Rabco SL-8E Vs Top Quality Pivoted Tonearms


I am very curious to find out your opinion on the following question……is a Rabco SL-8E linear tracking tonearm (in top operating conditions) as good as a top quality pivoted tonearm such as Graham 2.2, VPI JWM 9, Triplanar, etc., etc. while concidering the following parameters.
The Rabco is not the top quality linear tracking arm ever made but it has the inherent advantage of being linear tracking (as similar as possible to the cutting tool) where the Graham, VPI, Triplanar, etc. are top quality arms in built quality and design but have the shortcomings of a pivoted approach.

So, given the lower quality but better methodology for tracking of the Rabco against the higher quality but less accurate approach for tracking of the pivoted arms which one do you believe will render, all else being equal, the better sound reproduction the Rabco or the Graham, VPI, etc?
ruben1

Showing 1 response by ronlev

I agree that the Rabco SL-E8 is "primitive" by modern standards, but Rube Goldbergian it is not. My Rabco (though heavily modified by Steve Katz—does anyone know where he is these days?) has operated faultlessly for 35 years! More modern designs have often suffered from reliability problems (ask any Goldmund owner). Theoretically, I agree that air-bearing arms are superior, but they have their own idiosyncrasies, such as noisy pumps and moisture buildup.

Probably the Kuzma is the closest modern analog to the old Rabco, though at a cost of $11,000 (the same current price of the Air Tanagent). By contrast, my Steve Katz-modified Rabco sold for the then outrageous price of $400 in 1977 ($1551 in current dollars). Of course, that inflation is characteristic of most high-end audio products these days.

RonLev
Philly