VPI 2nd Pivot for 3D

mflaten,

You’re next in line for a free shirt. Just send Harry or Mat your size.

(insert appropriate emoji here).

The 2nd pivot works great and setting the azimuth is a snap using Wallytools. The 2nd pivot although it works well, it is a little hokey.  If VPI incorporates the 2nd pivot concept into a tonearm I will upgrade.

FWIW, I was re-reading all of these posts. The OP's initial thread post reminded me of my experience when going from my VPI Classic 3 Sig SE/3d arm to my Townshend Rock 7/Funk Firm FXR, using the same cartridge.

Dear @geoffkait : Yes, it's geometry and affects the alignment set up.

The VTA/SRA is changing continuously at each and over the LP side due to those  macro and micro waves in the LP but we can't do nothing about. So, we stay with the choosed alignment. It's a non-evitable trade-off.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Ah, so you're saying vertical tracking angle is not geometry. Interesting. 

Sloppy language @geoffkait "geometry" typically refers to the alignment of the stylus relative to the preferred arc and (absent gross off center issues should not vary disc to disc ('tho the truly anal might switch chosen geometries depending on the disc they are playing and where they want to put the maximum distortion 😉))

what you describe would affect the VTF/SRA/VTA relationship which while an important part of cartridge setup is not usually thought of as geometry. Plus it's easily addressed via adjustment of whatever VTA mechanism you're using

Due to the variation in thickness of the LP the geometry of the cartridge/tonearm changes significantly, enough to produce 1/10 degree change in geometry in some cases. Don’t they have on-the-fly geometry adjustment gizmos?

Dear @geoffkait  : """  That's why the geometry should (ideally) be changed for almost every record. """

Can you share with us a wider explanation about?, is interesting to know why we need to change the geometry at each record.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @billstevenson :  """  We do the best we can. And you know what? Don't despair, our efforts are not in vain.... """"

in those words you resume what I try to explain through my last post to you.

Now, the cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment it does not cares on all or any of the imperfect characteristics analog/LP has. Always we have to try that that set up been do it with high accuracy.


"""  a vinyl record very often sounds better than the digital equivalent for all it's claimed perfection.   ... """

Today that statement is so controversial for say the least. Today digital technology advanced " ligth years "  in the last 10 years and I think that today is way superior ( everything the same ) to analog/LP experience.
Digital is still growing up almost single day. I enjoy both formats but I know that digital outperforms analog. We can " close " the sun with one " finger ".
Analog is at's limits when digital still growing up and this characteristic is a welcomed for any music lover and audiophile.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

There was an article on cartridge/tonearm geometry and its relationship to distortion. As I recall if the geometry was off by as little as 1/10 degree in any direction the distortion would double. That's why the geometry should (ideally) be changed for almost every record. That issue all by itself is reason to go to CDs. Well, almost. 😀

I apologize for being absent for a few days.  I live is South Florida and Irma has turned our lives upside down here.  Anyway, without power and no air-conditioner it is difficult to get excited about turntables.  I have no idea what you are trying to say in your post above Raul.  Perhaps someone else can interpret for me?  Just in case my last post was not entirely lucid, my point was that no matter how precise we try to be with TT setup, the medium is inherently imprecise and compromise is part of the game.  No matter how careful we try to be, the records we play are themselves not perfect:  not flat, holes not centered, equalization imprecise, etc..  Everything is a compromise.  We do the best we can.  And you know what?  Don't despair, our efforts are not in vain because as most of us know full well, a vinyl record very often sounds better than the digital equivalent for all it's claimed perfection.  And we also know that we can strive for further improvement through refinements in setup, experimentation, ever improving cartridges and pre-preamps etc.  And, in the process we can have a lot of fun.  

Sorry, in last sentences we have to read: accumulates instead acculates.
R.

Dear @billstevenson :  """  How critical is the geometry issue in practical terms? Records are imperfect anyway. Get everything dialed in for side A only to discover that things are skewed for side B. """


Well, what means practical terms?. For you can be something different than for other gentlemans.

My take is that with analog/LP everything is of critical importance and certainly the cartridge/tonearm set up is extremely important and must be accurated. It makes a difference for the good or bad depending on that accuracy levels in the set up.

