Philosophy: Bearing vs. Unipivot


I was looking at the VIV Rigid Float arm on AG today, and a couple of things struck me. Obviously, the primary one is that there is no arm offset on this arm, no overhang, no need for anti-skate. But, secondarily, I can really follow Ivor Tiefenbrun's thoughts on the Linn turntable: any relative motion between the stylus and the groove harms the sound. Stable bearings, whether gimballed or not, solve this situation. But there are so many unipivot arms out that are well-thought-out and well-regarded, including the aforementioned VIV.that there must be something more going on with them than there used to be, because there just HAS to be more relative movement with a unipivot arm than one with bearings. Someone please educate/enlighten me...
benjysch

Showing 1 response by benjysch

I want to thank you all, and to Doug have just a couple of comments for clarification. I understand that one part moving on the point of another constitutes a bearing. Perhaps I should have specifically named ball bearings, but then folks may have thought that I didn't know that knife edges were also bearings. Having a stylus captured between both vertical and horizontal ball bearings means to me that, apart from micro movement from bearing slop, the stylus will maintain azimuth, and will not tip to the right or left in the groove. That right or left tip is what I meant by relative movement. The same thing can be said for the old Rabco servo driven arm; it was always in front or behind the angle the groove was cut at. With this relative motion is a loss of information from the groove.
I know that there are many unipivot tonearms that are astonishing, so obviously these problems have been scotched, if not killed. Like you, and architect Mies said, God is in the details.