Versa Dynamics with ultra short armpipe - only to add problems in other areas (very sensible to wrap/height changes in vinyl (the Versa Dynamic did feature vacuum hold-down for good reason - it is mandatory with its tonearm)).
I still believe that the striking and logic promise of linear tonearm will one day bring out a design addressing all the big problems - but so far this has not been done.
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working.

03-01-10: Dertonarm
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working.

Great explanation of the lateral forces, Dert.

It would be interesting to know if this heightened lateral force in linear trackers results in increased distortion and/or cartridge suspension/motor wear & damage. It would be nice to hear from cartridge manufacturers if they'd noticed any wear on their retip/repairs unique to carts used with linear arms.

While that force may be greater, it may not actually affect performance/longevity in the real world. Although, I'd find that hard to believe if it is as significant as it seems.

I will state up-front that I have been a fan of the ET2 for more years than I can remember. I have used the same sample on four different tables; currently a TNT6. During this same time period I have owned Rega, SME V, Grado, and Syrinx PU3 (still own). I used at least two of each of the aforementioned pivoting tonearms on each of the four tables that the ET2 has sat on. I keep the Syrinx PU3 as a backup, in the event that I have a problem with the air pump for the ET2; or some other issue, such as placement of equipment due to a move etc. There is no question that the use of the ET2 is more complicated than any of the pivoting arms that I have used. But well worth the trouble. I have consistently found the ET2 to yield a sound that is more like the sound of real music: spacious, well defined (especially with a higher pressure pump), with dense images, and good extension at both ends; and no emphasis on any one frequency range. Only the SME V gave me "more" bass; but that bass was unrealistically bloated. Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.

My point is, that with all the assertions, postulating about their superiority, and all the supposed technical advantages of pivoting arms, there has been in this thread, a conspicuous absence of accompanying discussion about the way that they sound. This is, unfortunately, a familiar story in audiophile circles; isn't it? Focus on the technical points as a way to justify our own preferences and bias, without a commesurate emphasis on what it's supposed to be all about: Does the arm make music? That, defined as getting closer to the sound of the real thing. It's always the same story: this or that has less of this kind or that kind of distortion, so it must be better. This or that phono pre has less deviation from RIAA standards, so it must be better. Blah, blah, blah. HOW DOES IT SOUND!? Compare how it makes a string section sound on a good recording. The ET2, BTW, lets strings sound glorious. The SME, pretty good except for the celli, and basses; way to bloated. The Rega: not even in the same league, with little harmonic complexity. Just as an example.

03-01-10: Frogman
Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.

That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm.

In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind.

I think I might make a few inquiries tomorrow with some reputable cartridge manufacturers/repairers to see if they've noticed excessive or unusual wear due to linear tracking arms.

Unless a linear tonearm murders your cartridge in the very first days, you will hardly notice any effect till you dismount it and realize that your cantilever is off line.
Why ?
Because it is a constant small decrease in quality and sound over time. Our brain and ear won't react to very tiny rather constant changes - there are no benchmarks to verify the changes.
So in the end - how does it sound ?
You'll never know. You may like the sound of a linear tracker.
I've too.
As long as you do not notice its shortcomings. Once you detect them in the sonic signature, the magic is gone forever.
I have owned and used for several years side by side the Triplanar, Graham, ET2 2.5, Goldmund T3F, Air Tangent 2B and Reference to name the more prominent ones and contenders from both "camps".
The mechanical stress showed its results over time - it wasn't the same in all linear trackers ( the ET2 was best when very carefully set-up (= leveled and painstakingly rewired with ultra flexible litz-wire which finally did NOT interfere with the progression...) and running with twice the air pressure as recommended by its manufacturer) .

The originally question of this thread was - as stated by Mepearson - whether the linear tonearms as superior performers by nature.
In my opinion they are not.
THere are plain mechanical and real-life trade-offs in their concept and so far there is no linear tracker on the market which does address all these problems.
The theoretical geometrical advantage can't be denied.
But then it is corrupted by the need of derivation for progression - so far as well in passive as in motorized linear tonearms.
All these conceptional musings do not mean that a linear tracker can't put up an impressive sonic performance.
So you may like its sound for good reason.
BUt on the way up to the very top of Mt Everest the air gets thin and on the last two tracks to the summit the linear tonearms give in - not enough oxygen to fuel their lungs any more.
In direct contest with the best pivots their geometrical advantage becomes very tiny - their bearing and mechanical problems begin to show.

