Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

I love this, Nilthepill! In class, we have been studying free body diagrams...now, if only I could introduce this as a real-life application to the mp3 generation :-)

Vbr,
Sam

Agreed, Dgarretson!

Nilthepill, interesting points. In the horizontal a linear air bearing design has the advantage of zero static or dynamic friction. Moreover, assuming good eccentricity of LP, within certain limits the higher lateral mass of a linear arm could actually be an advantage, insofar as an inertial mass with constant momentum toward spindle would tend to reduce centripital force required to advance stylus.

Let us not forget that pivot arm also has friction (owing to slow tracking speed, this is static and not dynamic coefficient of friction) at the bearing and due to this friction the arm would also have "+/- X force" (x force normal to the pivot arm longitudinal axis). This is in addition to the y component working along axis of the arm. Any ME or SE can draw a simple free body diagram to balance primary force vectors.

Your intuition would tell you that this force would be lower than that in the linear arms, but it depends. It depends on the effective static mass at the friction interface- longer and heavier the arm, greater the friction force. Thus longer and heavier arms with mechanical pivot/bearing may have higher friction force than say shorter wand on linear arm with mechanical 'sliding friction' bearing.( an air bearing would even be further lower)

Of course, we are talking about a small force values here- tenth of grams. milli grams or even micro grams of friction force depending upon the arm mass etc.

It would be good to know how and what design load s cartridges (the stylus, suspension and suspension to cartridge body interface) and are designed at. Static and dynamic loads. Naturally owing to the function of cartridge, the stylus and the rest of the 'structure' would be designed with cantilever beam loading idealization and thus would have certain design capability (static and cyclic based fatigue) in both x and y directions (and of course the z direction) to be be able to withstand x and y load induced during tracking wavy grooves.

So without looking at hard numbers on free body with two samples of linear and pivot arms it is hard to say which one has more x (excessive damaging forces). I tend to think air bearing linear arm would be approaching (Or even lower than) light weight pivot arm.

Rather than generalization, I would like to see free body force values for a set up compared with cartridge design values (both static and fatigue(-number of cycles- I bet you cart manufacturers should have this)

Until then the real life experiences are good indication to base the 'judgement' on. And we do have experiences from both camp.

Mepearson :I already said that the scientific way (controlled experiment) was best in this matter. Only In its absence I suggested that each of us be the judge according to the evidence presented. I do not see how your hatred of the jury trial process (heck, we all hate it) has any relevance to the subject at hand.
All I have by way of evidence is my personal experience with one tonearm. Since my experience is at variance with the theory advanced, namely that my cartridge life will be shortened and my sound distorted ("poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge"), I simply want some proof. I am open to your suggestions of how to solve this problem.

I suppose a linear tonearm with a very short wand will have lower effective vertical mass than any pivot arm. Such a linear arm may place less stress on cartridge suspension relative to a pivot arm. The horizontal mass of a linear arm will always be greater than a pivot arm. However the friction/stiction of an air bearing is less than a pivot. This advantage might at least partial off-set the disadvantage of relatively greater horizontal mass.

Can anyone comment on these linked variables of vertical mass, horizontal mass, and friction as they collectively bear on cartridge wear, or for that matter, on sonic performance? Is there a threshold of low horizontal mass on an air bearing arm, beneath which stylus wear becomes an irrelevancy? For example, Trans-Fi has horizontal mass on order of 85gm.

So many variables and so little time.

Great post Raul!!!

03-11-10: Mepearson
As far as cartridge manufacturers giving us any meaningful info on this debate, I am old enough to be cynical enough to think that we couldn't depend on it. Aside from the issues that manufacturers may have no idea what type of tonearm was tracking their cartridge before it was sent back for a rebuild, politics and money are pervasive in everything. Even if it was true, I don't know that cartridge manufacturers would tell you that using a linear tracking arm will shorten the life of your cartridge. Not only do they have to worry about lost sales to potential linear tracking arm customers, they would also most likely incur the wrath of linear tracking tonearm manufacturers.

My experience with most manufacturers of a wide range of audio components has found most of them to be fairly straightforward, if not strongly opinionated, about what does and does not work best with their components.

In the case of Grado, I was up front that I already own their "The Statement" cart(w/ low hours) and both a quality linear and pivoted arm, my only concern was with doing premature or unnecessary damage to it. The was clear there was no sale to be made, regardless of his view.

I don't know about others, but whenever I talk to a manufacturer/dealer/repair person, I always make a point of telling them exactly what their product will be connected to. It would be foolish not to, just in case their is some relationship between it and a current, or future, problem. So far, I found almost all to give warning where a potential issue could arise, some have even recommended against buying their product because of incompatibility or problems. I have certainly been told when a cart IS NOT a good match for a tonearm and to look elsewhere.

