I just installed mine and discovering my old records anew. I thought I knew everything there was to know on the original pressing of Fleetwood Mac's Rumers......but no - there's more. You immediately hear a more solid bass, but then the dynamics hit hard. It sounds like my amp is on steroids. More cleanliness, - everything is better. Very highly recommended.
Dear @billstevenson : No malign action here. I own, owned and heard several unipivots including VPI and as you I know what I’m talking about.
Your " facts " about can’t prove that I’m wrong in my main " at micro levels unstability in any unipivot tonearm ". Reason is that those measures were not made it to prove it but to prove other targets. We have to know what kind of measures where and how to achieve it to prove a specific subject. This time: at micro levels unstability in unipivot tonearm designs.
Your " facts " were as something of every day audio discussion, like this:
""" measures shows that these two amplifiers mearsures exactly the same but sounds different ! ! ? ? ! """
Problem there, that we don’t know what to measures to explain why sounds different. Same with your old " facts ".
In the other side you posted two facts that proves what I’m talking about:
""" my Prime single pivot tonearm was recently modified and significantly improved sonically by the addition of a second pivot """
""" It is doubtful that anyone who does this will decide after experimentation that the 2nd pivot does not provide a positive benefit. """
2nd pivot according my statements provides better stability. The only change in the VPI 2nd pivot is just the 2nd pivot that is what makes the difference.
The OP statements in his thread confirm my point.
Bill, remember that those huge forces at cartridge stylus tip during playback " makes " its works, the movements in the stylus tip has no precise pattern due that happens at random.
Here it’s not who has the reason, it’s only " common sense ". I respect what you posted but unfortunatelly does not proves what you think are proving. At least not if I’m wrong for this you need different " facts ".
Btw, you can make your research and try to learn ( for sure. ) what measures we have to do that can explain my point or better yet: that can explain why I'm wrong !. You was whom ask for facts due that those two stamentes posted by you were not enough for you be satisfied ! ? ! ?
This is a response to Raul's contention that there is a "problem" with unipivot tonearms. I am studiously trying to avoid the exchange about VPI and overhang. I had read all of Raul's posts, watched the You Tube video (actually I saw it several months ago) and so on, but did not find it particularly enlightening or persuasive. It falls far short of proof in any scientific sense that a problem exists with unipivot tonearms. Yes they wobble a bit at first drop, but stabilize very quickly. I have measured the tracking performance of several setups over a number of years using test records such as those from Shure and Ortofon among others. Properly set up, the ability of any given cartridge to track well is not noticeably different when mounted in a unipivot tonearm. This can be heard and observed using an oscilloscope. That is a fact. Cross talk for any given cartridge is not measurably diminished based on two arms of comparable quality, one double gimbal type vs. a unipivot. That is a fact. As any stylus wears I have carefully observed the patterns of wear for cartridges mounted on quality arms of various designs and have not observed any aberrations in wear patterns that resulted from unipivot arms. This has been done using a Herr-Wildbrugg microscope, Model M3 or M5 starting in 1975 or 1976. That is a fact. So based on my years of experience setting up turntables (professionally 1970-1979), and the observable facts cited herein, I will state my opinion that there is no inherent problem with unipivot tonearms. They are different and not to eveyones' liking, but functionally they are fine. If you don't like them, don't use one, but you have no cause to malign the design.
I get it. If you really think I'm jumping up & down, red in the face..why would you antagonize me with the "cole" remark? Wouldn't it be more productive to answer my posts/questions straight on without deviating from them? Just waiting for a competent response to my previous posts?
Just a post ago you told me to try the Fieckert. When I had previously mentioned it in order to make my point. Try proof-reading your own responses/posts before making another post, please!
You choose your responses to advert your/ initial response for your own advantage as to not address my thoughtful posts. You are/have seemingly made your history on this "off-the-hand" maneuvering.
Believe me, I'm confident in my posts. Please just make an appropriate, honest attempt in answering them without the histrionics!
Overhang adjustment. @stringreen, I assume you know that there is an adjustment feature in the 3D arm for this at the headshell? Right? This is the end-user's discretion based upon the varrious cartridge mounting holes. This is THE reason for this "latitude". The S2P distance should be set as a NON-ISSUE! I thought I was tired before,... now I"M REALLY TIRED!
