Curved and Straight Tonearms
I am using 231.5, because I took a cue from The Tonearm, several years ago. I even aligned it with the UNItractor, the official protractor of The Tonearm, also known to me privately as the Super Dennesen. Using the FR64S template in the UNI, also supplied to me by DT. Thus I must be in Baerwald alignment. Nandric, When I received my FR64S from Japan, the bearing was "stiff". I actually followed the advice given, to leave it in the sun. A few hours on our kitchen table in the direct sunlight coming through the window was sufficient to loosen it up. Neither of our two sons tried to eat it. I've never had to do another heat treatment since then. |
Genesis 168, For those who swear by following the user manual you should mention that ''P to S'' distance as prescribed in the manual is 230 mm. Not 231,5 mm. The later is recommended by the first German review of the FR-64 S tonearm by ''Das Ohr" Magazine in April 1984. ''Our'' dertonarm was back than reviewer by this Magazine. This is of course the so called ''Bearwald geometry'' while Ikeda's 230 mm ''means'' Stevenson . |
Lewm, depending on cartridge compliance, you can easily match with different headshells. There are headshells from 8g all the way to 18g so you are pretty much covered. Yes both the 64s and 66s are amazing arms till today. I personally own over 25 arms (lost count) and that is still one of my top performer. I have modern arms like the Reed, Dynavector, Graham Phantom 2 and Graham Elite and of course the SME V just to name a few and the FR is just as good or better when set up correctly. Setting the FR up properly is the key. In another thread the correct P to S distance for the 64s was said to be 231.5mm and best aligned with the Dennessen Protractor. I have several protractors for the arm. A Wally tracktor and the Dr Feikert and they do not sound close to what a dennessen does. I have mounted and set up many of the 64s for friends and clients and all of them are shocked what the arm is capable of. Finally since this thread is about straight vs curved arms, there is really no best but more different. All types have their pros and cons. Buy whatever that sounds good and works for you. That's why you need a turntable that has the capability to take more than one arm. |
Dear Lew, The round plate before VTF adjuster has only decorative function. To get inside the arm this plate need to be removed. This plate is glued with a kind of ''weak glue'' but is, alas, not easy to remove . When removed the first thing we can see is the spring which has two functions. One is for the VTF adjustment the other is dynamic function of the arm. The mentioned spring is ''loaded'' in grease which can harden as function of time. Dertonarm advised ''watchmaker method'' to make the greas liquid: ''put the arm in the sun''. In my case this was not sufficient so I removed the old sticky greas from the spring and put new ''fresh grease'' instead. The VTF adjuster works smood since while possible resonances are supressed by the grease. Now regarding ''damping'' . I owned Triplanar VII for some years but never used ''damping provision'' with oil ''can''. Nor deed anyone else to my knowledge. So the Triplanar also lacks damping according to Raul. BTW you are wrong about ''inanimate objects''. ''Der Tonarm'' means the tonearm in English and both refer to an inanimate object but one of our former member has chosen this name as his member name. Yuo obviously ovelooked the real object of Raul's hate. |
Lewm, You are absolutely correct. Oil in the bearings will increase stiction and can even degrade the sound substantially at worst. I have no issue if Raul thinks that the FR64S is the worst arm he has ever heard in his system. However as you point out he cannot possibly ascribe the poor results he has experienced in his system to an attribute of the arm unless he has deconstructed the arm and run extensive lab tests trialling changes to the arm and measuring the results to isolate what each component and design element within the arm is contributing to any resonances generated by the cartridge on playback. Even then, the results can vary depending on cartridge, set up and arm board termination. Rauls' observations are only relevant within the context of the system in which has has heard the arm. He does not seem to grasp this concept and continues to make sweeping conclusions as you have alluded to. With my Naim Aro the arm tube is purposely undamped, the designers intent is to transfer resonances as fast as possible to the unipivot bearing, where the bearing design and low centre of gravity from the underslung counterweight are designed to add mechanical damping by about 6-8db, from whence the residual is sunk to the arm board via mechanical grounding.. |