But, to minimize your valid concern in the future, I suggest others who may contact manufacturers/retippers on their continent do so with those whose products they already own and make clear that it isn't a potential sale inquiry, but rather one of maintenance/longevity.

Dear Dertonarm: Like you I agree ( I posted several times. ) that the cero tracking error advantage on linear trackers in this imperfect analog world could means almost nothing against the less than 2° error in pivot tonearms design.

Till today I always support a pivot tonearm over a linear tracker at least for the better bass quality performance that btw Atmasphere, you and me point out through the thread.

Now, no one and I'm reffering to M. Lavigne, F. Crowder, Atmasphere or A. Porter deny if there exist more cartridge stylus/cantilever/suspension stress through a linear tracker than a pivot design, otherwise they give cartridge names, how many years and which linear tracking tonearms where they don't detect any cartridge quality performance problem cause by that " stress " we are talking about.

The argument that you posted where you say that over the long run/time we can't aware of that cartridge quality performance degradation due that is at minimum day after day and we can't detect it is no clear argument at all because you have to take in count too the normal cartridge deterioration because of time even in a pivot tonearm.

How I can see all this controversy, some one posted here: ++++ " Theory is mere speculation. " +++++

yes till you prove it and you know this.

The controversy could comes because the theory and common sense tell me that that " stress " exist what that theory can't explain ( because your model is only a part of the whole model neccesary to prove it. ) is how exactly shows it self through the cartridge life: after three months ( in hours. ), after one year, after 3 years, how change the cartridge frequency response due not only because the normal over time cartridge degradation but in specific for that additional " stress ", how change the cartridge crosstalk between channels, how the suspension/cantilever behavior/stylus shape changes due only for that additional " stress ", which is the impact with different cantilever size, with different stylus shape, with different cartridge compliance values, with different LP recording velocities, with different room temperature, etc, etc

IMHO I think you don't have answers ( and I don't asking for. ) and I don't know any one that could have the precise theoretical answers and even if they have ( in theory ) this is only half the " true " because you have to prove it ( the other half ) through a controled experiment/tests in real time. Very complex for say the least!

In the other side those gentleman has an answer ( Dertonarm, it is not only one person but more than that. Are they all wrong? could happen that they speak between each other before they posted?: no Sir I don't even imagine that! ) that they can prove it through its subjective/empirical experienced/knowledge each one has.

So, the " stress " exist: how affect the cartridge quality
performance over time?, who knows!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Yes, carefully controlled experiments are the scientific way. If available, they are the best evidence, however evidence has a hierarchy, at least in the legal world.
The highest standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". Granted, that is not the scientific way. However, a lower standard is, "by the preponderance of the evidence presented". We can all draw our own conclusions, but so far I see that even by this very modest standard, the burden of proof has not been met in the matter of "poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge". I vote for acquittal.

As far as evidence against theory, evidence achieved through carefully controlled experiments is always preferred. In reality, I don't know of an easy way to do this. Would you run two "identical" cartridges for a predetermined number of hours with one being installed in a linear tracking arm and the other in a pivoted arm and after said hours are up, would you then examine/meaure each cartridge for changes to the suspension and cantilever alignment? I can see lots of variables creeping in here that could affect the outcome. The reality is I don't know how practical this experiment would be.

As far as cartridge manufacturers giving us any meaningful info on this debate, I am old enough to be cynical enough to think that we couldn't depend on it. Aside from the issues that manufacturers may have no idea what type of tonearm was tracking their cartridge before it was sent back for a rebuild, politics and money are pervasive in everything. Even if it was true, I don't know that cartridge manufacturers would tell you that using a linear tracking arm will shorten the life of your cartridge. Not only do they have to worry about lost sales to potential linear tracking arm customers, they would also most likely incur the wrath of linear tracking tonearm manufacturers.

Aaah, duly noted. Sorry about the mistake, Mepearson.

I'm really ambivalent on the subject as far as sonic performance, whichever works best. My pivot arm actually costs more than my linear, so it's not a matter of defending a precious investment.

Darkmo-I did say that I had a new 103R that had a stylus off-center after using it for a short time in the ET-2. What I don't know is what caused it.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union a Western reporter asked Soviet scientist why Russia had so many theoretical physicists and so few experimental ones.
He replied- pencils are cheap!

Correction: Instead of saying

At this point, I'd only like to know from cartridge manufacturers or retippers what their observations are

I meant to say "At this point, the deciding factor for me is the observations of cartridge manufacturers or retippers" with regard to real world wear and tear on carts.

03-11-10: Mepearson
The counter-argument is that people who have long term experience with a cartridge used in an air bearing arm that has shown no visible symptoms of damage may not believe that the theoretical problem exists.

I don't think that accurately summarizes the counter-argument.