Slaw....I can see you jumping in place all red in the face. You seem to simply don't understand why there exists such thing as overhang adjustment. I can explain it to you, but you would probably retain the information if you get it from your research. The arm's error in tracking a record can be placed at the beginning, middle, or end of its traverse through the side.....there are advantages and disadvantages in placing the worse error or average error in the stylus's path. VPI has chosen a different path than Feickert....choose your poison.
@stringreen, As I stated earlier, I use the Feickert. Believe me, I’m not jealous in the least. Your recall of your ceramic platter recommendations are different from mine. This is easily researched if anyone would like.
For a 40 year old company to have any product currently produced with complete and total control of their production to have the S2P distance so far off, wait, what did I just say,...I meant to say off at all, is outrageous! If it doesn’t affect the sound, is not the point of the discussion to me, it is the ability to "get it right". Plenty of questions regarding this on their forums.
When I bought my Classic 3 Sig SE, nobody told me, by the way, you S2P distance is going to be off by a couple of mm. Nobody in the press ever bothered to mention this.
Stringreen, I don’t want to spend thousands of $ on a TT only to find I now need to disregard my purchase of a $250.00 protractor that tells me the TT manufacturer is wrong. You say "it just depends where you want to put the errors". I’d much prefer to have the TT come to me manufactured correctly, and any error that is incurred to be one of end-user fault by way of not aligning the cartridge correctly. The fact is, as far as I know, Harry will not release what alignment he uses. Why??? Check out the exhaustive post on vinyl engine regarding this.
@bdp24, I think in the history of TT designs, I felt that the HW-19 series will have the most impact. The TNT is a completely different animal.
Slaw, you prefer the HW-19 to the TNT? The latter has always appeared to me as being a very high mass version of the former. But I never looked into it that much, as I was "sold" on the design of the Townshend Rock.
Folkfreak.....don't freak out. The difference is INTENDED. ...it just depends where you want to put the errors. Matt's answer is ok...just not completely explained.
@stringreen it doesn’t matter what alignment you are using if you have mounted the arm at anything other than the P2S it was designed for you will not be able to align it (or not for all cartridges given possible play in the cartridge mounting slots). Desired accuracy for P2S is at least +/- 0.1mm and is easily achievable by anyone taking care in mounting an arm. It amazes me to hear a tonearm manufacturer tolerating tolerances this sloppy
also....slaw..... I am well acquainted with the ceramic platter. There is one right on my turntable as I write. I compared the ceramic with the regular metal one.....absolutely no difference at all with the sound....but I like the ceramic one because it doesn't show fingerprints at all. It is not in production because it was more expensive to make, but not an upgrade in sound. It really is only a Classic platter with a spray covering....not a completely ceramic platter.
I don't know if this is so...I read it somewhere that VPI doesn't use Baerwald or Stevenson dimensions for their stylus to pivot measurements. I personally use a Mint Protractor (not sure what he uses either) ....I would use the Fieckert gizmo if I were you.
Look at the S2P distance on their current models? On my Classic 3, there is a difference when measuring with my Fieckert to what VPI recommends by 2mm. Why in the hell can’t VPI get their own, in-house made, products to scale out as to their own specs?
When I asked Mat about this, his response was, if it’s in a 2-3 mm range, all is OK.
NOT WITH ME!
bdp24, I'm not being harsh, I'm being real. Thanks for your input!
Really good points, slaw. I didn't want to be that harsh, trying to give Harry the benefit of the doubt. But your assessment is more on point than mine. I feel the same way about ARC, finding their frequent and endless updates and revisions of current models, and New! Improved! model introductions, cynically timed to keep the cash flow of the company healthy. That is a viewpoint very much belittled by hardcore ARC defenders (apologists?).
How frequently/often should a company make changes to their current models, and introduce new models which mock the old? I don't know if there is an answer to that question.
stringreen, I’ve been somewhat a critic of yours for a while. Mostly because of your willingness to (seemingly) support any product that comes out of Cliffwood. I remember asking you a few years ago about your recommending the ceramic platter. Upon my asking, I found out that you had never owned one but that your recommendation was based on Harry’s recommendation.
Yes! A company’s goal should be to improve their product. Most companies take a year or two to roll out an improved product. VPI has condensed this down to what seems like every 1/4. This, to me seems like that at every whim Harry has, for a new product, he has the ability to put it out for the masses with little regard for inherently new/better designs that will stand the test of time, but for the almighty advertising dollar/social media talk that seems to drive VPI’s popularity along with the ongoing Talk on threads such as this.