I totally disagree with the statement you shared because if we think in that way then what @stringreen posted about the Fozgometer " alignment " has no importance for almost no one when in reality it has.

Why we need to take care as better we can of any single parameter/set up in analog/LP?, because is a medium totally imperfect and we can't acculates additional " imperfections " in that " equation ".

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Just another point on the 2nd pivot.  Using the Fozgometer...take your time and get it perfect...it can be done with the 2nd pivot...just screw it down or up and it stays.  Its almost impossible to do without the 2nd pivot in place.  As the  Foz needles get closer, just a small adjustment makes a very big difference. My Foz meters are nearly pegged for both left and right.  It makes a very big difference in the sound.

Dear @slaw : """  But the 2nd pivot mod also changes the original design concept, thereby making it (not a unipivot anymore). This is, I think, the argument Raul is making and the point I was initially referring to. """

That's it, thank's to put the " ligth " on what I wanted to explain with out to much success.

@billstevenson , only for you can think about: the VPI unipivot and the one with the 2nd pivot overall are the " same " but the dual pivot performs way better.

My starting participation in this thread through my Stringreen anser was that the dual one performs better because the 2nd pivot gives it a way better stability.

Now, that was and is my argument but you disagree telling that the unipivot has no un- stability problems ( when in reality has. ).  You posted " facts/tests " trying to prove it with no success.
So, why all the named tonearm manufacturers gone for the dual design ( changing from unipivot to dual pivot. ) and all dual pivot tonearm owners attest with out doubt the dual pivot better performance if it's not that the dual pivot has now better stability that's something the cartridge ask/shouts for it.
No pun intented, just think about.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

"Mat at VPI offered to fix mine if I returned it...".

This implies that Bill Stevenson addressed this issue with Mat, (as a concern).

I never received this option when I spoke with Mat. If I did, I'd gladly take him up on it.

@billstevenson. Thank you for your honest response! It is what seems like a flower in a field of weeds.

I for one want to purchase a product that I feel, after reading for years is a solid product, I can have confidence in it’s accuracy of manufacture.

"How critical is the geometry issue in practical terms"? Wow! I would think, coming from you, it would be critical? As I said previously, I want the product I paid thousands of $ for to be accurate. The inaccuracy should come only from the end user.

"I wanted to avoid this can of worms". (A can of worms.. people, did you think you’d have to deal with a "can of worms" after laying out $$$???) Let’s try to define this...

(1) Why is this an issue to start with from an American TT manufacturer that has 40 years of history?
(2) ..on my question about revealing cartridge geometry... "Why limit applicability of their product?"

Lets start with #(2). How does having the tonearm geometry of a brand new TT/arm limit the applicability of said product? If it does, is it not on the manufacturer to let their potential customer/s in on this thought prior to purchase?

"I have a couple of questions that I would think be of concern to all VPI owners: @billstevenson, You may be positioned as our best form of information on these questions?

(1) The factory off-set setting of S2P distance by 2mm on my Classic 3....is this difference on any of their other TTs? The Prime? Why is it a good thing? If it isn’t, why are we experiencing it?
(2) Is there a good reason why a designer of TTs and tonearms won’t reveal their preferred cartridge geometry method? "

 I wanted to avoid this can of worms.  I don't know if I can help clarify or just add to the confusion.  My Prime has a S2P of 261.5mm actual, vs. the specified 258mm.  I had a protractor constructed for the actual S2P to address the issue.  Matt at VPI offered to fix mine if I returned it, but in my mind as long as the actual S2P is accounted for it shouldn't matter.  Not everyone will agree with my decision, but it seems to work just fine.  I will offer conjecture that the reason why any manufacturer would not want to reveal a preferred cartridge geometry would vary depending on their priorities and overall philosophy.  Why limit applicability of their product?  How critical is the geometry issue in practical terms?  Records are imperfect anyway.  Get everything dialed in for side A only to discover that things are skewed for side B (this happens all too often).

gshepardbuster:, From what I’ve read in this thread, the 2nd pivot is a (big) improvement on an initially flawed design. Where one may view this as a tweek, ( IMO, a tweek = an improvement that did not alter the original design concept) I view the 2nd pivot as an afterthought that by happenstance altered the initial design made better by way of more thoughtful consideration. To prove this, if all of the buyers of the 2nd pivot that (did alter the original design), have positive experiences, I can only assume the initial design to be flawed or at least had significant areas of improvement?

