Why is the price of new tonearms so high

Hello Meister D.
"Musing and watching"...

Some bionic rig!
Über motor, über platter, über bearing, über alles...
Add some, über drive belt/string, über cables, über phono-stage,….

Removed yourself 10/10 from the rest of the analogue world out here it seems. "N'oublie pas que tu vas mourir" :-)

This of course might just explain also some of these divergent findings on arm resonances.
High mass platters and floating bearings have their way with resonances, we know.

In fact, it puts your 'comparative' findings and arguments way out yonder.
Not easy to make much sense of it then, with the rest of most all 'commercial' audio and some bit of 'boutique-audio' components.

"Musing and watching" Hm...

Peter, right now I am running a - modified beyond recognition... - TT consisting of a RY5500 motor, RX-3000 base with double 38 lbs platter isolated spindle from bearing and floating on silicon grease bed, counter motor and suspended on 1 Hz air-cushion.
My own final assault on the topic TT is under construction and I will pulish a few pictures in early winter when finished.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Perrew,if the Reed can compete with the dynamically
balanced tonearms (pace Dertonarm) I don't know.
In any case I can't compete with Dertonarm. He is the
expert. Besides a very eloquent and knowledgable person.
I am just one amateur enjoying my analog gear.
BTW because of the division of labor we must count on 'some
authoritys'. The problem is that 'some authoritys' disagree
about,say, the FR-66,64 qualitys.Dynamic or otherwise.
Regards

D. thanks for the digress, Im leaning against a XV1s so I will investigate the mentioned arms. Are you using your own TT or are you running a commercially available unit?

Peter, all I could add to what I have written in the post in your inital thread, would be theoretical background and a dive into dynamic vs. static mechanics. I have learned in the past 4 months on Audiogon that these theoretical backgrounds aren't really welcome.
When using a dynamically balanced tonearm and the user can not hear the difference between static balanced and dynamic balanced mode - then I strongly recommend improving the overall resolution of the entire system.

If one can't hear it, it doesn't mean its not there.
In another system the same listener would hear it quite easy.
The technical advantage is indisputable and everybody would realize (...well, may be not everybody...) as soon as the dynamic behaviour of the cantilever/tonearm while tracking a grooved record is laid down on a sheet of paper.

This is the one big problem in all discussions here - everybody has his (don't think there is any "her" around...?) subjective, yet imperial, experience of sound and assumes in those moments when some part (= component) is "under review", that the rest of the system is as good as it gets.
In any case he assumes that the rest of the system is NOT under review, but only the "new" part.

When the entire chain is of the highest resolution (hard to achive....) then the difference between dynamic balanced mode vs. static balanced mode becomes obvious and the practical result meets the theoretical advantage.

There will be others around who disagree, but that is their problem - neither mine nor the problem of "oldskool" physics in the Einstein Continuum.
For those who disagree - fine, please don't feel invited to explain your point of view or arguments.
I know them already and there aren't any worth serious consideration.

Cheers,
D.

D,
I apologize. I now realize that this question was to some extent covered in my earlier thread about the SME V VTF in April or May. If you still want to add some thoughts, that would be fine. Thank you again.
Peter

Dertonarm,
I have been following this thread with only mild interest until you mentioned the importance of "dynamically" balanced tonearms. I do not have a physics background, so could you please briefly explain the advantage of dynamic versus static? balance. I have a SME V 9" arm and have experimented with setting the scale to zero and using the counter-weights only versus using the scale set to 2.0-2.2 grams. I have not really heard a difference but others say they have. What should I be listening for? What are the theoretical and real differences? Thank you for any insight you could offer. Peter

Nandric, do you think the Reed can compete with the dynamically balanced tonearms that Dertonarm mention?

Syntax,
I wonder what's its resonance frequency ---- would it need a 'sock'??

