Why Linear Tracking never took off?

What if I put an armboard on top of a THK motion track and use the Rabco part for sensor and motorization. I bet that will work if look bulky. Just imagine a Rabco mounted upside down. A typical 9" pivot arm will work just fine. The whole thing won't be able to sit on top of typical turntable plinth and it will have to be next to the plinth as a separate arm pot. It should work for tables like Teres or ones with small plinths. So many projects, so little time......

I always wish someone can make a tonearm mounting system that allows you to install your pivot arm on it and then servo control its lateral movement, gliding one direction like the Rabco. Imagine a gliding armboard with your favorite pivot arm and then you can compare it to the fixed position in its typical pivot operation. Of course when operating tangentially, user has to neutralize the typical 23 degree offset angle at the headshell to zero degree. This will settle the argument against or for tangential servo arm. Manufacturers please take note. The THK system will work handily.

I got my first linear tracker, a Garrard Zero-100, in 1974. When I first saw their ad I thought they had the Holy Grail. After getting the machine, I wished dearly for 2 things: that it was manual operation from the ground up, and that they had spent the money on the articulation. The arm would not track for beans!

A year later I found a Rabco ST-7 mounted on a Technics 1100 table, so it was the world's first straight tracker (the Rabco was built in 1968) on the world's first direct-drive table.

I had the Rabco until about 1989. It got heavily modified- carbon fiber arm, a much-updated servo control that worked really well (the arm was famous for skipping or lifting off the LP due to servo malfunction- their original 'servo' was a joke), modified counterweight and modified track.

I replaced is with an SME V and was a lot happier... but I have often thought about how to sort out the arm's weaknesses since. There is a company called THK that makes motion tracks that have no bearing slop, that integrated with more modern bearing designs and an LED activated servo would result in a world-class arm.

IMO/IME none of the air-bearing arms work very well as often they have more tracking angle issues than a good radial tracking arm due to flex in the cantilever of the cartridge.

I am glad I had my Rabco when I did- it did very well on the inner 1/3 of the LP so my records from that time are intact.

I go back an forth on such design. I think the servo system is not as bad as what people might think. It can sound excellent. My Yamaha PX2 is one great performer.

Willster -

Lets not get too caught up in semantics. 'Linear Tracking' is the right term, as well as 'tangential tracking'. With a linear tracking arm, the cartridge follows a linear motion from the edge of the record to the center, as opposed to the arc of a pivoted tonearm. Hence - Linear.

Willster...Your PS X800 is obviously broken. This happens to the best of equipment after 25 years. How it sounds probably has more to do with the pickup used. Most of the time mine was used with a Shure V15MR, and that particular pickup never sounded, or tracked, better. If you have given up on this TT you should sell it. You might be surprised what they sell for.

"Just as an fyi... The terms "tangential tracking" and "linear tracking" both are acceptable. Of the manufacturers of these arms over the years, B&O, Rabco, Marantz and others used the term "tangential tracking" and Eminent Technology, Air Tangent, Walker Audio, Clearaudio, Kuzma and others used the term "linear tracking." All the rest of us (and most reviewers) just used the terms interchangeably."

Be that as it may and regardless of who used what, conceptually these arms are attempting to maintain a proper tangential relationship to the groove all the way across the record rather than at just two points. Michael Fremer mentioned this in one of his recent articles. In his opinion and mine, linear is a misnomer. YMMV

Just as an fyi... The terms "tangential tracking" and "linear tracking" both are acceptable. Of the manufacturers of these arms over the years, B&O, Rabco, Marantz and others used the term "tangential tracking" and Eminent Technology, Air Tangent, Walker Audio, Clearaudio, Kuzma and others used the term "linear tracking." All the rest of us (and most reviewers) just used the terms interchangeably.
.

I gave up on my Sony psx 800 some time ago. When you push the start button instead of going to the edge of the record and setting the arm down it just keeps on moving the arm til it's all the way across the record. You can get it to play by hitting the on button and then immediately hitting the stop and then manually cueing it to the record. The light that shines up through the slots in the table to sense record size failed as well and I thought the bulb must have burned out. Replaced the bulb and it still didn't light. The whole thing made me suspicious enough about the table that I stopped using it. I'm a bit surprised by all the buzz here regarding this table. I found it's sound disappointing by comparison to the Rabco I had owned previously.