By definition, a tweek is an enhancement to a particular design or concept. The 2nd pivot is a change to the initial design, that changes the subset of the unipivot to a dual pivot.

IMO this second pivot is a tweek. As with all tweeks, some combos will benefit while others not.  I bought two kits but used only one between two arms. One arm is steel, the other 3D.  The carts are Ortofon Cadneza Red on the steel arm in which I much prefer the second pivot.  The 3D arm has an Ortofon Cadenza Black in which I prefer the uni pivot only.  My take away is that some stylus geometries benefit while others don't.  I don't feel I own a flawed design.  😊

@stringreen..."I can’t help wonder why there is so much discussion on this. Raul thinks the single pivot is flawed because it is unstable (wiggle)....the 2nd pivot stabilizes the arm and thus corrects the issue. It me it sounds better with the second pivot than without. Done."

Without realizing it, stringreen just answered Raul’s concern and my problem with VPI as a whole, in his summarization.

I have a couple of questions that I would think be of concern to all VPI owners: @billstevenson, You may be positioned as our best form of information on these questions?

(1) The factory off-set setting of S2P distance by 2mm on my Classic 3....is this difference on any of their other TTs? The Prime? Why is it a good thing? If it isn’t, why are we experiencing it?
(2) Is there a good reason why a designer of TTs and tonearms won’t reveal their preferred cartridge geometry method?

Doesn’t the fact that VPI has introduced the 2nd pivot option for their unipivot arm as an "upgrade", made clear by you and the OP, make a dramatic statement by their own admission that their unipivot arm is lacking and in need of additional design implementations/improvements?

@billstevenson. "Based on my limited experience with two arms, I am of the opinion that this mod benefits all VPI unipivots".

I can accept this. But the 2nd pivot mod also changes the original design concept, thereby making it (not a unipivot anymore). This is, I think, the argument Raul is making and the point I was initially referring to.

(In my experience with the 3D arm, it does not "hold" it's adjustment from hour to hour, day to day. I always have to check the VTF. A big inconvenience.)

I just wanted to make this point. Not to argue about it.

The best thing you can do to improve your VPI is remove the tonearm, sell it or through it away......Buy you even the cheapest REGA tonearm and the turntable system will improve at least 100%.......And thats no joke !!

Btw, Durand tonearms goes for the dual " fashion " too. Bill, can you wonder why?

R.

Dear @stringreen : """  I can't help wonder why there is so much discussion on this. Raul thinks the single pivot is flawed because it is unstable (wiggle)...the 2nd pivot stabilizes the arm and thus corrects the issue. It me it sounds better with the 2nd pivot than without.   """

you are rigth and agree. I don't know why @cleeds and @billstevenson  makes reference that I'm " against " your 2nd. pivot experiences when I'm not. Even at the very first posts in your thread I posted:

"""  So, if your  VPI is no more an unipivot then what you have is a serious improvement in your listening experiences. Good. ""
stringreen OPThanks raul.....the 2nd pivot is certainly an improvement """



After that I posted to @billstevenson that his own experiences with the 2nd pivot in the VPI confirm my take in the true unipivots ( not dual pivot designs. ). Here the Bill posts:

""" 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. """

The OP statements in his thread confirm my point. """

Then I posted:

"""  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. """



So what's all about? other than the direct @cleeds insults to me. 


@halcro , as you know the Continuum tonearms are dual pivots so both don't take advantage of that  theory you speaks: ""   is the virtual elimination of 'friction' at the pivot point......"""

It's only a theory and does not happens that way. A subject for other thread.


@billstevenson , VPI is one of the last tonearm designers that changes from unipivot to dual pivot and now to gimball ones and before VPI other did it as Graham with the Phantom2, Basis, Moerch, Continuum, etc.

I wonder why if the true unipivot is so " grandious " design they changes or prefered the dual pivots or gimball ones?, these facts means something very serious about.
Not enough proof for you? then is up to you that are a scientist that can't prove directly what you posted. No, I'm not and I never said I'm a scientist. So what?.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

halcro

I dislike parallel trackers. Not as a matter of preference (although the Air Tangent had serious problems) but more for their aesthetic demands ...