I think most(or all) of us agree/accept Dertonarm's excellent description of why linear arms must exert greater lateral force on a cartridge's cantilever and motor assembly. The question for us is:

Does this greater force result in premature wear or excessive damage to most cartridges?

Dertonarm has offered his personal, subjective, experiences as proof that they do. Others, you included, have offered their own personal, subjective, experiences that it doesn't.

At this point, I'd only like to know from cartridge manufacturers or retippers what their observations are since they talk to hundreds of owners and see a lot of worn/damaged carts. I would guess that in a significant number of cases, they speak to or correspond with cart owners as to what type of arm they are using.

Perhaps, over the years, they have had a number of carts returned for service with deflected cantilevers, improperly worn stylus, or damaged motor assemblies and a significant number of those owners used linear arms.

Maybe they have not, and that would be telling in it's own right.

I can assure you that if the Grado tech said they had noticed a large number of repairs for linear owners over the years, I would not use my "The Statement" on my Cartridge Man Conductor arm. I love that cart and it was an expensive purchase, for me.

Even still, if I hear from a number of other manufacturers that linears cause more damage, I will stop using the Conductor.

I freely admit that I know next to nothing about either engineering or physics, however knowing nothing about a subject has never prevented a lawyer, like my humble self, from asking questions, or seeking precision in expression via words.
My inclination is to evidence not theory. I applaud Darkmoebius approach. Let those with evidence come forward. Theory is mere speculation.

If I have read all of the responses correctly, the "argument" is that the physics associated with a high mass air bearing tone arm causes more stress on the cartridge stylus/suspension than does a properly set up pivoted arm. This problem is excaberated by warped records. The counter-argument is that people who have long term experience with a cartridge used in an air bearing arm that has shown no visible symptoms of damage may not believe that the theoretical problem exists. As I said once before, I used a Van den Hul MC 10 for around 5 years in my ET-2 and I saw no problems with it. Recently, I bought a new Denon 103R and it did develop a problem in my ET-2. The cantilever is now canted off-center. What I don't know is if the cartridge suspension was defective and this would have happened regardless or if the ET-2 caused this. I know that Bruce Thigpen advises using a high-compliance cartridge in the ET-2 which I thought ran counter to an earlier argument. The 103R is a low compliance cartridge. The other argument in favor of pivoted arms versus linear tracking arms is that pivoted arms have deeper/punchier bass.

I just received my new Stereophile rag last night which contains a review of the latest Walker table and arm written by JV with an interview of the Walker principles. JV used my same arguments that I started this thread with to explain why linear tracking arms are better than pivoted arms. It was also interesting that JV poised the question to Loyd Walker about pivoted arms having better bass than linear tracking arms and Loyd's answer was something to the effect that pivoted arms appear to have better bass because their bearings are chattering!

I think Dertonarm's argument is that you can't defy the laws of physics and because you don't see any apparent damage to your cartridge doesn't mean that it is not being stressed and therefore shouldn't be a concern. The flip side to this argument is that well, if I can't see it, it obviously doesn't exist.

Personally, I love the sound of the ET-2 and I wasn't convinced it could get much better in the arm world. For me, the ET-2 set up properly exhibits a master tape type sound which frankly I love. However, unless you have been exposed to something better than what you have, it is easy to delude yourself and think nothing can be better.

As I said before, Dertonarm has convinced me that there may be more in the grooves than I am hearing with the linear tracking arm and I am intrigued enough to give pivoted arms another shot. If it truly sounds better than my ET-2, I will be a happy man regardless of the additional benefits of less stress on my cartridge stylus/suspension. I hope to be up and running with my FR64s this weekend if my armboard is finished in time. Everything else is ready and waiting.

If someone here is an ME and can show through physics that Dertonarm is incorrect in stating that there is more force applied on a cartridge when installed on an air bearing linear tracking arms due to its high horizontal mass dragging the cartridge across the record, please speak up. Otherwise, those who don't believe it are basing their argument on how long they have owned their cartridge and the fact that they don't see/hear anything wrong with it after long-term use rather than denying that the laws of physics apply as Dentonarm has explained.

And finally, I can tell you that if the FR64s doesn't sound better than my ET-2, I won't hesitate to reinstall it to gain back the quality I had before I tore it down in anticpation of the FR64s. I will take my chances and hope it doesn't screw up my new Benz Glider SL if I lose the magic I had when I used the ET-2. Honestly, I am rooting for the new set up because we always want to improve our systems after we spend large sums of money-not take a step backwards.

Ok, I phoned techs at both Grado and Soundsmith (since they also do retipping) if they have found that linear tracking arms cause excessive wear and/or damage to cartridges.

Both techs were fairly clear in saying "no", given that the arms are properly set up(level, etc). The only caveat offered is that there could possibly be more issues with highly compliant carts as compared to medium compliant ones.