The "flat Tire" .....

or

HIGH END

:-)

Dear Perrew, 'all' and 'some' are quantififyers and very
risky to use as refering expressions. So there are 'some'
tonearms that are new,very good,but not 'so high in price'.
For example: Reed L (www.turntable.lt) that I bought for
+/- 1500 E (with a base).
Regards,
Nandric

Hi Axel, great idea !!
Go carry on - you are certainly on the right path.
Musing and watching,
D.

Hi Perrew, it certainly would depend on the cartridge I want to use/listen to.
If the cartridge of choice would be any of the Lyras, Dynavectors, Koetus, Phase Tech or similar (means : medium to high compliance - most top-flight cartridges today do belong in this group) I would most certainly go for the MAX-282 or EA-10 as these would be the most versatile 12" tonearms and both are dynamically balanced and both can handle any cartridge weight.
I would go for the 12" versions whenever possible because of simple advantage in geometry (yes,... I know.... others have other favourites and do not see the big advantage in 12" vs 10" or 9").
But I see - and hear - it.
I would always go for a dynamically balanced tonearm ( the physic advantage is again obvious and beyond serious discussion (in real world applications as well as in the theoretical - again: if others have different opinions ... fine with me, I neither want to "know" nor "learn" their point of view. That is way past me.).

So - yes, it comes down to these two very similar designs.
Not because they are vintage, but because they are the most versatile and do offer the 2 key design features I know will give superior results and sound.

Cheers,
D.

Perrew,
a very good question I say.
My best guess would be: ***a good CD player*** -- no arguments about 'socks' and resonances either :-)

D in a world without the 64 and 66s what would you use?

Hi Axel, BTW - nice idea with the low tire pressure......
I begin to realize that this is kind of general approach with several audiophiles.
But if it works for you/them - again... fine with me.
Personally I'd rather go for the high pressure/high performance option - but I guess we are talking personal preferences and taste again.
Many prefer indeed the more comfortable way with low pressure (= well cushioned...) performance.
May too be a matter of advanced age and increased problems with intervertebral disc....
Musing and watching.
D.

Hi Axel,
I do not want to conduct your thoughts and ways of thinking, but let me once again encourage you to carry on musing about this topic ......... the "problem" is not yet solved, but it is becoming increasingly entertaining to watch.
You are not yet on the right boat and you are still heading in the wrong direction.
However - as long as you think you are fine and you believe to be on track ....... that direction is totally fine with me.

BTW - the one single "issue" of the FR-60 tonearm series is well beyond anything you - or any other so far speculating about it on Audiogon - have ever thought about.
You know that nice little 3-part story about the two sientists searching for the all black cat in a pitch black windowless cellar without any light ......? ( don't think you will find it on Wikipedia at all.....)
God - I love physics !
Musing and watching ......
D.

Hi,
>>> Now if your tonearm or other tonearm needs a wrap IMHO something is wrong with that tonearm or with the tonearm/cartridge combination or even in other link in the audio system chain. <<<

I agree with Raul. Now Raul thought the FR can do with a wrap as I recall, and D. thinks all other's can do with it, since it is a known fact that the SME V is rather too much damped than to little.

Is that your way to fix the FR issue then?

Got low tire pressure, make the other's tires flat -- problem solved :-)

Dear Axel: This is the wrap that in other thread I posted that used in the past and think that is the one that JC reffer too: http://www.atma-sphere.com/products/wrap.html

Now if your tonearm or other tonearm needs a wrap IMHO something is wrong with that tonearm or with the tonearm/cartridge combination or even in other link in the audio system chain.

Regards and ejoy the music,
Raul.

Hello Axel, adding 2 and 2 does not necessarily adds up to 5.
You should give your own findings and the above description a - long and deep - 2nd thought........
Awaiting your revison.
You'll find out.
Cheers,
D.

