My 50 years in this hobby tell me there’s nothing really new under the sun. I understand that you may feel obligated not to reveal your sources, but you must also realize that your policy in that regard reduces the usefulness of your comments to others who might want to learn from your experience.
in my post at 9:47 today “we’re “ should be “were “. Autocorrect got me.
|
Pindac, why are you so secretive regarding the entity that modified your tonearm, especially since you here reveal that they have a product for sale in the current market? One cannot otherwise benefit from your murky descriptions. “Murky” in the sense that it’s not obvious what upgrades were done to your base tonearm that we’re so beneficial to its performance.
|
Mike, I do not doubt your testimony on iota. I am just thinking out loud about the two kinds of magnet and why would an electromagnet outperform a permanent magnet in this application. And of course, there can be any number of other reasons (such as field strength and field orientation for two examples or elements of construction totally unrelated to magnetism) why the FCL might outperform the Phantom (for one example of unipivot that uses permanent magnets). Because in the end the "field coil" is here used as a magnet, so far as I can tell from the outside looking in.
|
Aside from the fact that the strength of the magnetic field and its orientation with respect to the unipivot would or could make a big difference, why is the FCL superior to the best iteration of the Graham Phantom tonearm(s), which use permanent magnets to stabilize the bearing? I bring this up only for discussion; I have no preformed opinion, because I’ve used neither tonearm.
|
Mijo, you’re criticizing the FCL because the wand is made of wood? If I’m correct, then what about Schroeder and Reed? Both of which brands you seem to approve. I like them too. History suggests wood tonearms deserve to be evaluated on a case by case basis, just as one would do for any other type.
|
If you were 7” shorter you’d be more rigid. Your wife might like that.
|
Inertia and “effective mass” are interrelated terms (not “mass” alone). I get that the cartridges you like are not especially low in compliance, but that’s beside my point. which is that mass at the pivot does not much affect effective mass. And anyway some cartridges thrive in high inertia tonearms (Denon, Koetsu, Miyajima, etc). I’d bet the SAT is medium effective mass.
|
Mijostyn, you are consistent in your preference for low inertia tonearms, but we’ve mentioned before that some of the “best” cartridges are low in compliance and work best with higher inertia tonearms. So in a world where we are matching cartridges with tonearms, isn’t it a bit specious to suggest that low inertia is a quality you want in any and all tonearms, regardless? and anyway, I would agree with some others who have already pointed out that mass at or around the pivot has much less effect on inertia than mass either in the counterweight or at the cartridge/headshell end of the tonearm. I am sure you know that. So I am not sure why you keep insisting that the bearing of the SAT tonearm is per se evidence of high inertia.
|
To comment on the observable design and construction of a tonearm without necessarily speculating on its putative sonic character is no sin. If it is, we cannot have a conversation, since there are very few products, let alone tonearms we’ve all heard. And even in the case where we do share listening experience, we are separated by having done the listening in dissimilar systems . I only object to quips that are based on very high cost.
Anyway the Funk gizmo has naught to do with a $55K tonearm.
|
Just for the record, Larry, I did not use the word ”should” in reference to the desired location of the pivot and CW to the LP surface. I only said, or intended to say, that those are two theoretical goals of a modern design. I probably should have further qualified my statement with the words “for some”. I agree there are not many tonearms that achieve both goals. I think there is less controversy around the idea that the center of mass of the CW ought to lie in the plane of the LP surface. Decoupling of the CW mass from the pivot is good too. The late Herb Papier, the original designer and maker of the Triplanar and a very dedicated audiophile, told me that he thought the major improvement he made to the design of the TP after it was finalized and in production was to decouple the CW.
|
Using only the photos attached to the review, it seems that neither the pivot nor the counterweight lie in the plane of the LP surface. Nor is the CW obviously decoupled from the pivot. Those are all commonly accepted good practices observed by new modern tonearms, although I’ll be the first to admit that there are other great tonearms, especially vintage ones, that also don’t conform to those design criteria..
|