If anyone is in the same time zone as the European and Japanese cart manufacturers(ZYX, Dynavector, Shelter, Koetsu, Van de Hul, Benz Micro, etc) give them a call see what they have to say.

I just want to know if premature or excessive wear/damage due to modern linear arms is common since I own both linear and pivoted arms.

So, my Souther mounted on a vacuum turntable does not cause excessive wear because I do not play warped records; or it does cause excessive wear, only I don't seem to be able to notice because.....................?
Or, is it more accurate to say that poorly designed liner arms, and arms out of adjustment, cause excessive wear, and liner arms are more likely to stress the cartridge tracking warped records than pivoted arms?

Samujohn, in a word, no. Fred's point about using vacuum is well-taken; record warp will contribute to the issues of air-bearing linear trackers. This quote

The problem is that most tangential arms have historically not been well designed or executed.

is the most telling.

Mikelavigne, about 20-25 years ago someone figured out that the Reynolds number for a bumble bee's wing was not being calculated correctly. Once the right Reynold's number got into the math, it turned out that bumble bees fly just fine. That example does persist though, just like most people still think that Marconi was the inventor of the radio.

Have we then decided that the charge against liner arms ".......(they) put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge" is unsupported, and are now simply discussing the theory of the best tonearm design?

Well said, Dertonarm. Well said.

A tonearm is a mechanical device, let's stick to talking about its mechanical operation and design issues, regardless of one's sonic impression either pro or con. Unless someone can articulate well enough to relate the sound to the tonearm's physical attribute, it's still mostly a bunch of impressionistic ramblings. I am sure many people just can't wait to jump on talking about how wide the "soundstage" or "PRaT" or other pornographic details. Spare me.

______________

Mikelavigne, science can long explain why bumble bees fly .....

You are referring to days long gone by while using a phrase abused today. However - long term subjective observations are always subjective.
Logic - isn't it ?
The fact - which I do not deny - that in certain individual linear set-ups the owners did not observe any damage or problems doesn't prove anything, but that the respective owners did not observe any problems........
I neither imply that any of the respective users did not observe correctly or that his impressions were wrong.
What I still say, is that mechanical laws are set aside with little to no second thought if they do not fit audiophile preferences or impressions or ownership.
I had the Air Tangent, ET2, ET 2.5, T3F, Forsell and Versa Dynamics (the last one for only a short period however).
I know my impressions and even if each of these linear trackers was tempting and promising in several ways, me owning them didn't wipe out the clear mechanical dilemma which most (NOT all - the Versa Dynamics had other problems) of them did face by design.

Fred is one of the most reliable and sensible sources I can think of. I've known him for more than 20 years, probably closer to 30 years.

Fred and I have spent many evenings listening together any many more on the phone discussing preferences.

His position at Dagogo. is new compared to our friendship, I assure you his report is genuine if he put it in this forum.

His experience is one I can believe in, no axe to grind and zero ego, not to mention he has no horse in this race.

audiophile impressions versus mechanical laws

long term observations on cartridge durability on a linear tracker is not 'placebo' or 'audiophile impressions'. Fred did not imagine that his vdH Cartridge had no problems. i did not imagine that my vdH Colibri worked great for 5 years on my linear tracker.

heroic execution of design seems to trump expected limitations of concept in some cases.

bumble bees should not be able to fly, but they do.

The discussions has been very interesting and very informative. As just a hobbiest, I enjoy reading points are mixture of M.E. peer review and personal experiences. Not all postings are equal, nor should be followed, but it does seems that decent tonearm discussions have that more of right blend of theory, practice, execution and sound reproduction that can help readers, like me, make informed decisions on products to look into for demonstration. Thanks to thread contributors thus far and keep it going.

Individual - yet subjective empirical... - audiophile impressions versus mechanical laws.....

Agreed.

Great points for this topic Fred.

My Rockport TT replaced a Goldmund Reference with a T3F tonearm in which I had used a Clearaudio cartridge. Given that the T3F had destroyed, at least one Clearaudio due to lateral deflection, I was concerned that the Rockport arm might have the same problem. Andy explained that the real culprit in most instances of damage to the cartridge suspension is record warps. For this reason, the Rockport uses a vaccuum hold down. At this point, Andy was the distributor for the Vandenhul Grasshopper cartridges which had notorious suspension problems. Andy said that used in his TT, the life of the Grasshopper would be greatly extended (3X). Anecdotally, I bought a Grasshopper at the same time that I purchased the TT and never had a single problem with it. IMHO, a properly designed and executed tangential arm offers some real advantages over a pivoted arm. The problem is that most tangential arms have historically not been well designed or executed.

Hope that this helps.

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

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.
_______

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

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.

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.

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,

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.....?

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?

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.

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 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

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

Vbr,
Sam

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?