genisis, I couldn't agree more with your observations. I discovered how sensitive my FR64S was to the positioning of the Lateral Balance weight by accident. My Final Audio Parthenon TT uses a gunmetal arm board and has no adjustment - the TT has no compliant materials in its structure and relies on precision machining of all components. One of my aftermarket custom machined arm boards was out only by a few thou of an inch and the net result was higher than expected anti skate force required. Experimenting around quickly highlighted that when the few thou error in the arm board was corrected the Lateral Balance ended up smack bang back in the recommended neutral position described in the manual and the anti skate minimal. This also suggests that the bearings in my particular sample are very sensitive. I currently own the following arms - Eminent Technology ET2, Naim Aro, Dynavector 501, Micro Seiki MA505iii (low effective mass) and 2 Fidelity Research FR64S'. My preferred arms for ultimate performance are the ET2 and Naim Aro, but each arm has its plus' and minus' - the results can depend very much on cartridge matching, turntable and setup and this is the point often missed. I use the FR64S with an Ikeda Kiwame and Koetsu Black. My current reference is Naim Aro/Dynavector Karat Nova 13D or Eminent Technology ET2/whatever. |
Genesis, I am using mine with a lightweight, non-FR, headshell, on which is mounted an Acutex LPM 320STR cartridge. I was prepared not to like this combination or to have a problem with bass response, at the very least, but I find that I do like it, and by this time I have been listening to it for nearly a year, off and on. The bass has great definition within the musical envelope, with no hangover or spurious rumble. From what I have read, the FR headshells by themselves are quite heavy, and I assume therefore that they account for a significant fraction of the OEM effective mass of an FR64S. I am also guessing that with my lightweight headshell, the effective mass is markedly reduced, although I haven't calculated it. Finally, the basis for Raul's criticism of these tonearms seems to be that they lack damping. I have noted previously that in fact the pivot does seem to contain some viscous liquid that actually probably does provide a bit of damping. I infer this from the fact that at cold temperatures, the bearing becomes a bit stiff, overdamped in fact. So, I think what might be going on is that Raul has a fact and an observation that he believes correlate. Fact: the tonearm has no damping (he assumes). Observation: He doesn't like this tonearm. He is drawing a correlation between his listening experience and a principle of construction that may not be valid. We audiophiles commit this sin of attribution all the time. What is valid is his personal opinion that he does not like the FR tonearms, for whatever reason. I am fine with that. I wish he could stop by and hear mine. |
As an owner of multiple FR tonearms including the FR66s and also have set u quite a number of FR arms for others, all I can say it is a very good Tonearm if coupled to the right cartridge. This is a very heavy Tonearm and best suited to very low compliance cartridges. Properly setting up the lateral balance weight is critical for that arm to work properly. There is a proper way of doing this. And honestly the weight almost always stays at the end of the shaft. That is from my vast experiences setting up these arms. |
Dover : I can see that you return for more more and push me to give an answer, good. """ This is not the first time that you have made big mistakes in setting up your equipment, I previously highlighted to you that you had installed your Dynavector Karat Nova ..... """ what you have in your link it was not a SET UP in my system. Even in the other pictures in that Agon advertasing ( where you took your link. ) the cartridge was mounted ( just for the sale pictures. ) in a tonearm that was not mounted in my system or a TT. So the only purpose of your link is to " hit " me but you can touch me with that no-sense post. """ In this post you were wrong when you advised people to "not use" the lateral balance """ I'm not given an advise for not use it but only what is in the manual that maybe Lewm did not read ( I know now that he had not the manual. ). """ headshell provided with the Dynavector Karat Nova is "terrible" when you say that you never used it. """ Use something for me is to do it regulary and I never used the 13D with that headshell. Was enough when I received it to mount just as it came to decided to mount in other headshell. In those times I was convinced of the importance to mate a cartridge with the rigth headshell. but you did it the same because you used the Karat Nova with an Ikeda headshell in the Dyna tonearm. Your recrimination posts proves nothing of what you want to prove. Instead of follow losting your time with those kind of posts try to be a better audiophile growing up to do it. I know is not easy for you when exist one or more tubes in your system, with no future here but you can follow enjoying your " terrible " FR. Great combination: tubes and FR ! R. |