Again - I love the linear principle in tonearms.
But we yet have to see one fulfilling the promise and addressing all issues.

Dear Darkmoebius, if indeed

..."In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind." ...

then all discussion is kind of waste of time - isn't it ?
This is similar to discussion about religious issues. In the end - when one party runs out of arguments - the final defensive statement will always be "but I believe".
Here is all comes down to "but I like the sound".
Fine.
In my point of view this is the ultimate thorn-wall against progression.
But then progression in itself was already judged as an erratic way of life by some greek philosophers 2400+ years ago.
Which shines a philosophical spotlight on analog high-end audio.
Now - isn't that nice.....

Dertonarm, I wrote:

"That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm"

Now, in this particular case, there are two possible outcomes to this "million dollar question": 1) the increased lateral force does not produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear, 2) the increased lateral force does produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear

If outcome #1 is true, then I think that such force is a non-issue and it all comes down to personal preference as to what sounds best.

But, if outcome #2 is true, then I(obviously) think that such force IS AN ISSUE beyond personal preference of sound. I don't think many people want to intentionally subject their cartridges to excessive wear/damage.

I hinted that I might contact manufacturers/repairers because they would be the best suited to judge if, and when, a cart is out of spec or damaged - not just from a technical perspective, but also from a statistical one because their sample pool is likely to much larger than that of an individual audiophile.

Darkmoebius, sorry, but I doubt that you will find a cartridge designer/manufacturer with as wide experience in real-world practical audio analog life as several A'goners like Raul, Dougdeacon, Dan_Ed, Syntax, Thuchan to name just a few.
If you want to know about the virtues of a new Ferrari (now Mercedes...) racing car you should better ask Michael Schumacher - he most likely can tell you much more than any of the cars designers ( because he actually drives the car - and he is a much better driver than any of the designers/engineers...).
Furthermore they rarely know about the working history of a cartridge they get for repair/exchange. As too many audiophiles do know too little about set-up ( I have seen about 350 cartridge/tonearm set-ups/alignments so far over the past 30 years in other audiophiles systems. Not 3 of them were actually correct in all parameters - so much for real-life experience) , damage by improper set-up is the rule - not the exception.

The answer to the "million dollar question" is so clear and obvious that there in fact is no question. The physical/mechanical situation - at least under working conditions on this planets surface - is a (sorry...) fact and as such out of real question.

Dertonarm, discussion of this subject is absolutely not a waste of time. I think that the opinions, experience, and findings of someone who has so much experience with different equipment as you do, is invaluable. I, for one, appreciate it. But, I think you miss my point.

Whenever I see/hear an argument made, accompanied by a great deal of technical data supporting one viewpoint or another, without at least some mention of how a piece of equipment actually sounds compared to the real thing, the red flags go up for me. Not because technical data is not important (it obviously is), but because the ultimate importance of measurements, relative to real life end results has, time and time again, been thrown into question; at least to some degree.

Without meaning to get too "Zen" about it all, the beauty of music, and less importantly it's reproduction, is the incredible complexity of it all. I think we can all agree (or should agree) that there is still a lot about the playback of recordings that we don't understand. Long held ideas/truths are regularly debunked. Thankfully, there is a lot we do understand, but if we don't always return to respect of the music and IT'S complexity, I think all the other arguments are thrown into question.

Returning to the subject at hand, by way of practical example: While I certainly don't have nearly as much experience with tonearms as you do, I think that my experience with the SME vs. the ET2 makes a point. I think most audiophiles would agree that the SME V, while not the last word in pivoting tonearms, is a quality product, and was the standard in many audiophile circles for a long time. The ET2, in spite of it's "technical" inferiority, consistently sounded more like real music to me. I don't like to bring up this point too often, but I am around the sound of acoustic instruments for several hour every day, so I am sensitive to tonal and dynamics-related issues with equipment. The ET2 consistently let my analog set-up sound more like the real thing, than did the SME; both arms were set up, I assure you, to the endth degree. What does this prove? That I "like the sound of the ET2"? No. If you can demonstrate to me that the SME "works better", from a technical standpoint, than the ET2 does (you probably can), then what it says to me is that there are some things going on with the playback process that we don't fully understand. Personally, I can live with that.

Well gee, if only three out of 350 get set up that will reveal the difference !!!!!
I get better odds in Las Vegas.

