Comparison of sonic qualities of some tonearms

@mijostyn said "The air bearing does absolutely nothing to alleviate the high horizontal mass, that would be magic. "

I understand- I guess, from my crude understanding of mechanics/physics, this is the difference between "weight" and "mass,"- that is, while the air bearing, properly designed to account for the load (of the entire arm "carriage") will relieve the weight or friction between the arm tube and the travel rail, the mass of the carriage remains the same. 

@viridian - turns out, we have a mutual friend in our record collecting buddy, Max.

I have no absolute answer to this-- I’ve been using a couple of Koetsu stone bodies in the Kuzma Airline and whether it is the overall mass (horizontal) or the design of the air-bearing lateral tracker, it works a "treat"- the combination is lovely. I’ve always been a mid-range hound (long time Quad Loudspeaker listener), but on the main system, this arm-cartridge combo delivers very filled in, dimensional bass, making double bass recordings on LP (good ones, anyway), sound very lifelike.

How one would construct a controlled comparison would invariably involve what cartridge was in play. Unless I’m missing something.

I’ve mentioned this before here, (I think): at @albertporter 's- comparing on the same SP 10 mk iiii in one of Albert’s plinths, an Airtight Opus and a Koetsu Blue Lace, each mounted on their own respective Kuzma 14" arms. Both playing the same record simultaneously. That told us about the differences in cartridges.

@mijostyn - there’s more than one "way." Why the need to be so dogmatic?

I had a Triplanar before I bought the Airline and have since gotten a Kuzma 4 Pt 9" (No VTA tower). The Koetsu Jade (I also have a Tiger Eye) sounded better in the Airline. Yeah, working with air compressors, air lines and the like adds an additional layer of complexity to the process. But I think there is a level of masochism here that used to appeal to me. These days, I just want to turn it on and play.

Regards to all, including my doppleganger.

Ha. We had to listen to a few things that Max wanted to hear, including Patto on Vertigo. No problem. Queen sounded pretty spectacular- they made some killer sounding records at their peak and I hadn't listened to them in years. I did play the Patricia track from Art Pepper Today with Cecil McBee-- classic west coast bop, but we didn't go too deep into the jazz stuff. Thank you for the nice words on  TVP-- I've neglected it for a year, and that "stylus life" article by Mike Bodell has a long tail, as does Neil Antin's work on record cleaning. I hope to soon get back to writing. Max has nice things to say about you. 

@mijostyn - I won’t argue about sound engineering principles and do not pretend to be an engineer. I do remember people using arms like the Keith Monks with the old Decca cartridges back in the day. I guess I come back to the OP’s question, which was how to make an assessment of different tonearms. I gave a couple examples, including my use of the Koetsu(s) in a linear arm that does not have high vertical mass (although substantial horizontal mass which is, in theory, relieved by the air bearing). I do not know why the combination of Koetsu and Airline works so well but that’s been my hands-on (ears-on) experience. Ditto my remarks about the comparison of cartridges in otherwise identical arms on the same table. (I suppose @tomic601 alluded to this when he talked about possible variations in build rather than design, but I trust Kuzma enough to get that right).

I have a friend in audio circles who stands by the old SME 3012r as a great all-arounder, and knew plenty of people who, over the years, sought out higher mass arms of old.

@rauliruegas - my comment about "masochism" related to the additional complexities of running an air-bearing arm; the arm itself has been faultless and in service since around 2006. Dealing with the air compressor (I usually use the same Sil-Aire that Franc supplies), running air hoses through walls and dealing with oil based compressor motors just adds more "stuff" you have to deal with as a user. (I’m currently using a different type of compressor and it’s a little less of a headache).

*******

I have no last word on the subject-- I guess where I come out is that most people rely on anecdotals (or reviews?) based on cartridge and arm since as was pointed out early on, it’s pretty hard to evaluate different tone arms in isolation.

Bill

PS: I forgot to include one amusing anecdote- back in the early ’70s- one of the gang I knew modified a Rabco with a Vestigal arm tube. I have no memory of what it sounded like, since I think he was constantly adjusting it. Total nightmare.

Did anyone ask @drbond what the goal is with another arm? Improvement over the Reed (which looks very nice)? A second arm for mono or a cartridge that likes to see higher mass?

If you want an amusing read, go find j.g. holt's original review of the Transcriptor's arm- it is a hoot to read and the back and forth with the manufacturer in the follow up comments to the review are equally funny.

I have no overarching view on the merits of various tonearms- since I'm not looking at specs, and have to hear them in situ. 

@mijostyn 's comment about the lack of bass from a conventional linear tracker is fair, but somehow, changing the cartridge-- Koetsu stone, adding subwoofers and readjusting the entire system to a new room gives me dimensional, very filled in bass that sounds natural on the lower registers with acoustic instruments- piano, double bass, etc. So, even that "truth" about the lack of bass in the conventional style linear tracker can be shaded by context and may be system-dependent in my experience.