rauliruegasRaul, It is clear that you do not know how to set up the FR64S correctly. "Adjustment" in English means 'do not move from the neutral position'. The 'neutral position' for the Lateral Balance is 5mm in from the end of the shaft as is explained clearly in the manual. rauliruegasIn this post you were wrong when you advised people to "not use" the lateral balance. As regards the "Dynavector Karat Nova" you say rauliruegasRaul, How is it possible for you to conclude that the dedicated headshell provided with the Dynavector Karat Nova is "terrible" when you say that you never used it. That conclusion would appear to be fanciful at best. rauliruegasRaul, Thank you for those kind words. I leave you with a quote to reflect upon from Daniel Boorstin - “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” |
Dear @halcro : """
At any rate....analogue-lovers willing to pay these prices for 35 year-old tonearms will do so knowing what these arms can do,..... """ that's the " trouible " with FR owners that like you: DID NOT CATCH YET WHAT THESE ARMS CAN DO ! ! ! ! but I hope that before any one die can learn about. Don't be too late halcro. Btw, @lewm : I used for a while the FR 66/64 and Ikeda tonearms since ( through the time. ) I learned the critical importance to mount a cartridge always in a well damped tonearm because is what any single cartridge asks for it can shows us its real and true quality level performance. FR are totally all metal undamped design and additional has that " terrible " VTF resonant mechanism that preclude its use with a cartridge. This is just common sense and if you have a decent well damped design with the rigth audio system comparisons in between is really easy. You know very well when I say: " rigth audio system ".. I can't use any more a single piece of audio that I know for sure that in inherent way does not helps to lower distortions/colorations in the system but the other way around. Lewm, knowing you I'm sure that if you already have ( that you have not, yet. ) that kind of knowledge/experiences you will do the same than me. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @dover : Of course I know exactly how to set up that arm. My post to @lewm was taking in count what the manual says: """ Note 2): the lateral balance device is provided to correct for the sideways tendency in tonearm movement that occurs when the TT cabinet is not used on a horizontal stand. Practically speaking no problems will occurif the TT is installed level. Therefore, you ordinary don’t need to pay too much attention to this adjustement ". yes the manual speaks about that 5mm.. In that same post I said that other tonearm designs use a lateral weigth for different reasons than FR. @lewm well I just found out the manual: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/fidelity-research/fr-64.shtml In the other side and I repeat it again because for you never had clear the explanation behind those pictures in an ad here in Agon and at very opportunity you have just come and try to hit me in any way, this only shows ( again and again. ) the very high level of frustration you have with me for long time because because many times showed you level of ignorance in discussions. That level of ignorance is different from my ignorance levels. Btw, you can’t hit me in that ridiculous way with the pictures or with the FR " unknowledge set up level ". Try to lead/surpass that high frustration levels in benefit of your self. For the people that unknow what’s behind those Dyna pictures here it is: I owned the Dyna Karat that comes with a " terrible/poor " dedicated headshell and I never used the cartridge with that headshell . When I put on sale I have to took pictures for Agon and I don’t care too much if the headshell position and that’s all. Who cares, cartridge sold but you took that pictures as a tool for your very high frustration levels. Good for you, live with. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear dover, I am glad that I provoked this lecture about bearings. The sense of our forum is also to learn and not only to exchange our opinions. I have seen some info about Ikeda's new tonearms but missed the info about new kinds of bearings which he used in his new tonearms. My (wrong) guess was that he made some sevings by omission of the lateral balance. Even by such prices the argument of ''savings'' somehow seems to work (grin). |