Frogman, I agree that the ET-2 sounds outstanding which is sort of what prompted me to start this thread (and I do think I had mine set up correctly which is no easy task). However, as I said previously, Dertonarm has inspired me to give pivoted arms another chance. I have bought the arm and headshell he recommended and I am looking forward to working with Dertonarm to maximize the potential by careful setup. I have a "record" of what my ET-2 sounded like as I have recorded numerous 15 ips 2 track tapes that sound outstanding (or so I think). I will be able to compare the sound between the two set ups and I look forward to it. I will be quite happy if the FR64s is the winner and won't look back if it is. In the meantime, my ET-2 isn't going anywhere.

And Dertonarm-the post office tried to deliver the FR64s yesterday, but I was at work. I signed the release paper so I should have it tomorrow. The headshell has been sent from Hong Kong. It will be ironic if the piece that takes the longest to get here is the blank arm board from VPI which is in NJ. I was hoping to be up and running by this weekend, but I doubt that will happen due to VPI.

Frogman, Your experience with ET2 surpassing SME V mirrors mine with Trans-Fi Pro vs. SME IV. As regards stylus deflection, when a linear air arm is used with a high-compliance cartridge, rather than shoot for perfect level I position the manifold so as to eliminate bias in stylus deflection during play as viewed through a magnifier. It might be that in this position the manifold is actually at a miniscule downward tilt toward the spindle, allowing gravity to work in ones favor and relieve torque on the stylus.

Agree with Samujohn and would extend his point by suggesting that ease of use and repeatability of results is an important consideration. In this regard (some) linear arms are a piece of cake relative to pivot arms. Perhaps any arm over $5K should come with a boxed homunculus to set it up.

One unique thing I just realized about linear tonearm is that I find myself cleaning the needle a lot compared to (if ever!) my other two set ups with pivot arms.

This may mean that linear arm has perfect snug contact vs pivot arms hence picking up more RIGHT info (and more dirt) indicating better performance?

Anyone else with linear tone arm experienced this?

Frogman, I do rather choose physical and technical facts in audio discussion, as sonic impressions are purely individual and can't be transferred nor put into correct perspective.
Unless you were familiar with me as a person, my taste, opinions, background, preferences in sound and sound reproduction - my personal impressions and statements of the sonic virtues of a given component are just blank phrases to you or anybody else.
However - I too take the ET 2 (and especially the ET 2.5 ) any day heads above the SME V.
The ET2 was always THE best buy among linear tonearms in specific.
But the sonic difference between the two tonearms is not a difference between pivot vs linear. The impression that many audiophile experienced with the SME V ( kind of dull, live-less sound with an over-prominent upper bass ) has to do with its very design and a few construction details which added up to an unhappy marriage.
Anyway - exchange of opinions is - if not fortified by empirical (and thats the virtue of physics and technical aspects..) arguments which at least can be verified and re-verified by others.

________________________________

I haven't gone through and read all the posts so I might have missed some similar thoughts and sounding repetitive. In theory a linear tracker simulate the tangency of the record cutter but one must remember a cutter is an ACTIVE device, it forces a straight line across the record in order to cut a record but a linear tracking arm is a PASSIVE device that is tracking in the mercy of the record groove with its angles and turns! In real world tracking, most center holes on records are not absolutely centered, very often few millimeters off! Bam, there goes tangency out the window.

As one commenter points out tangency is based on the cantilever - shape of the stylus tip too if you want to be anal about it - in relation to the groove NOT the arm. Bear in mind the cantilever is attached to rubber, hence a compliant system! So imagine the cantilever is constantly navigating with side force of the off center record thrusting it laterally banging on left and right and you tell me if that's perfect tangency or not! Of course the perfect table for a linear tracking arm to work on would be something like the Nakamichi Dragon or TX1000 that self corrects off center record hole but how many people have a table like that?

I think the reason people prefer the sound of linear tracker over pivot arm is that tracking error is still lower than many pivot arms, especially the shorter one that's not optimized in overhang and anti-skating adjustment. I don't have problem with people preferring linear tracker over pivot but just don't be so militant about it and keep insist on telling me linear trackers have perfect tangency! It does not! It's still a compromise and so is life. To me all the fiddling is distracting me from playing record but your mileage may vary of course.

I mean, just think about it, a stylus is attached to a cantilever and then attached to rubber and then attach to an arm and then attach to a counterweight all the way at the end and you expect the geometry to be perfectly tangent through out playing one side of a record for 20 minutes straight? We know how dramatic the overhang is off by one millimeter can sound with pivot arms so imagine a record with a one millimeter off-centered hole, not uncommon, played with a linear tracker. Perfect tangency? NOT!