This is not good for the industry as a whole IMO. VPI has hit on a rare point in history where they can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of most.
Will one ever see the interest in a VPI product 20 years down the road that there is now for a Rock 7, that has only been out of production for about 5 years? Highly unlikely!
stringreen, it's not VPI's (or anyone else's) attempts to keep improving it's product(s)---making incremental improvements to a model over time---that it's detractors find objectionable, but rather their history of first embracing one design philosophy, then abandoning it for a second of a completely different nature, then a third. And with each new design, claiming it to be the best way to make that component. I myself don't feel that way, thinking that Harry just came to embrace different designs at different points in time honestly, not cynically. One may buy whichever VPI design one prefers. Or none of them!
There are more extreme examples that can be cited, particularly the myriad of different models offered simultaneously by some speaker companies. Making different speaker models for different applications, room sizes, maximum SPL and/or bass extension capabilities is a very sensible and justifiable practice. But to make speakers of rather different design for the same application does not speak well of a company's integrity. A few speaker companies not exhibiting this lack of integrity are Vandersteen, Magnepan, Eminent Technology, and Wilson, perhaps one factor leading to their long-term success.
Slaw - isn't the goal of a company to make a product better, and bring in additional capital for that effort? Honda is a better product now than it was in 1960, as is Apple, Boeing, et al. People vote as to the success/failure of the innovations with their checkbook....the American way.
So true, slaw. While having made a number of turntables worth owning (though not tonearms---unipivots suck!), VPI has little credibility in terms of a design point-of-view or philosophy. Or, I guess Harry can claim, it has "evolved" ;-).
In conclusion?... Is this yet another of VPI' finding a way to make a product that at the time, was (well thought out) and later developed an accessory to make that product better? Probably. But we've been through this before, time and time again. And yet we still fall in line to buy, time and time again. At once it's an on-board motor, then an out-board motor, then a tri-pulley, then a rim drive, then a 300rpm motor then a 600 rpm motor then a mag-drive, the a direct drive. In the end, we're all trying to figure it all out while they are reaping the rewards, time & time again. If you are like me, It's hard to figure out exactly what part I have from which vintage VPI TT? I think looking at their homepage, even they are wrong on the product dates! Shew!..I'm really tired.
I’m reminded of the Art Dudley video. Anyone watched it? In his wisdom he states that we are all listening to distortions in some form or another. It comes down to which distortions agree more with one’s own perception of their musical truth.
Sorry Raul, while I tend to side with you in this particular discussion, your "...enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS" is a valid pursuit, but not a reasonable ultimate reality.
I think the best compromise to the "2nd pivot" is @robes initial question regarding the Townshend trough. If available, it would not only address the "swaying" without adding a "2nd pivot" thereby changing the whole arm’s reason for being, but positively affect the cartridge resonances. A more perfect option.
@stringreen’s statement earlier that the cartridge’ suspension should take care of the 3D arm sway is I think, asking too much of the cartridge.
If folkfreak's post above is accurate, it should have been corrected immediately so as to not deceive in any way, future customers! However, it's easy to find videos of the arm swaying side to side until it becomes steady by way of natural causes, which is the entire argument in a nutshell, isn't it? I experience it every time I lower the arm onto a lp.
@billstevenson, My posts regarding the different clamps/weights involved comparing them alone and with my mats and the differences I found. The mat/s won out with no weights/clamps easliy.
@billstevenson Raul’s point is to look at 12s in where there is a needle drop with an Ortofon cartridge, the arm swings noticeably which Raul maintains shows the inherent instability in Uni-pivot designs (absent a pseudo second pivot like the one under discussion). Funny thing regarding this video is that the ML turntable is actually a gimbal design, the stupid art director for the video dropped in a shot of some other VPI turntable! This was all discussed earlier in the thread (see entries dated 7/26-7/27)
Well so much for the Rock 7 Townshend TT and/or trough damping system. Check their website they don’t list TT’s as a product they make anymore. I contacted the U.S. distributor, here is his reply:
Can the Townshend damping system trough be bought separately?
Sorry, no.
Reviews on the Rock 7 seem to imply it. My thought, to mount one to a stock new VPI Prime using the unipivot 3D arm, possible? Could you give me a ball park price?