I would not want to be one of those who recently paid a premium for the FR66S, however, where the asking prices are up around $6-7,000.I’m not sure if you are overestimating Raul’s influence Lewm (if I am understanding you correctly)...in suggesting that the prices of the FR-66s arms have gone down since other folk paid a ’premium’ for theirs...? I have two FR-66s arms (as well as a silver-wired FR-64s) and have seen their prices stabilise at about $9000-$10,000 over the last few years... http://www.topclassaudio.com/web/eng/used_product_details.jsp?gid=8068 That’s if you can find any available at all...... There is a badly beaten-up one available with missing items and without headshells for $5,850 from Otoman Vintage http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/352099982219?rmvSB=true but this is hardly the quality that a serious collector or connoisseur will contemplate. At any rate....analogue-lovers willing to pay these prices for 35 year-old tonearms will do so knowing what these arms can do, And what they can do, compared to the very best ’modern’ arms....is still quite baffling! |
Nandric, There is a lot of myth in audio. The most common theory is that S shaped arms evolved from J shape to place the horizontal centre of mass of the arm tube/cartridge perpendicular to the 2 horizontal bearing points at the arm pivot closer to the centre. If you look at the J shape it places a high mass further to the inside and loads up the inside vertical bearing relative to the outside vertical bearing. As you lower the cartridge onto the record with a J shaped arm it will try and lift the inside bearing. With knife edge bearings such as the early J shaped SME's this means the inside bearing is unstable. Lateral balances are provided in some vintage arms to help correct the offset centre of mass of the arm tube/cartridge. Straight arm tube arms are more common now, but a key point is that along with straight arm tubes most modern gimbal bearing arms now have offset bearings; that is, the vertical bearings at the tonearm pivot have an offset angle that matches the optimum offset angle of the cartridge determined by the pivot to stylus distance. Most vintage arms including the FR64S do not have offset bearings. The disadvantage of non offset bearings is that when the arm goes up and down a rotational force ( twisting ) is applied to the cantilever - the use of a lateral balance never eliminates this effect, but it can reduce it somewhat. The lateral balance on the FR64S has multiple implications, because apart from providing adjustability to the inside cancelling force, the distribution of mass around the bearing housing alters the loads on the bearings, and ultimately the forces, both rotational and lateral, on the cantilever as the arm moves up and down and back and forth on eccentric records. For this reason rather than second guess ALL the engineering considerations that have gone into the design of the arm, one should set an arm up as per the manual in the first instance. We have a saying "a bad workman blames his tools" - this is so very true of poor tonearm and/or cartridge set up that all too often leads to indifferent results. |
Dear Dover, ''there are many ways to skin a cat'' but this philosophy does not apply for the lateral balance by FR-64. I have no idea why this distance of 5mm is mentioned in the user manual. By using the expression ''Apprrox 5 mm'' the manual is as ''exact'' as this prescription. Not as curious as Raul's ''leveling the TT'' with the lateral balance but it is difficult to judge which ''advice'' is worst. BTW why should anyone use ''approximation'' when the correct method is describd in the same manual? The possible exception is our ''exceptional Lew'' because his plinths are exceptional qua weight. Those can't be lifted (grin). ''The less the better or the heavier the better'' are both curious rules. Those are probably ''deduced'' from Aristotelian ''essences''. There is this principle called ''reduction of the complexity'' but this has nothing to do with Aristotelian ''essences'' because he was proven wrong by Galileo reg. physics and by Frege reg. logic. I also missed your opinion about shape. I like Lew very much but I think that he and, more in partucular Raul, are/is wrong with their ''J'' guess. Compare the (old) SME arms with FR-64 so even blind people will see the difference. Looking at the back side tube by FR-64 one can see the (slight) deviation to the right seeing from above. To get the innicial balance between the bearings the ''S'' shape is needed. The ''J'' kinds always need lateral weight for this purpose. The later Ikeda arms can obviously do without. This to me means ''S'' shape, |