@halcro that's what I mean by preference. Judging by aesthetics is very much a subjective preference. I don't find that objectionable at all.

I've never been a big fan of parallel trackers, either, although some have been better than others. In most cases, I think the cure is worse than the disease.

With respect to the OP's experience with the VPI dual pivot modification, in case anyone missed it, I agree with him, have two VPI arms that are used interchangeably on my Prime and both have the dual pivot modification.  It definitely is a worthwhile modification for anyone who owns a VPI unipivot arm.  FWIW, one of my arms is a 3D and the other is metal.  Based on my limited experience with two arms, I am of the opinion that this mod benefits all VPI unipivots.

I can't help wonder why there is so much discussion on this.  Raul thinks the single pivot is flawed because it is unstable (wiggle)...the 2nd pivot stabilizes the arm and thus corrects the issue.  It me it sounds better with the 2nd pivot than without.  Done.

I dislike unipivots as a matter of preference. Raul dislikes them as a matter of religion.

I dislike parallel trackers. Not as a matter of preference (although the Air Tangent had serious problems) but more for their aesthetic demands (although the Bergmann ones seem to bring B&O design sensibilities to these questions) 🤗

I have no problems with unipivots per se and have owned a few....
The original Hadcock GH-228 was an under-appreciated arm which afforded me many years of excellent sound.
The Grace G940 was cheaply designed and even more cheaply made and was not as good as the Hadcock whilst the Graham Phantom II is simply a pretender of an arm IMO.....
The Continuum Cobra and Copperhead designs (albeit with secondary stabilising sapphire swashplates) are likely the very best tonearm designs I have heard.
The raison d'être for the unipivot design theory is the virtual elimination of 'friction' at the pivot point....and that is something to be taken seriously......

What I really dislike in this hobby.....are ’generalisations’ and ’absolutes’ as most experienced and astute audiophiles know these to be ghoulish....or maybe goulash 🤡

billstevenson09-08-2017 12:01am

... it is becoming obvious that you are ignorant of the scientific method. What I offered were several indirect proofs that unipivot arms perform well ... You claim to know what you are doing, but this belies that claim ... Your "proof" is not science. It is worthless.

... are you advocating the elimination of free choice in our musical enjoyment?...   It is becoming clear that you are on a one man quest for something that a) is not practical and cannot be obtained ... and it would not be viable even if achievable because as audiophiles we are all a bunch of free spirits who happily want to go our own way, make our own choices ...

This is very well stated, Bill, but I'm sorry to say it won't enlighten Raul. He insists on his own version of "facts" that are exclusive to him; anyone's assertion that is in conflict with his "facts" is dismissed with a wave of his hand.

Let's return to the topic of this thread: The OP got great results by adding a second pivot to his VPI 3D arm. He wrote:

discovering my old records anew

Making a system change that yields this kind of result is not an uncommon audiophile experience. Indeed, it is part of what keeps many of us so involved in this hobby. But Raul cannot accept the OP's premise, because he thinks this type of arm is inherently flawed and not on his list of approved technologies. Raul has other favored technologies, and other technologies he dismisses as inherently inferior.

And ... here's the oddest thing about this thread. I share Raul's distaste for unipivot arms. But because Raul thinks I dislike unipivots for the wrong reason, he seeks to engage in endless debate with the intent of establishing his superior expertise.

I dislike unipivots as a matter of preference. Raul dislikes them as a matter of religion, and has stated here that we should not engage our preferences. It is futile to argue with someone who harbors such fervor in their convictions, so it's easiest to simply ignore Raul and his taunts, the worst of which are thankfully deleted by the moderators.

"Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing."

I was going to let this go, but you have restated it and it is becoming obvious that you are ignorant of the scientific method.  What I offered were several indirect proofs that unipivot arms perform well.  Indirect proofs are repeatable, independently verifiable, and are sound science.  That they mean nothing to you tells me that you are no scientist.  You claim to know what you are doing, but this belies that claim.  What "means nothing" by contrast are the You Tube clips you referenced which do not measure anything, do not provide a verifiable proof of anything and do not allow independent verification.  Your "proof" is not science.  It is worthless.

"Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE.... "

You have repeated this sentiment several times and it must be dealt with.  How do you propose to establish "what should be?"  And since we are talking about music, we are also talking about many intangibles such as for example acoustics.  Are you suggesting that it is possible to establish one set of parameters for "what should be" that would be universally correct for all tastes and all situations?  To illustrate: small group, acoustic performance, "should be" set in an entirely different venue than would be desirable for a full opera production.  So what do you mean by "what should be?"  Then too, are you advocating the elimination of free choice in our musical enjoyment?  If Adolf Hitler had his way, we'd all be Wagnerians. Can we all agree that the world is a better place without that sort of restriction (no offense to any Wagnerians intended)?

Finally, your response to my tongue-in-cheek reference to the Holy Grail is telling.  The obvious answer to your "why not?" is because such a thing does not exist.  It is becoming clear that you are on a one man quest for something that a) is not practical and cannot be obtained (and may I say parenthetically, Thank God!), and it would not be viable even if achievable because as audiophiles we are all a bunch of free spirits who happily want to go our own way, make our own choices, in short, follow our own muse. 

Dear @cleeds : I'm still waiting for your answer/information about that my post was " inherently flawed ".

I ask you again bacause it's very easy to " say this or that " as you posted but any one of us have to have the gentless to say why some one is wrong or like in this case " flawed ".

Please share the information on why you are thinking that.

From my part I never post any kind of critic/information just as yours, always give a wide explanation why I think that. All the gentlemans that posted in any internet forum have the responsability to give complete information according to our experiences and knowledge level. Critics with out that " foundation " does not helps any one and all are in the forums looking for HELP.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @cleeds : Good that agree with bill but in that regards are wrong because the Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing.

I'm not talking if you love unipivot kind of sound or if you do not, this is not the MAIN SUBJECT but its inherent unstability.

You said: """ that make them inherently flawed is just nonsense. """
but you did not say why is inherently flawed. Through my posts in this thread I explain those facts in a wide manner, read it again and please please come back here and tell us the why's of that " inherent flawed ".

 You followed:   """ There are reasons that unipivots endure in the marketplace... """

As several other audio " myths " is only because unknowledge level about. Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE that is where lives the MUSIC and audio hobby.

That " should be " is something that each one of us have to make and take a day by day learning path where in many audio/MUSIC subjects on that whole " should be " are almost unknow for many of us.
Not an easy process task that it's not only time consuming but dificult to understand and where we need to ask our selfs: what is happening down there, at each single step that any audio link makes its job.
In the case of the ridding cartridge job almost we have to analize as if we were the cartridge and have the vision of " our " job ridding those tortuos LP grooves and all what this means. We have to do first with out taking in count TT or tonearm but as a stand alone cartridge and from here analize what in the " hell " are the cartridge needs to fulfill its very hard task.

It's an overall process at each step, we have to go as deepest as we can with patience.
We have to analize at least from where comes the recorded information in the LPs. Well, that normally comes from what the recording microphones pick-up in NEAR FIELD not at 30m.-50m. from the music source as happens when we are seated in a music hall.

Those are incomplete examples to sooner or latter know how everything in audio SHOULD BE and improve our listening quality levels.
The rewards are fenomenal and we learn several things as if we discover a new audio world.

When we start to make the audio systems changes to achieve that " should be " we will know that in the past we were " wrong " and in this " new world " we really enjoy the MUSIC as never before.
I'm still in the quest to finish that " should be " and I can tell you that's worth to do it.

I'm not different of each one of you: I'm a MUSIC lover and I want to achieve the true best listening experiences through my home stereo audio system. Tha's all and as many other audio items unipivots can't help to approach that targets.

Anyway is up to each one of us.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

" My take is to forget our " preferences " or what we " like " and stay " centered " on what " should be " and start to build the " new " system from here "

Raul you don't get to come in here and dictate what other members should do and how they should think and ridicule their preferences everyone is entitled to a voice here and its about time you recognized that everyone here is free to disagree with you whenever they choose and that they should be able to do this without your insults and pompous pronouncements against them. There's a reason your post above was deleted and as I have said before I think you are posting from your mommy's basement you must live in a very small world to believe that your version of things is the ultimate reality and must be accepted by everyone.

billstevenson

... may I suggest that we agree that there is no one, single, absolute "right" way to do anything in audio ...