Hallo D. , T_bone

>>> Other way of damping a tonearm is heat skrink pipe - large area and good damping. This is an old trick on the SME V (Axel !!) to eliminate its vibration peak towards the bearing (blue-tech works fine too). <<<

Eish, funny, YOU 'FR man' should mention THAT :-)
Let's a take a cart/arm, switch of the phono-pre and then listen running the record.
I don't know the FR from listening (only pics) but any R300, or 9c will happily chirp along to the music that you can easily hear it from the listening place, in fact with the R300 much further.
That is some dead give away about arm resonance (damping?).
Now take a current SME V and ---- you hear NOTHING, until you put your ear VERY close to the arm tube. So, I guess we need no 'socks' with a V then.

Next, still with 'socks', I actually did a test to see what would happen if you 'sock' an arm - the V.
Guess what? The material plastic, rubber, you can now 'hear' as an unusual signature being added to the sound. Amplifiecation at 10 000x has just that effect. (Mess with the arm, and you will hear it)

So, it's that 'effect' that is either to once liking or not, like the ringing of a bell.
Cast iron sound crappy in deed, bronze rather beautiful by comparison.

Last point, where does it go (the resonance?) it dissipates in heat eventually (even without a sock), but arm designers talk of 'sinking' it, and of 'closing of a resonance loop' via arm/mounting/back to main bearing/platter/record/pick-up.
Some maintain, that if this loop is 'disrupted' it will cause 'bad vibrations' i.e. affect the sound negatively.

Could well be the old Romans would object to all this --- thankfully I'm not an arm designer :-)
A.

Dampening material coverts the mechanical vibrations into heat. Very effective on just about everything. You wouldn't be able to stand riding in your car without it.
But don't expect to improve your system by putting dampening material everywhere. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Just like too much dampening of your listening room can make your stereo sound lifeless and dull.

Dear T_bone, glad to see you back. Its not roman origin this time (but I admit - it would fit...), but swiss/german 15th century renaissance satirc essay in latin (not uncommon back then).
The damping is the more effective the softer the material in conjunction with surface area covered and how "sticky" the damping really is (blue-tech et al....).The usual chewing gum-like material does "eat" up some of the vibration by transfer in heat (no joke! - same method as Sorbothane - vibration (=energy) transfered into heat (=energy).
This is of course hardly measureable, but its the way it works.
Other way of damping a tonearm is heat skrink pipe - large area and good damping. This is an old trick on the SME V (Axel !!) to eliminate its vibration peak towards the bearing (blue-tech works fine too).
Often far more effective than any damping by oil-filled through.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Axel, ....rather the implication, that I very well realize the mechanisms of the game....

D,
For those of us who WERE pained, I thought that was a Roman (can't remember who offhand, but my 3rd-year Latin teacher was always good for a pithy quote)
But yes, it is a handy quote.

FWIW, I have seen several people mention wrapping a tonearm tube with something in order to dampen vibration. I am wondering where that vibration goes... It is not sinked into something else, so perhaps it just disappears into the air, whereas if the tonearm tube was not wrapped in whatever, it would not dissipate into the air... Someone care to enlighten me how that works?

Hi D.
"The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived."

... modern day marketing (which incidently is my profession....

So is that by any chance some kind of confession about your 'profession', and what you therefore keep telling us?

Dear fellow audiophiles, let me give a final statement to all those, who enjoy and believe in the constant progress and evolution in low-tech mechanics and modern day marketing (which incidently is my profession....):
"mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur!"
No, - its not the Roman's this time........... a fellow countryman of mine from some 5 centuries back.
For those who weren't pained by Latin in their schooldays, there is always Wikipedia...... ;-)
Enjoy sunday music,
D.

Starts to be a very interesting thread...save it before it's too late !

Best, Jean.

When you need to spend a lot of money, because you feel better that you can afford something the other one can't, fine too. Most do that.

Strange statement Syntax, from someone with 8 of the most expensive tonearms and 7 of the most expensive cartridges?
Not to mention turntables and amps that would be the envy of the treasury departments of some third world countries?

My philosophy is always if it floats your boat and you can afford it, then you should buy it! Life's too short to wait.