lewmLewm, Please read my previous post to addressed Raul. Like Raul you clearly do not understand how to set up the FR64S correctly. The neutral position for the Lateral Balance weight is 5mm in from the end of the shaft. By "shoving the lateral weight up against the pivot as far as it will go" you are running the arm out of balance and your set up is compromised. In a good quality system this should be clearly audible. I would suggest you review the set up of your FR64S again to ensure that you are hearing the FR64S is it was intended to be used. |
rauliruegasRaul, you are wrong. The lateral balance weight should be set 5mm in from the end of the shaft on the arm pillar. This is the neutral position. It explains clearly in the manual ( page 6 ) that that if you adjust the vertical balance to 0 ( floating ), lift the turntable slightly and check whether the arm floats in or out then you adjust the balance in or out from that neutral position to compensate. By reverse logic, if the arm mounting is perfectly level, then the weight should be at 5mm from the end of the shaft. I have proven this by placing a gap checker under my arm board, and as expected when I tilt the arm board even a few micron the balance has to be adjusted in or out from that neutral position. Furthermore when the arm is mounted perfectly level, and the Lateral Balance weight is 5mm in from the end of the shaft, the anti skate force required will be optimised. It is disappointing that you would spend hours commenting on the merits of the Fidelity Research FR64S tonearm when you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand how to set the FR64S up correctly. You hold yourself out to be an expert, when clearly you are not, and many folk who make the false assumption that that you are correct will be now setting their FR64’s up incorrectly (with the Lateral Balance removed ). This is not the first time that you have made big mistakes in setting up your equipment, I previously highlighted to you that you had installed your Dynavector Karat Nova with the cartridge holder mounted on your arm upside down. Please find attached a video demonstrating where you went wrong on that occasion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-imxZHS8 |
Thank you for that input, Raul. And thanks for your response too, Nandric. I don't have the FR64S owners manual. So I assumed that the lateral weight had to stay mounted on its post; I therefore have shoved it up against the pivot as far as it will go, on the assumption that my turntable is level AND that even in the extreme position, the lateral weight is doing something greater than zero to compensate for the J-shape, assuming that is a good thing to do. I too wonder whether Raul's opinion of the FR64S has damaged its value, but since I am enjoying mine, I really don't care very much. I would not want to be one of those who recently paid a premium for the FR66S, however, where the asking prices are up around $6-7,000. But this is no reason for Raul not to express his honest opinion, his right to which I do defend. Nor do I doubt Raul's sincerity. |
Dear Lew, If there was something wrong with lateral balance or shape by FR-64 Raul would of course mention this many times instead of ''damping problem''. I made a considerable profit on his recommended MM carts because those increased in price as result. So I expected the opposite regarding the FR-64 because I am still looking for the perfect sample. Alas this never happened. You must be better in mathematics than I because everybody is better in mathematics. But regarding the shape which I guess has something to do with geometry (?) I am like this Serbian hunter and chakster: ''still a goat !'' (aka S shape). I hope your FR-64 is not mounted on one of your own made plinths? The only way I know to adjust the lateral weight is to lift the front side for about 10-15 cm and then move the weight in the opposite direction in which the arm moves ''on its own''. Till you get the arm in equilibrium. If whatever moves ''on its own'' then there must be some ''will'' present. Why not by inanimate objects? How do some(?) particles know where the other are (grin)? |
Dear @lewm : You are rigth, it's a J shapped design. Now, FR designed that lateral weigth balance mainly to compensate a non-perfectly leveled TT. Normally in the FR design that lateral weigth is not used if the TT is rigth on level. FR explained in its manual. Other tonearms designs use a lateral balance for different issue. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Nandric, I was just recently examining the shape of my FR64S. Would you say it is more "J"-shaped than "S"-shaped? That's what I concluded, J. An S-shaped tonearm generally has two curves in it; the FR64S has one bend. Either way, we know Raul hates it. He hates it with an intensity that seems inappropriate for an inanimate object. I, for example, only hate certain politicians. And yet, they pass for human. How do you set the lateral weight? I just have mine in close to the pivot. |