Now I have a Goldmund Studio with the T3 arm.

By the way I think the "correct" term is tangential tracking.

Oh yes. Linear tracking. Every vinyl audiophile's dream. The
idea is right, but most executions of the idea had flaws. For
example, the "buzz-buzz-buzz" of the Rabco as it tried to
maintain tangency with its servos. The nightmare of setups,
the big pops and poor cueing that sometimes flipped the
cartridge in strange ways, and on and on, not to mention
hum. All of these problems are solvable, but not with the
pocketbook of the average audiophile in mind. I would like
to try the new "megabuck" linear arms when my rich uncle
leaves me enough greenbacks. C. Miller, Columbus, OH

Sean,

Being a Sota owner, how does it stack up to the others? Which arm and cart?

I just stumbled on this thread. I guess I need to pull out my PS X 800 table and try it out again after all these years. If I recall correctly the "Biotracer" technology included active resonance supression in addition to servo tracking of the arm.

I bought mine around 1983. My biggest recollection is how great the inner third of LPs sounded in comparison to other tables at the time.

Of course, this was during my mid-fi period. I wonder what I'll think of it now?

Tbg...I got mine about 1980. Not all Sony linear tracking tables had the "Biotracer" servo controlled arm, and not all "Biotracer" arms were linear tracking. Being an Engineer, I naturally had to get the service manual and see how this thing worked. Holy smokes! Working with balistic missile guidance systems I have seen a lot of schematics and block diagrams, but this Sony design is about as complex as anything I have seen. In fact, that is my only criticism.

As a have mentioned before, I became a convert to linear tracking after attending a High End seminar about the design and setup of pivoting arms. I concluded that there was no practical way to get all those forces and angles right across the recorded area. True, as you say, linear tracking arms have their own set of problems, but I think that I found one that did not have them.

Actually, I once had a Sony linear tracking table, but I recall nothing much about it. It did bring me back into vinyl and to the purchase of a Rabco arm. When was the PS X800 made?

Tbg...Sometime (when no one can see you), get a hold of a Sony PS X800 turntable with servo controlled linear tracking arm. The "main problems" with linear tracking arms that you cite are very accurate. The Sony arm approach is completely different, and in my experience, flawless. But you won't believe it until you try one.

I have had five different linear trackers. The main problems in my experience are the critical importance of the table being level along the dimension of the linear tracking, the high mass of such arms, and the great inconvenience of those using air bearings, namely that the compressors are noisy and need to have the condensation removed.

I really question whether they are dead, however. There is no question that when well set up, they have less intergroove distortion.

Rushton,I just read the thread(review info,by Walker)and you may have struck on the fact that perhaps some cartridges could not suffer by adding a bit of fluid to the arm.His info does make sense and I'm always open to new ideas(not that this one is new).My only concern is that I have NEVER heard the benefit of damping with any of the cartridges that I've owned,and my friend's are strongly against the use of it.That does not mean that it could not be beneficial in some cases,I've just not run across any.

Rushton,good point!To me though,I've spent too much time rationalizing the loss of AIR, brought about by damping the arm,to be to be anything other than a masking out of musical information.That is not to say that in the case of really crappy recordings it could not make them listenable,but,then what does one do?Add damping for the bad records,and,take it out for the junk?I don't have that much time in my day to fotz around like that!When producers re-release classic(not classical)music there is a real dilemma that they make as to how much info(noise) to leave on the recording.If you hear some of those re-releases they sound processed,which is what,to my ears anyway,damping does.Please don't think I'm trying to be condescending,If you like the music on a disc,and it is more listenable with some damping,then you should listen to what you prefer.

I read:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
what was the rational behind their creation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IMHO:
-strive for zero tracking angle error; not really the case on most designs.
-low effective arm masses

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...Are there any good used tables to consider...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Underrated, cheap and really good- sounding: Technics models like SL-5 SL-7 and SL10. Balanced designs IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
or is this design long gone?....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nononononono..... Njet! There are current models in the Clearaudio and Rauna (Swedish, next street) line:

http://www.rauna.com/

The rauna (once called "El Cheapo") tangential arms are like all Clearaudio Southern models passive tangentials: the goove delivers the movement- energy.