I'd like to be around to see the price for a new tonearm in another 100 years or so!

Maybe by then all will agree that they finally got digital "right".

This is not an uncommon question on many "different" passion/hobby sites.Regarding virtually any expensive proposition.

There is no short answer,and it almost always becomes an opinion piece/thread.

Just yesterday this kind of question was asked on one of my often visited "Fretted Musical Instrument" sites.The poster wanted to know why some Boutique guitar builders can get away with their pricing structure.No short answer,but overall performance,like that of a high quality arm and design,materials,voicing,warrantee etc comes into play I'd think.

If you have the cash,no harm...and...some folks do get a kick out of owning something with perceived "specialness",even if it's not there.No harm in that,and it makes folks happy.

Human nature,I'd guess

Axel,

Looks like you found your work of art. Quite a bargain!

Tonywinsc
y.s.:
>>> Have you ever tried a Koetsu cartridge? <<<

Nope, I'll sure will some day when my pocket agrees. Right now I listen to an Empire S1000 ZE/X-ERD (oldie MM) and it makes more music than any of my previous MCs. Sounding more 'balanced' in my system, than my audio friends Orpheus for 6 grand, that gave me food for thought.

I'd guess the Koetsu Coral would 'mice' the Empire, even in look alone :-)

I'm currently thinking my ML phono-modules might favour MMs over MCs (more musical).
I think MCs (to my ears) like at least one tube in the system. My son has that kind of set-up. Same MC in his system sound better than in mine, using a EAR 864 phono-line-pre, hm.
My system is all SS, so I've become a bit weary of all these 'artistically' priced MCs... too much resolution, too little music.
Of course something 'pretty' never loses attraction, like ZZ Top, 'Looking for some tush...' :-)

Axel

Hi Axel,
Stimmt. I can imagine your system sounds very good. Have you ever tried a Koetsu cartridge? It depends on the music you like. It can be an artist's price, only you will forget about the cost once you hear the music.
MfG,

Hi Tonywinsc,
SME V guy, ah so. Better treading easy in this here 'value unlimited art gallery' of engineering.

I see we appreciate the same kind of 'muscle' and not only 'arms.

At least I did not have to pay an 'artist's price' for my V, AND it doesn't just use a bend pipe either :-)
A.

Stiltskin,
Oh yes! Yet more genius, and so like: TOTALLY organic!

Axel,
No dought it would be a fluid damped design with a contrete and horse hair arm board for sure....

We are all such engineers. Take a Picasso, for example- how do you put a value on one of his paintings? If someone is willing to pay $3 million for it, do you say that's stupid because it just $49 worth of paint and canvas and about 150 man-hours of labor?
This is the "value" high end companies are in business for- it is more than just tubing, bearings and wire. It is a type of art and engineering that is priced at a point people are willing to pay.
Someone looks at a tonearm and says that is just $xx worth of metal, plastic and wires, no way! Someone else appreciates the quality of music it can create and plunks down the money. To each his own.

Dear Daniel: +++++ " Raul doesn't like their sound in his 10+ years memory ? " +++++

I sold my last FR-64 last year. I appreciate that don't post nothing that you are not totaly sure, especially when you are refering to me.

Everyone knows that you have " interest " in mantain the FR tonearms and that's why you made/make statements on them out of reality. Of course that the low know-how of the people help you to go on .

I repeat again: Mr. Ikeda was/is a very good cartridge designer and we can see through its cartridges where he puts his knowledge: FR-702 or the Ikeda REX9 type but IMHO and with respect to him his FR-64/66 are a plain so so tonearms that has nothing especial and that has nothing to talk about other that is a high resonant device due to the build material and construction that he choose to use, these facts you can change it only because you want to preserve the false " myth " on these almost mediocre tonearms.

That you and your friends like high distortions on what you hear or that you are already accustom/equalized to that " heavy " distortions can't mean that that almost mediocre tonearms can convert it in good tonearms, no way Sir.