helomech, The Germans have this curious opinion: ''if theory and practice coincide than both are probably false''. I own the FR-64 designed by Ikeda san but also Ikeda 345 . Both have the same 'S' shape but the later is without the lateral weight. So, it seems, Ikeda was not convinced about (theoretical ?) advantage of this ''lateral weight'' by his previous arm. Your own ''bias'' is obvious because you used the expression ''the slightest weight bias'' with intention to belittle the issue(grin). I would say ''it depends'' , among other, from the weight of the headshell as well the cart. I own ''some'' which are above 30 g. |
The J and S shape tonearms (need to) use the so called ''lateral balance'' weight in order to get equal pressure on both horizontal bearings. The J kind is difficult to balance while the S can be balanced by lifting up the front side of the TT and then moving the later weight till the arm reach equilibrium postion. From this it follows (?) that stright tonearms can't be in equilibrium position because one side of the bearings get more pressure than the other. |
What brf and Lewm said is correct... and now add helomech. No manufacturer would make a curved arm if the industry did not adopt the SME style headshell that has no offset angle. The ONLY reason to make a curved arm is to have the offset angle at the armwand since the headshell is a straight geometry. The SME 3 has detachable armwand instead of detachable headshell so they have to make the offset at the arm. Curved arm is a result of geometric necessity. If a curved arm sounds good, it is good not because is curved. The curved Alphason tonearm is made of one piece tube so they have to bend the arm to have the offset angle. Rega is also one piece but straight because the armtube is cast aluminum. Much of it is the result manufacturing process. Many curved arms with detachable headshell also have a side weight at one side of the bearing is because the uneven mass of curved arm needs to be balanced. Again, form follows function. Hey, I use curved arm with detachable headshell because I like having the option of changing out cartridges not because curved arm sounds better. |
There's no real advantage to curved arms. TT manufacturers began making them because the convenience of removable headshells allow for quick cartridge swaps and easy setting of the offset angle. The advantage is the ability to place the cartridge square in the headshell and achieve offset angle. Like many trends in turntable design, the bends give no appreciable advantage in resonance control. Another marketing gimmick that doesn't produce any discernable difference under real playback conditions. |
@billstevenson Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My original question related to pros and cons of each type of arm and your comments are certainly in that vein. I know all of this can be very subjective and system/room dependent. I want to experiment a little with different cartridges and your "ease of use" comment relating to the Technics is something I need to consider. And please, to the group. I don't want to start a war of VPI versus Technics. I know VPI makes great tables. But, at my advanced age ease of use is a plus. |
So, who first promulgated that thought, Bertrand Russell or William Butler Yeats? In the Second Coming, written in 1919, Yeats wrote: "The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." It doesn’t matter, really. We see evidence of the truth in these sentiments on a daily basis, emanating from the White House and its environs. |
OK, here goes. Although it is correct to say that an "S" shaped tonearm often facilitates the incorporation of a removable head shell into the design, it is not axiomatic that this would be so. Case in point, the SME Series III is an "S" arm which does not have this feature. Rather it incorporates a similar interchangeable arm design to my Prime. It is also problematic to make bold statements about bearing configurations. For example, my Prime single pivot tonearm was recently modified and significantly improved sonically by the addition of a second pivot, developed by VPI. The GAE has a double gimball bearing arrangement. Using the same cartridge, the two TTs/arm combinations do sound somewhat different, but as to which is "better" or more "accurate" I cannot say. There will be those that make decisive statements about the merits of direct drive vs. belt drive, complete with golden ear claims about tone/pitch perfection and such, most if not all of which have been debunked over the years in repeated double blind tests. My SL1200GAE does have very steady speed, is quiet and all that. But my Prime, with it's heavy platter, excellent bearing and tripple belts, and aided by Phoenix Engineering Roadrunner Tachometer and Eagle PSU, is it's equal both measurably and sonically. In short, these are two superb turntables and both sound terrific. They are different ergonomically, with the GAE easier to setup and to use perhaps appealing to the record collector, the Prime perhaps appealing more to the true audiophile. I am not sure which of these two TTs is the better of the two. I am reminded of the wisdom of Bertrand Russell, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." |