Still there are many tangantial freaks who have built copies of the famous Ladagaard's Air Arm, a tangential floating on a layer op compressed air.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the simplicity of operation intrigues me...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is nothing more simple as a passive radial arm. Some tangentials are amazingly simple too. But most active models are not very simple in my point of view.

I own a lovely little Technics SL- J2. A cute capsulated quartz-DD active tangential player. The enclosure is not larger than a LP- sleeve!
Jan.

Sirspeedy, I'd have to disagree about the advantages of tonearm/cartridge damping. On well mastered and well engineered LPs (most frequently classical and well recorded jazz), I agree: I don't use any damping. But there are many LPs, particularly pop and rock, where a lot of high frequency hash is encoded in the record grooves adding an edginess and overall distortion that makes the record difficult to live with. On these "bad" sounding records, dialing in just a slight amount of damping (as the Walker Audio tt allows one to do, for example) often will clear up that high frequency edginess and make the record listenable. Add too much and you can over-deaden the sound; but when you find the Goldilocks point, you really hear it positively. I've salvaged "listenability" for a number of LPs that way.


www.6moons.com/audioreviews/walker4/sota_6.html
.

With regards to the Rockport arm,I wasn't aware it is marketed as a stand alone unit any longer,but, it obviously looks like a fine design.I had heard one on an early generation Rockport,some years back,but lacked the system intimacy,or knowledge,at that time to determine it's effectiveness,as compared to the generation of arms of that era.With Andy Payor's track record,it was probably wonderful.I do recall Roy Gregory arguing the SIGNIFICANT superiority of the new Kuzma arm(which I've never heard)over ALL previous competitors,including the Fantastic Air Tangent design,when he reviewed it about a year ago in HI-FI PLUS.

If you choose a cartridge carefully ,there is no way "damping"is an advantage.I have had this proven to me on numerous occassions and have finally caved in on this.By the way,Mikelavigne,I also had a room built (dedicated)with dedicated heat and a/c.Do you find the ambient temp.to run generally quite cool in winter?I have added an oil filled elec. heater to make sure the furnace doesn't run too much.

Kuzma now has a damping trough that is retrofittable to the Airline arm.

I've seen and heard the arm at CES. There is no way for me to make any sonic comparisons under those conditions. However, looking at the fit and finish of the air pump, filters, dehydrators, etc., the arm looks to be well engineered. A far cry from stuff like the old Mapenoll arm/table that gave me so much grief.

Why the lack of a damping limit the cartridge choice?

What's the best cartridge's compliance and weight for non-damping linear tracker like Airline?

Kuzma rec. less than 25 for compliance but how about less than,say, 10?

the linear tracker on the Sirius III is not too bad either (i like mine).....i played with two Kuzma Airline's at CES.....they sounded great (difficult to isolate the arm from other factors at the show)....but the lack of a damping trough could limit cartridge choices and ultimate performance.

Well Kreml,
after having evaluated the Schroder Ref against a
Kuzma Airline I went for the Airline . Which
I drive with ZYX and Takeda Miaybi System.
Phono is Klyne 7Pxxx.

I think few people had the chance to hear both arm in
a System .
with best regards Karl-Heinz

Kha: Yes ,I do believe that Schroder T/A's are a work of art to sight and sound. The import my remarks is that with a little kutspha one can take a Maplenoll air bearing T/A to higher level of play. Of course other linear arms exist that out perform, and of course ,cost factors into the discussion.No more ,no less.Oh, how did you know that I was refering to the Schroder Ref. ? Cheers Karl

You have already gotten fabulous responses to what is MY love affair with certain linear arms,AND I only own a GRAHAM 2.2,which is not chopped liver,but,compared to what I have heard(on numerous occassions,and through numerous other component changes)the advantages of a Superb linear arm like the AIR TANGENT,which my friend owns,is inarguably superior to any other type of arm.It has certain set up requirments,but,believe me when you hear one there is NO going back to being truly content with Any pivot design.I can almost guarantee that you will soon see a RAVE review of the KUZMA Airline in T.A.S.This design is supposed to improve upon all of it's predecessors,including the FABULOUS Air Tangent.They are very pricey,but,when you consider what some of us have spent on a quality record collection,are well worth it if you decide to make it a final purchase.Also,for those of you who fantasize about how free we could be,to really upgrade to whatever equipment we wanted to buy if the "little Wife" was out of the picture,just let her get a look at the lengthly tubing runs and external pumps(all of which I,myself love)necessary to employ around her precious Yadros and Hummel Figurines.Heh!Heh!Heh!