This is not only my opinion. Here is what another person in whom I trust seriously because he does not only have a technical knowledge but he is a cartridge designer, pholinepreamp designer, he own or owned almost any tonearm and cartridges out there.

Like a cartridge designer he has to test his cartridges ( and other cartridges ) with several tonearms so he really know what is talking about, I'm reffering to J.Carr Lyra and Connosieur designer and here is what he posted on the subject:

++++ " I agree that the FR-66S would be somewhat better than the SAEC, but truth be told, I'm not overly enamoured of the "S" family either (and I say this as the long-time owner of a 64S with Elevation Base and Arm Stabilizer). The stainless steel is great to look at, but less great to listen to, " +++++

in the next one Daniel/Syntax ( I can't remember ) ask JC something on the FR subject ( Syntax posted that his Lyra performance in the FR-64S was something outstanding, I posted there that he likes those very high distortions that are always present on those FR tonearms, period. ) and here is the J.Carr post:

question:
+++++" >you might - if you haven't already done so... - give your Titan i a test in your FR-64s. The combo gives astonishing good results - despite the less great mass/compliance combination.<

answer:
Yes, I've already done so with the Titan i. Likewise the Olympos. I agree that the results can be quite OK - as long as you wrap a damper strip around the armtube or take measures to dampen it better. Otherwise the "fx" or "fc" variants are far more friendly to use. By the time Ikeda did the IT-345 and IT-407, he had gained a much better awareness of resonance control as compared to his FR days. " +++++

In the other side and returning to the thread I like Halcro can't agree with Dertonarm.
Tonearm design is not only technical knowledge/physics but testing that what physics says can sounds good. You don't design a tonearm by physics/computer modeling then build and think that you are done. Things not works in that way you have to test that first prototype and then make changes and build a second prototype and go on on these tests not only on the tonearm geometry but testing different type of bearings and bearing materials where you have to rebuild the prototype you have on hand, you have to test too arm wand/headshell build materials where you have to build several samples as several buildmaterials you have on mind and I can go on and go on on the subject.
Well all these test/research/test very hard work means time and money: a lot of time and a lot of money.

No Mr. Dertonarm a well made tonearm design is not ( like you say ): " +++fairly easy mechanical devices - where is the problem? "++++, Daniel you don't have any idea on the subject but you think that because you study physics or mathematics you can/could know everything but you are wrong to think and speak in that way. Like in the tonearm subject there are a lot of subjects where you are a simple person like any one else.

You can follow speaking of Newton/Galileo but that does not give you better EARS or real knowledge to judge music sound reproduction.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Hi Rumpel Stiltskin :-)
now, how can we apply these Roman gutter constructions to the price of new tonearms?
Did they have their resonances sorted, when flushing?

Couldn't we perhaps get some Roman tonearms and have that issue evaluated?

I'm thinking,
Axel

Unfortunately most do not understand what they "hear", so most discussions are not worth the time.
Most want to believe in something, in something modern, in something expensive, to a "Guide" or whatever. But it is so simple, go out, buy those units, compare them with records before Reissues became a "Standard".
I have those Arms and I did. Others too. It is is normal, some will never get it. NEVER. Not in this life, nor the next. That is normal.
When you don't hear the difference, fine, when you hear a difference, fine, too.
When you need to spend a lot of money, because you feel better that you can afford something the other one can't, fine too. Most do that. That's for most a kind of satisfaction, for showing others "look, I am the greatest music LOVER..."this is the normal business.
It is not necessary to change the world, but sometimes - not always - it can be interesting to go a different route, Hardware is for most a kind of Altar, a secret, a Holy Grail...they pray to it, they want it to look nice, expensive, important etc.
But when this is over and the needle touches the groove...then a new chapter starts....:-)

Halcro, Regarding the Romans and their Colosseum ,as you would know with the invention of cement the ancient Romans were able to build structures well beyond the heights of anything else in the world at that time.
Everything about is a marvel of ingenuity.