I read Robert Greene's review of the SL1200G in TAS last night. I own an SL1200GAE and have done so for about a year now. Of course, it has an "S" arm on it. I also own a VPI Prime with straight tube arms (2) and have owned this TT for about 2 years. I also own another VPI HW19 fitted with an SME Series III, another "S" shaped arm and have owned this one since 1989. Anyway, if anyone is interested I will try and offer some additional perspective on the matters under discussion to the already excellent points made. |
| Post removed |
S arms are usually higher mass, often used with MC cartridges "straight" arms with offset headshells which are not removable pretty much defines all the many good/great tone arms I've heard or owned. For no tracking error, and no inner groove distortion, great mids and highs, very little wear to LP's - but with bass lacking weight get a Souther/Clearaudio and be done with it. |
"In the golden age of vinyl back in the 70s selling at Tech Hifi, Lafayette and Radio Shack I always levitated to tables with straight arms. Tracking was not nearly as reliable with massive S arm tables and carts." Perhaps the elegant and extremely effective SME "S" arms were overlooked? I recall one of the Stereophile sages declaring the SME Series III as his "gold standard" at the time. Straight or curved really doesn't matter. What is most meaningful is how well any particular design is executed. I'd take a well-engineered "S" arm over a mediocre straight arm any day. |
Either can sound very good if matched to the rest and set up properly I believe but personally I’ve always had better luck with straight tonearms. But in practice fact of the matter is I’ve never had results with S arms like with straight and most quality tables these days use straight probably for good reason. In the golden age of vinyl back in the 70s selling at Tech Hifi, Lafayette and Radio Shack I always levitated to tables with straight arms. Tracking was not nearly as reliable with massive S arm tables and carts. Often hard just to stay in the groove. Tracking a record is hard and mass and inertia is not your friend when it comes to tonearms with most records in practice. I prefered Thorens Philips and Linn over most Japanese tables with S arm. Even Dual at comparable price points. Maybe Micro Seiki...... I've gotten many years of listening pleasure out of a Linn Axis and even still a Dual 1264 with Goldring cart from 1981 still running in my second system. Both straight arm. |
Sorry to disappoint you guys but properties like stiffness depend greatly on type of material, mechanical properties of the material, length to diameter ratio, you can't just say J shape better than straight pipe or vice versa. Same goes for resonance. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about resonance which works to the advantage of people that market "tweaks" and cones. There is no way to tell which shape will be better. The resonant frequency of an arm tube will change when coupled with the headshell, cartridge, stylus, arm bearings and mount. The system (arm assembly) resonance is the all important parameter here. |
Raul, based on what I have learned over the last few years, I would also prefer a fixed pivot. I am the original owner of 2 Shure cartidges: V15 Type V-MR and V15 Type V, both with Jico styli. I use these on my Denon DP 52-F. For my Rega, I have the Elys that came with the table and a newer Exact 2 that I use now. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I like Rega, but I want to move to a table with adjustable VTA. BTW, thanks to all who responded, very enlightening. |
Dear @ericsch : In reality there is no true/real advantage on those kind of tonearms. The real advantage belongs to tonearm design and excecution quality levels of that design and that's all. Pivot bearing type can be a difference. Unipivot against fix ones. I prefer fixed ones. How many cartridges do you own? Regards and enjoy the Music Not Distortions. R. |
As some have already noted, s shaped arms tend be higher mass designs. The choice of arm (mass being a key issue) is generally dictated by cartridge matching (compliance), so you're usually nudged toward the curved camp or the straight camp by your cartridge. Beyond that, there are enough other issues at play (bearing design, adjustability, etc) that the issue is IMO low priority (beyond aesthetics). |