Anyway, I used to have problem with servo pseuso-linear tracking arms because the obvious objection to the constant self correcting nature of its design but crabbing across the record with tiny arcs but I have since come to appreciate it more because it's much less stressful on the cantilever and stylus and navigate the groove much easier in REAL WORLD situation. It's really a pivot arm with a uni-directional gliding base, if that helps the mental picture. (uni-direction in typical designs not counting Pioneer's PL-L1000 bi-directional arm) The problem with the sound of many servo design is not the concept but the execution and many don't use good bearings and if look at it as a pivot arm it's no where near the quality of top notch arms like the Graham, Triaplanar, SME V, etc... I have a Yamaha PX-2 and it works wonderfully and it's better than many servo arm in its mechanical quality. Of course not in the league of top notch pivot arms but the lessening of tracking error (not perfect tangency) does pay dividend. So I hope in the future, someone can design a "servo tonearm mounting base" that allows one to mount any pivot arm that can servo control the base's lateral movement to lessen tracking distortion (lessen not eliminate) Wouldn't that be something cool? Hell, if I mount a 12" arm on such device the tracking error would be so low to not even worry about such a thing!

I forgot the mention another solution such as the Thales arm that is a combination of pivot and linear tracker by self adjust to tangency in a PASSIVE system. Very clever indeed. But the only problem I can think of is that by adding another pivot right above the cartridge might affect the structural integral of the arm and having extra linkage might hinder its fluid movement. Again, nothing is perfect but I can at least appreciate the innovation. Bravo!

Speaking of 12", I honestly thing a 12" arm makes sense unless you are in the rigidity is everything crowd. There's no perfect arm and I can accept that just like life and a well desing 12" seems to be a good compromise.

At the end of the day, I just want to play some tunes and not worry about whether the damn needle is tangent or not. That's it for now.

___________________

Cutting lathe/cutting head can not be compared to a linear tonearm at all.
A cutting head is not tracking a groove.
It is engraving it into a virgin vinyl. Thats why its active. It doesn't care for the groove margin - it literally creates it.

There are 12" tonearms out there which do feature a rigidity in both their armpipe and bearing which is the equal to the very best 9 and 10" tonearms.

Deronarm: "Cutting lathe/cutting head can not be compared to a linear tonearm at all. A cutting head is not tracking a groove. It is engraving it into a virgin vinyl. That's why it's active. It doesn't care for the groove margin - it literally creates it."

That's exactly the point!!
______________

By the way, I just read through more posts by Dertonarm and really appreciate your insight from the point of view of both design and operation. It's refreshing to read pieces that are not constantly going back to the same old pornographic sonic analysis like audio magazines. Hats off to you.
____________

It may be interesting to factor in an arm's versatility with respect to navigating anomalous off-center and warped records. However at SOTA the question is always about the best of all possible worlds. It is therefore reasonable to ask which design is better assuming a physically "perfect" record? In any case for this crowd a second pivot arm like a 4-wheel drive vehicle is probably within reach to handle the occasional blizzard. A relatively small percentage of my LPs are flawed w/r to warpage or eccentricity. Assuming a decent biscuit, I am won over by the relatively superior tangency of the linear arm and the low-resonance achievable with a very short wand as available in certain linear designs. With a low-resonance short wand(as distinguished from degree of rigidity) all bets are off. Could anyone who has used a 1"-2" wand comment on their experience?

03-04-10: Hiho
I forgot the mention another solution such as the Thales arm that is a combination of pivot and linear tracker by self adjust to tangency in a PASSIVE system. Very clever indeed.

Thanks for the mention of the Thales tonearm, I'd never even heard of it - some very interesting reading.

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.

Thales tonearm, looks like a very ingenious design indeed. Thanks Darkmo and Hiho. I will have to add this one to my wish list.

Dgarretson, well said. Comparison should be on level set baseline, not an anomalous situation of off center and warped records. My tone arm indeed has 1-2" wand exhibiting extremely low resonance

Another brilliant design by Thales, making the previous design simpler, more elegant, and certainly cheaper. I don't know how it will sound but I don't care. I just enjoy the brilliance of its design.

>http://www.tonarm.ch/uploads/images/News/PressRelease.pdf

The Thales arm reminds me of the Garrard Zero table/arm combo that I had in college.

03-05-10: C1ferrari
The Thales arm reminds me of the Garrard Zero table/arm combo that I had in college

I was just reading this website which gives does a decent job of describing the Garrard Zero 100 & 100SB turntables/tonearm and how the Thales type arm derives from that.