Not sure why. It was an excellent review. (The reviewer still owns a Rock 7, by the way.)
and got me thinking of the above fix to the Prime. I copied the paragraph below which steered me away from the TT. Key was the added expense of a DC motor/power supply rather then the expense of just throwing $$ at cords, which I feel would be my scenario also. The reviewer highly suggests that the Rock 7 needs to be setup with help from a dealer versed in the matter below. My big problem is living in an isolated area at high elevation in NW Montana with a dealer probably close to 1000 miles away- not going to happen. Hey, I got electricity. Anyhow, hard to imagine such a messed-up setup and easiest get around cost $1900.00- Any comments on this ??
Okay, now I get it. I don’t see the power cord issue as insurmountable. Nevertheless, setting up the Rock did (past tense, as it is no longer made), require expertise having nothing to do with power cords. The VPI is a much simpler proposition. Dan MeinwaldEAR USA
P.S. I also contacted the Townshend home website Contact page. They simply didn't acknowledge my inquiry at all, so I guess they are out of the TT business-
Dear @billstevenson : I know that you did not read all my posts here and you don't have to do it but in one of them I posted this link and you can see what happens with any unipivot tonearms ( in this case VPI. ) about that unstability true problem that does not happens with pivot fixed bearing designs. Data?, here is a fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTTLM9gPU9o
With respect to the question concerning clamping, I have a Stillpoints LP1, which I use interchangeably on both my VPI Prime and on my SL1200GAE. It makes a difference sometimes, but not on every record. Generally records that are flat and 180 gram or heavier seem less affected by it. I also have a Periphery Ring for the VPI and it definitely makes a difference on any record that is warped. So much so that the Prime is my go to TT for warped records, regardless of any other consideration. At the same time, for records that are not warped I hear no difference is sound with or without the use of the Periphery Ring. In the interests of complete disclosure, my Prime is controlled by Phoenix Engineering Roadrunner/Eagle so speed accuracy and stability are pretty much the same with the ring or without.
With respect to the effect that the 2nd pivot has on the VPI arm it is extremely easy to back the 2nd pivot off and away from the pressure plate once set up to hear and see the difference. It is doubtful that anyone who does this will decide after experimentation that the 2nd pivot does not provide a positive benefit.
With respect to Raul's arguments concerning unipivot tonearms, they are not clear to me, again I find it difficult to understand him, this is a language barrier problem for me, so perhaps I am misunderstanding? Anyway, he seems to be arguing that there is some inherent "problem" with unipivots in the area of stability at the cartridge-stylus interface with the record groove. He states this as a fact, but offers no data. I would like to know what exactly the "problem" is with the data to back it up. I am skeptical that there is any real problem.
Dear @robes: A clamp normally reduces the resonances/vibrations/feedback existent between the TT platter-mat/LP surface with the stylus tip. and from this point of view always is a benefit to clamp the LP.
With clamp or with out it the unipivot tonearm stability will be there, you can't avoid it using any clamp type. The second pivot is not the total cure, it's only something to reduce the stability problems. Best is to look for pivot tonearm with fixed bearing design because the cartridge needs full proof stability: zero tolerance.
Unipivots are more easy to design but is not a tool to use for a cartridge ridding LP grooves. Is a mistake to use it that goes against the quality level performance. I know that some audiophiles really likes it but ( even that they don't know. ) it does not means is rigth.
We have remember to " see " the stability subject at the microscopic level that is where the cartridge stylus tip has to " negociates " those " rude " LP grooves. Believe me that the cartridge tracking job is a really hard and huge task and not so simple as we can imagine it.
Slaw- Nothing less then thrilled to hear from you. In reference to your reply about the clamps, in keeping this in stride with the OP's discussion (and posting etiquette) , have you (in regard to your VPI) noted any increased stability of arm by using the clamps. Of course, that would have to be in regard to use with a unipivot, if that's what your VPI has.
I find it interesting that you prefer no clamps. If I bought a rather warped record today I would return it as I always did years ago (sometimes not buying the album after 3 tries cause the whole lot is bad). My innate feel is that the clamps could sharpen or affect the sound in some way, simply for it's bed rock foundation (& how that would interplay with cart/stylus) - then again, for better or worse dependent on TT setup I presume.
I have never used a clamp, so I know not what I say, and I have never heard a clamped record play. As others here I'm reading and not in tune with experience. I've read probably 2 reviews (at least 1) that swore clamping made better sound, specifically with the ring on the Prime with 3D arm (of course that is the link I have searched my history back a month for & can't find- then, it was just a review).