One last thing, You live in a city where there seems to be constant repairs to your water and sewer system? This is a common problem the world over.

I think most of these engineers that design these systems should have a long look at how the Romans built theirs. Today in Rome ancient sections are still in use with few problems.....A city could not be built nor would survive with out one.

Henry! your call I guess.
Good German Bier, Wurst, und Brezel :-)
A.

Dear Axel, dear Halcro, - we do not need to get on terms in this discussion. If your point of view do differ from mine - fine with me.
And sorry again - the examples are off topic.
We aren't talking nano-mechanics here nor micro-optics or complex cable structures and - BTW - concrete was invented by the Romans too. They were really gifted engineers in their prime period.
My basic point is, that the design of a great (in terms of sound) TT or tonearm is - well... - simple.
Do do neither need computer nor digital equipment to design or put together either one.
These two are really fairly easy mechanical devices - where is the problem? I can not see the need for high-tech equipment nor for big sientific computers here.
Its brain we need - something apparently becoming increasingly less available in our days.
Do I need to constantly defend the FR-60 tonearms simply because Raul doesn't like their sound in his 10+ years memory ?
While other audiophiles like Thuchan, Syntax, Heradot with equally sophisticated set-up and all modern Skool tonerarms at hand do prefer their FR-tonearms and for good reason?
Ever given taht a thought - why should they prefer the FR over their other tonearms? Just to anoy other audiophiles? Get serious.

The proof?
There is onyl one possible and non-virtual proof:
Visit me - bring along the SME V, DaVinci or any Continuum together with your favourite cartridge.
Bring further with you some time.
I will set-up your prefered tonearm / cartridge combination and fine tune real fast and most likely you will hear your toy on all time new highs in terms of its sonic performance.
I won't stop till you agree that this is the best you've heard so far.
Then we will switch to the FR-66/Fr-7fx combo and you will loose all faith in modern day audio forever.
I know it - I have watched it happen several times and all with top-flight competitors.
See you here (now I am off for a weekend holiday with my family) some day !
Cheers,
D.

Perrew you make a good point...

A couple of examples one being the Technics SP10 MKIII specifically Albert Porters and the Gerrard 301, a 50 plus year old design including other vintage tables.

All else took a piece of pipe and bend it so as to get the off-set angle, put a 'compass gimble' plus a counter weight.

I agree with you Axel.
Daniel, to say the physics governing the behaviour of tonearms hasn't changed is very simplistic and slightly disappointing to hear from you 'the rationalist'.
As Axel points out, the physics governing cable structures was understood by the Romans (a removable tent structure was erected over the Colosseum) but that hasn't stopped the knowledge being 'lost' for 2000 years and when finally being re-discovered, pushed to further and further limits?
The principles of the internal combustion engine haven't changed basically in 100 years yet the progress in engine design continues.
The principles of telescopic optics has been known since the time before Galileo and its physics have not changed but the use of computer analysis, design and construction has created unimaginable lenses in tiny digital cameras.
Sorry Daniel, not only don't I agree with you in this respect, but you continue to avoid the 'acid test' of your proposition.
For all the theory behind your support of the FR64 and FR66 tonearms, you have absolutely no answers to anyone who says it sounds mediocre and coloured and highly distorted?
And all your physics will simply not make it great if it in fact is NOT?

>>> ... the physics that still govern the biggest part of the design has been available for quite a while? <<<

Yes that "?" is well put.
Vibration / mechanical resonance mechanics is one of the more difficult subjects yet.
The Tacoma Bridge would be still standing too, if some years back all was truly understood.
Same applies to other architectural issues relating to earth quakes. Resonance behaviour has come to be better understood only more recently. Most ancient understanding ended with the 'pendulum'... (had no vinyl to play with :-)

Looking at Continuum in this light, they spend plenty of time with multiple regression analysis of vibration and resonance behaviour, so they say.
Before computer models, this stuff was ALL intuition plus experiment.
I don't mean you will not get 'decent' results that way --- but no 'banana' either :-).