Of course you may suggest that, and I’d agree. The problem is that there are some self-appointed "experts" here who insist that their version of "The Truth" and "The Facts" are so infallible as to render our preferences invalid. These are people who - notwithstanding their efforts to portray themselves as intellectuals and visionaries - are actually idiots. What’s sad is that they don’t realize just how foolish they look.

This thread’s topic is about how adding a second pivot to a VPI 3D arm produced great results for the OP. It’s interesting how this simple audiophile experience disturbs those whose version of the Truth just can’t even imagine anyone being happy with such an arm in the first place.

Dear @billstevenson : I agree with almost you said in your last post.

" Each of us has preferences.... """

My take is to forget our " prefrences " or what we " like " and stay " centered " on what " should be " and start to build the " new " system from here.

When we arrives to that " should be " then what we listen in our " new " system always we like it and always be a huge improvement over what we had when our system choices were made/headed it for that " what I like it ".

Search for the Holly Grail?, ask you: WHY NOT ! ! ! ?


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Btw, @folkfreak , I listen the Durand but not on my system. I think that each day is a learning day and this is my " natural " attitude.

@cleeds, the times of frustration I left it to many years ago to remember it.  You are wrong in that too. 

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
Ad hominem attack, a classic logical fallacy. Raul must be v-e-r-y frustrated today. Another example of why it's fruitless to debate with our little Raul.

@rauliruegas (respectfully) I have spent much time with gimballed (damped and undamped) and unipivot tonearms with a good variety of cartridges including some that are very demanding of the arm they are mounted on. All I can say is that in my experience I get better results (i.e more truth to the master tape, fewer distortions) with the pair of Durand’s I currently run. Of course you would argue that they are not actually unipivots as they have a second point of contact 😇

In comparison the last pair of traditional arms I ran (a TriPlanar VII and an SME IV) both failed to deal with the bass energy thrown off by my cartridges and distorted and became confused when stressed. This is not an issue I have ever had with my Durands (a Kairos and a Talea)

Now per cleeds experience the downside of unipivots is the constant worry that they are not quite on (the point that is) -- other than that they are completely stable and foolproof

Have you ever tried a Durand Raul? They might even convince you you still have something to learn ...

Dear @folkfreak :  Sorry for the misspelled but unfortunatelly my English is to bad, sorry.

Now, you posted:

"""  I imagine myself as the cartridge tracking the record and I thereby know unipivots cannot work  ...""""

you summarize in wrong way maybe because the misspelled post explanation.
A better summarization could be to be certainly of what are the specific cartridge needs and what those specific cartridge needs really means and how a tonearm can fulfill it if exist one that can do it that certainly does not exist yet.

How can you know if an unipivot can works fine with any cartridge if you don't know or can't understand which ones are its needs other than a tonearm holds it.

When you learn those cartridge needs you will know for sure that two things that the cartridge does not needs are: unipivots and undamped tonearms and this is a fact that I don't need to prove it.

What you and @cleeds needs is to do your job and find out for your self process which are and why those cartridges needs.

Everything in the day by day world is changing where audiophiles are immutable, nothing change and we make nothing to change but stay sticky to old information thank's to that corrupted AHEE where any one of us belongs.

Due to your immutability " stage "  and with out be conceit or arrogant in anyway: I'm " ligth years " a head you enjoying MUSIC as you can't even imagine and not because I'm better than you only because I'm changing/learning/moving as the wrold does. Folkfreak  good for you: stay immutable and sticky on what you like instead to change learning on what SHOULD BE.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Perhaps this post is a progression too far, but may I suggest that we agree that there is no one, single, absolute "right" way to do anything in audio. That is true for every aspect from tonearms, to amplifiers, to speakers, to wires...whatever. Each of us has preferences in equipment, music and so forth. Accordingly, looking for "proof" of something like this is somewhat analogous to the search for the Holy Grail.

folkfreak

To summarize @rauliruegas lengthy, incomprehensible and misspelled post

"I imagine myself as the cartridge tracking the record and I thereby know unipivots cannot work"

That's a fair summary. I would only add that Raul asserts his claims as "facts" and when pressed for proof, basically just repeats the assertion. Yet he demands rigorous proof from anyone else who cites a fact. So it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with him, which is why I've given up.