Thanks, D-mo...I'll check it out :-)

Vbr,
Sam

Hello Dertonarm,
I was intrigued by what you wrote above in regard to the SME V:
"The impression that many audiophile experienced with the SME V ( kind of dull, life-less sound with an over-prominent upper bass ) has to do with its very design and a few construction details which added up to an unhappy marriage".
I am a longterm SME V user but I am by no means wedded to it. Which elements of its design or of its construction would you hold chiefly responsible for the perceived sonic result?
I know about the internal and external wiring problems with this arm (and I have replaced these wires on mine - with good results).
I am also aware of its limitations regarding adjustment (azimuth, zenith)and of the problems that arise when one mounts a cartridge with non-standard stylus to mounting point distance (I recently mounted a Benz Ruby II).
Surely, though, the basic design aim of the SME V - highest possible rigidity through a single casting of magnesium from headshell back to counterweight - is on the right track?
By the way,I would join Hiho in saying that I find your contributions to this forum very interesting and stimulating. I have learnt a great deal about arms (not least about the SME V by reading them).
Best wishes,
Peter Taylor

Pgtaylor, its the arm tube. It has a mid-frequency resonance and is poorly controlled by the materials within. That's where the Graham and the Triplanar take it to task.

The Sayles arm looks brilliant. Now can we have a version that puts the bearings in the plane of the LP?

Hello Pgtaylor, the original idea of the team around Mr. Robertson-Aikman of SME turned against them.
Indeed - as Atmasphere already pointed out - it is resonance inside the magnesium armpipe. While all done and designed in the best intention,the shape of the magnesium armpipe with the widest diameter at the bearing does somehow amplify and ill-control armwand inherent resonance. The heavy pre-tension of the bearings doesn't ease things in this manner at all.
However - there is something you can do to lessen the effect and better the sonic performance of your SME V:
- do get "blue-tec" or something similar. Do apply small amounts (about the size of a cent) at the widest diameter of the armpipe and close to the headshell. It looks ugly, it will increase the effective moving mass, but it will dampen the unwanted inherent resonance quite well.
The sound will open up and will get more "air".
The SME V is a somehow fine example of a very impressive design approach with very consequent execution - cost little to o object indeed.
However - here two design features implemented with the very best of intentions combined to an unwanted side-effect.
Thank you - and Hiho as well - for your kind comments on my posts. Nice to get some positive feedback.
Cheers,
D.

03-05-10: Atmasphere
The Sayles arm looks brilliant. Now can we have a version that puts the bearings in the plane of the LP?

Question for the engineers/techies: does the composite of the three points of movement in the Thales arm (shown here) somehow create a theoretical bearing in line with LP? Especially since one is above the plane of the record and another well below the plane as shown in this picture?

Don't you think we should open up two new threads: one for the Talea (wonder anyway why this hasn't been done yet...) and one for the Thales.....?

Thanks, Dertonarm, for the tip about the blue tack. I will definitely try this, but first I need to find a version of this product that is not black, not blue!
Best wishes,

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.

Darkmoebius, Thales armshell plate is driven by yoke only in vertical plane (top view on LP); it rocks in horizontal plane together with armtube, as much as any conventinal gimbal arm does (note another small horizontal pivot just behind the shell). I like the recent and more elegant implementation (Simplicity) better; I only wonder if the whole arm torsional rigidity is not compromized too much by a tetragon mechanism.

What is the effective mass of the Thales? Seems as if it would be very high.

The effective mass is 11g, which is not that high and similar to a Rega. Notice the actual Magnesium arm is less than 7 inches. And there's a counterweight to offset the weight of the guiding arm. There's an Thales AV arm, which I think means Aluminum Version, that has a higher effective mass of 20g, perhaps more suitable for heavier cartridges.

http://www.tonarm.ch/index.php?page=product

The soon to be released "Simplicity" arm is indeed very elegant as opposed to the awkward looking Thales. It's the modern answer to the Garrard Zero-100 with better build quality and precision. Simpler and cheaper but elegant.

I am waiting for someone to come up with a clever headshell mechanism that's adaptable to arms with detachable headshell. And I am not talking about the RS Lab headshell but one that has self adjusting tangency mechanism. I await future innovations.
_______

Here's the initial press release for the Thales "Simplicity" tonearm(.pdf), a more practical approach "Tetragon Solution for tangential tracking".

Looks interesting and will be cheaper than their other arms