Now you look at some old timers, REAL heavy weights (cover of 'Night Fly'...) you see where Continuum could have gotten some ideas to start with... and then added plenty of computer modelling, so they ended up with that banana :-)

All else took a piece of pipe and bend it so as to get the off-set angle, put a 'compass gimble' plus a counter weight.
Some noticed that the tube resonated (too much?) and then stuffed it with balsa wood... all intuitive vibration mechanics.

A.

Dear Halcro, dear Perrew, the task building a tonearm or a TT hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years. Computer "analysis" in our days is - in comparism to the period between 1985 and 1995 - cheaper by a magnitue. Frankly - your avarage computer at home today has enough capacities to be able to calculate the journey to the moon in 1969 in all needed details. We can assume it will be suitable for all needed calculations and "analysis" to design a decent TT or tonearm too.
This is not expensive.
Sorry.
Despite what the marketing alpha dogs (I too studied this and hold a master degree in marketing communications...... and feel guilty...) try to convince the public in - the needed tools for truely great design in analog playback was available before Bill Gates got rid of his pampers.
And it was always available to everyone who finished high school and had a basic understanding of mechanics and dynamics under the influence of gravity.
Again - this is all BASIC physics.
The big problem still is, that most designers do try to design "around" the "physic" thus avoiding BIG costs (doing the opposite what they are claim to do in their advertising).
A truely great turntable will always: - be very heavy, demand excellent, very precise (= expensive...) tooling of very heavy parts (platter), ask for several very expensive materials, demand for a regulated and large periphery to isolate the TT from the "building resonance".
A great tonearm will ask for high rigidy, fast transmission of energy, rigid bearings which are able to further transport the energy away from the arm, precise tooling and materials. Try to make a FR-66s (here we go again....) with its B-60 today. I had the B-60 vta base calculated from a company specilized in precision tooling in Karlsruhe - even with production lot of 150 units and the complete blue print at hand, the unit costs were still EURO 620 (which is $900 today...).
Yes Perrew - you are right.
Modern day electronics do play close to zero role in analog compared to digital, were they are at home and the integral part of the units per se.
We should all keep in mind that the retail price of top-flight audio equipment today has a lot to do with marketing politics and image. Add to this the fact that impoter and dealer do want a big share of the cake and we a close to the truth......

Dear halcro, the DaVinci is not great. It is good in todays terms, but leaves several aspects of improvement in its design (you named one of them). Syntax, Heradot, Thuchan and 2 other friends of mine here in southern Germany to use the DaVinci - always with good results.
Never with great ones.
Its nice to look at and gives good results with a very wide varity of cartridges.
Cheers,
D.

Halcro,
do you think that the efforts small companies bring to the scene with advanced computer analysis of TTs outweighs the big money that big corporations like Technics could put into the development long ago although with less elaborate computer analysis. My guess is that the electronics play a lesser role in TTs compared to CDs and that the physics that still govern the biggest part of the design has been available for quite a while?

I disagree that the prices of 'new' tonearms is high.
Apart from the incredible investment in research and computer and materials modeling by a company like Continuum for their Cobra and Copperhead arms which sell in very small volumes, I believe it is the cost of new cartridges primarily, and new turntables secondly that inflate the relative pricing of new tonearms?

When it is fairly common for a LOMC cartridge to cost from $4,000-$6,000 and the new 'benchmark' cartridges $10,000-$15,000, how silly would it seem for the tonearm (which I believe to be more critical than the cartridge) to cost a mere $3,000?
When you include the fact that the cartridges will be worthless in 2 years whilst the tonearm will hopefully last 20-30 years, the equation looks fairly ridiculous?
And who in his right mind, would mount a $3,000 tonearm on his $60,000-$160,000 turntable?