It's plain to see that Raul is wrong about unipivot pickup arms. I share his distaste for them. The difference is only that I consider it a preference. I'm not trying to convince anyone that "facts" support my preference, or that I have some special understanding of how they function.

To summarize @rauliruegas lengthy, incomprehensible and misspelled post

"I imagine myself as the cartridge tracking the record and I thereby know unipivots cannot work"

hmmm ...

Dear @cleeds : Good that agree with bill. I that regards are wrong because the Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing.

I'm not talking if you love unipivot kind of sound or if you do not, this is not the MAIN SUBJECT but its inherent unstability.

You said: """  that make them inherently flawed is just nonsense. """
but you did not say why is inherently flawed all what I posted .. Through my posts in this thread I explain those facts in a wide manner, read it again and please please come back here and tell us the why's of that " inherent flawed ".

 You followed:   """  There are reasons that unipivots endure in the marketplace... """

As several other audio " myths " is only because ignorance. Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE that is where lives the MUSIC and the audio hobby.

That " should be " is something that each one of us have to make and take a day by day learning path where in many audio/MUSIC subjects on that whole " should be " are almost unknow for many of us.
Not an easy process task that it's not only time consuming but dificult to understand and where we need to ask our selfs: what is happening down there, at each single step that any audio link makes its job. 
In the case of the ridding cartridge job almost we have to analize as if we were the cartridge and have the vision of " our " job ridding those tortuos LP grooves and all what this means. We have to do first with out taking in count TT or tonearm but as a stand alone cartridge and from here analize what in the " hell " are the cartridge needs to fulfill its very hard task.

It's an overall process at each step, we have to go as deepest as we can with patience.
We have to analize at least from where comes the recorded information in the LPs. Well, that normally comes from what the recording microphones pick-up in NEAR FIELD not at 30 m. from the music source as happens when we are seated in a music hall.

Those are incomplete examples to sooner or latter know how everything in audio SHOULD BE and improve our listening quality levels.
The rewards are fenomenal and we learn several things as if we discover a new audio world.

When we start to make the audio systems changes to achieve that " should be " we will know that in the past we were wrong and in this " new world " we really enjoy the MUSIC as never before.
I'm still in the quest to finish that " should be " and I can tell you that's worth to do it.

I'm not different of each one of you: I'm a MUSIC lover and I want to achieve the true best listening experiences through my home stereo audio system. Tha's all and as many other audio items unipivots can't help to approach that targets.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Raul,

I am having an extremely difficult time comprehending your message. Extracted from your last post is the following example:

" 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."

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Really I am at a complete loss. Would you try again?

It seems you are trying to make some point about instability due to wobble, but it is not clear to me what it is. Moreover, it is entirely unclear to me what the practical consequences might be? If it is to make the point that unipivot arms sound different than comparable double gimbal arms, I concede the point. But, we must also acknowledge that two different double gimbal arms sound different from each other too. Where does that lead us?

billstevenson

This is a response to Raul's contention that there is a "problem" with unipivot tonearms ... 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 ... 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 ... 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.

Bill, I couldn't agree with you more. I have heard some outstanding unipivot arms - truly exquisite - and Raul's insistence that there are "facts" that make them inherently flawed is just nonsense. There are reasons that unipivots endure in the marketplace, and performance is certainly one of them.

Nevertheless, I admit that I really don't care for unipivot arms and for that reason I've never owned one. It's a tactile thing with me; they just don't inspire confidence and don't exude the precision that I expect of a fine pickup arm. I've always indulged that preference, as I have my other audiophile preferences. The difference between Raul and me is that I don't insist that "facts" support my choice. It's just a preference. I don't feel obligated to convince the world that "facts" support my choice.

tomwh

When people start talking absolutes in this hobby, it tells you something

Agreed ... absolutely!  ; |

Well besides being a PTA to use the rs lab tonearm broke all the rules and I read nothing but great reviews.  Super high uni pivot and a rotating head shell.

When people start talking absolutes in this hobby, it tells you something.

Enjoy the ride
Tom