So, I hope others chime in on the clamp effect in relation to stability issues on the unipivot arm. I have no electronics background but a year of physics, & it's that which made me think clamping a record no matter if warped or flat will make a different foundation to which sound can be affected. Bring the warped ones back and I'm thinking clamp the flat ones to affect sound production which could be beneficial dependent on the TT setup. But does it make a flat record sound better, if so, then I would assume it has a stabilizing effect on the arm.
I have nothing to experiment with, some of you do, I just brought the clamping issue up to see who has noticed any beneficial stabilizing affects it may have on the unipivot.
@Slaw; the Rock 7 is on my list but I don't want to hijack this thread with Townshend questions. I don't see a way to direct message you on this forum, is there? I have a pressing question on it. If there is no messaging here I can start a new thread- Robes
From my perspective, using the 2nd pivot, while it may be a sonic advantage, takes away the objective of the unipivot design. The addition of a damping trough, as in the Townshend, adds damping at the most critical point without changing the main objective of a single mechanical point.
This, to me, is the challenge of the potential project.
Hello. You've hit on a few things I thought no one would ever relate to but me. I'm a Townshend Rock 7 owner and a long time VPI owner.
I have a long term TT project in play. One of my thoughts was to integrate the Townshend trough into my own design. (Frankly, it should be incorporated into more designs.)
As far as integrating it into a Prime (unipivot arm), I would think it could only help. Your "Third" potential preference is a complete unknown. This is what makes this hobby fun! I hope you find a way to make it happen.
My current preference with my Rock 7 and using "flat records", I find using no clamp or weight brings me closer to the music. I own and have used VPI delrin clamp, VPI SS center weight, BDR two-piece clamp, Stillpoints LP-1, among others in several situations within my 3 tt combinations. I like a flat record with no clamp. This is in conjunction with my 1mm thick platter mat and the Funk Firm Achromat (used together.)
Hi All- The VPI Prime is on my short list for purchase and hence my interest in this thread. Not sure how well I can steer my way through what is “fake news” here & what isn’t.
In regard to the topic of the 3D arm/ cart stability issues I will throw out some of my questions related to solutions in that matter. I don’t have much of a background here but I have no shortage of questions after all I’ve read to date.
First, I’m interested in thoughts on the effect of adding the Townshend (silicone) fluid filled damping trough to the Prime 3D single pivot or dual pivot arm on the issue of cart/arm stability. Could this be a solution? See these articles: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/townshend.htm & http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/townshend-audio-rock-7-turntable-tas-209/ Here are some highlights/claims taken from the articles. * The damping trough can be added to any arm tonearm you want to stop from vibrating * The outrigger assembly insures intimate contact between the paddle and the cartridge, and damps the undesirable perturbations right at the headshell, while allowing the cartridge to follow the groove modulations accurately. * The front-end damping in effect disconnects the cartridge’s behavior from the arm’s behavior in good part. * The trough-damping gives a solidity to the sound. * The front-end damping reducing, effectively short-circuiting, most of the effect of the arms own resonances. * The trough-damping gives a solidity to the sound. * The bass becomes more solid and the whole more tightly controlled and stable.
Second, again in an effort to improve stability & relieve vibration, using the “periphery ring clamp” & “center weight clamps” in addition to or not addition to the silicon Townshend trough. I had a good independent VPI Prime reviewer address the effectiveness of the periphery ring clamp used alone who stated the positive audible improvement to the sound but I can’t find the link, & I sent so much time looking. But, this link maybe referencing the link I’m trying to find: https://www.audiogon.com/listings/tweaks-turntable-outer-ring-for-vpi-clearaudio-basis-kronos-hanss-rega-sota-music-linn-2017-08-04-accessories . Wayne’s makes aftermarket ring clamps which also have a centering devise to align the record. He makes the following statements. * The ring effectively removes record resonance and noise by up to 40%. * This is a huge improvement in dynamics, detail retrieval ,complete low-frequency control, 10 db plus in background noise reduction, up to 50% improvement SRA tracking. These all result in reference level vinyl playback.
Third, I understand that VPI does not believe? in the use of anti-skate (A/S) but the Prime is provided with a mechanism to enable A/S. I also see no reference for use of A/S on the “Rock 7” Townshend TT using the damping trough, nor see a way to enable it with this product. My interest here would be A/S use on the 3D Prime arm using the center & ring clamps with the Townshend damping trough using either the single or dual pivot. What effect would this combo of trough & weights have on the VPI Prime, could it alleviate any of the problems which this threat has addressed? And, would A/S be a probable necessary tweak necessary?
From my reading of a number of Prime reviews I’ll say this. I’ve seen cartridge manufactures recommend the “dual pivot” for use with there specified carts given to reviewers for their use during Prime reviews. I think the manufacturers suggesting better sound using the dual pivot. I also get the impression that most reviewers and audiophiles don’t necessarily hear a difference in sound quality by switching between single & dual pivot but rather it’s a usage issue. Some people being afraid they will damage the arm when using the single pivot, but feeling more confidence when using the dual pivot. This is just my “impression” of what I remember after reading these reviews. “I know nothing” as Sgt. Shultz would say.
...and another discovery with the 2nd pivot. This may or may not be true...true in MY system. When releasing the cuing device, if the Azimuth is spot on, the arm will be lowered straight onto the leadin groove. If off, even a bit......the arm veers off course.
..just a suggestion for those setting up the 2nd pivot. Attach the gizmo to the arm, but don’t let the 2nd pivot touch....just unscrew the adjustment until it doesn’t make contact. Use the Fozgometer, and then adjust the meter by very slowly screwing down the adjustment screw. When you get the ideal - only a bit off.... use very little adjustment to perfect the result.
I tried to follow this thread and went cross eyed. Maybe it is my limited intellect. All I know is that Springreen's original post is correct. What follows includes a lot of opinion based on limited or no experience with the product under discussion. I also cannot understand the broken English of Raul, which is unfortunate. Perhaps someone can offer a synopsis of his main arguments that would help to elucidate me?
I own one VPI metal arm with dual pivot, one VPI 3D arm with dual pivot, one SME Series III arm, and one SL1200GAE with gimbal arm. Properly set up they all sound quite good when mated to compatible cartridges and amplified with high quality electronics.
Dear Raul, It's ok.... I knew you were talking about a vintage item. I'm guilty of conversationalising off-topic. :( Apologies Stringreen. best regards, Bill
The 2nd pivot can be used on the metal arms, but may have a problem with some earlier vintage metal arms. Check with VPI and send them a picture and approx. purchase date so they can confirm the proper fit. Note that the 3D arm sounds very much better, and therefore the 2nd pivot will have an even greater advantage.
Pardon me if I have missed this in the previous post but is the second pivot an option on the metal arms as well as the 3D arms and if so would the benefits as heard by some be the same.
Thanks for your thoughts on the widespread use of ABEC9. Of great interest is the fact that that there are buyers who wish to supersede the Technics tonearm (excellent quality) on the new SL1200 with {insert as applicable} tonearm? Vandalism! :)
Sometimes, with gimballed, it came down to bearing quality and alignment. (Remember the Breuer arm?)
Moving on, it’s very common to see Forum questions such
as, “Is Product A Better Than Product B?”.
On this thread I’ve argued both merits and demerits of both
sets of products/methods. Examples of the above question could include “Is MM
Better Than MC?” or “Is Direct Drive Better Than Belt Drive?” or “Should MCs Be
Damped or Undamped?”. In each case there is no outright winner or global resolution,
much though everyone would appreciate that to be the case. Life would be simple
if it were.
I can understand that those engaged in the above topics sometimes
misguidedly expect a “winner”, as indeed they might do in this thread, but as you have
seen in the past it is not happening. The result is what we politely and affectionately
refer to as “debate”. ;^)
Gimballed tonearms have been in manufacture a long time to
the extent that they might be seen as the truer “soft option”.
To me, folk suggesting unipivot design/manufacture is “easier”
than gimballed is rather like saying that designing a pushbike is harder than
designing a gimballed tonearm because the pushbike has both gimballed bearings
and gears(!) ;^)
It’s meaningless because those concerned are trying to find their
own unique solution to a set of design problems.
In fact, many manufacturers will sub-contract the bearing
design and manufacture to an agency (Japanese companies are historically good
at this, as you indicated) after which it becomes an item on an assembly “tick
list”.
Who needs to pre-load and align bearings when you can get
someone better at it to do it for you? (to balance things up, Unipivot bearing
manufacturers can also get help if they need it.)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