@Creml
Well If you own a Kuzma-Airline, you would not
go for the Schroeder Ref. as this Linear
Arm is really a hit.

Best regards
Karl-Heinz

AC: I own a Maplenoll Reference that was purchased in the early 1990's. This air bearing table and tonearm can be significantly upgraded to a point whereby it can complete with almost any combo.Air contol is the key as is a slew of simple tweeks. Experimenting with a different null set for placement of the cartridge and VTA setting one can extract some not all of what a schroder arm has to offer. Simply put you need to do a lot of homework , get good advice and get your hands dirty to make this table perform with the finest made world 'round.Few folks want to put that much effort into a TT. Charlie

ps. I knew little of hifi in those days also and bought the Garrard for the same reasons that you were intrigued by it. I was uneducated enough not to know that an essential element of 70s hifi turntables was absolute minimalism, and so, also uninfluenced by a helpful salesman, I proceded with the purchase. The innovations of the Garrard were revealed to me as I slowly learned how the music got from the record to me.

Hey James that's a pleasure, I probably paint it as better than it really is, but after 30 years it's still a favourite and I still use it as a serious source.

I love vinyl and a big part of that is the character of the ritual that is such a huge part of pulling the music from the medium. The question of why is vinyl better than digital is often asked and the answers invariably involve warmth, presence, vibrancy and many other terms that describe that unique vinyl mood. I agree with all of that that and those are my reasons too, but a much bigger reason is the connection to the medium that is obtained through the ritual of playing vinyl. No other medium involves such a complex set of proceures before you get to listen to the music, and performing the ritual is so familiar and comfortable. And even after the preparation it doesn't stop - if it's not quite right, you can flavour it a bit by adding a little weight or reducing the VTA. I'm sorry, but chucking a cd into the player and pressing 'Go' is such an anti-climax after years of careful preparation of turntable and record, and what you end up with from a cd is the sound engineer's mix with no chance of influence other than that available through the pre-amp. It might be accurate, but sometimes it's not appropriate.

To come back to the Garrard (no I hadn't forgotten the reason for the post), the fact is that the Garrard was an innovative machine in its time, but I love it because its eccentric character absolutely compliments my love of playing vinyl.

Sorry for the rant, I'm not sure where that came from, especially considering that I'm preaching to the converted - but at least it's out now and I won't have to do it again.

Tassiemike, Thanks for the perspective on the Zero 100. I remember looking at one back in the 70s, before I knew anything about hifi. I was intrigued by the nifty solution that the articulating cantilever design provided for linear tracking. I recall the salesman badmouthed it, disparaging the design by claiming the cantilever assembly added too much mass and the extra pivots added too much friction and had too much play to provide satisfactory stability. The clincher was the unrefined auto return mechanism you mentioned, which turned me off as soon as he operated it. I got a Benjamin Miracord Elac 50H instead (still have it!). I'm glad to learn the real story on the Zero 100 from you, after all these years.

The Garrard Zero 100 got undeserved bad press and was often unfairly maligned - it's a little hard to understand why because it was a leader in much more than just zero tracking error.

It had:

an all-metal sub chassis suspended on foam cushioned coils.

a 5lb, hand balanced, cast aluminum, belt driven (not rim driven) platter running on an inverted, hardened single ball main bearing with the bearing situated at the center of gravity of the platter.

a balanced, synchronous motor so quiet and vibration free that, although independantly suspended, could probably run hard mounted to the sub-chassis without intruding.

a machined aluminum (not plastic) double rectangular (larger on smaller) section low mass tone-arm, articulated to track at zero error across the full width of the record. The cantilever was a thin (2 mm) aluminum tube that added about 2 grams to the overall mass of the arm.

and magnetic anti-skate with graduated scales for both conical and eliptical stylii. The amount of antiskate force applied automatically reduced as the arm tracked across the record.

I bought a Zero 100SB new in 1973 and have been using it ever since. I also own a Rega Planar 3/RB300, a Thorens 125/Rabco SL8E and Linn LP12/SME 3012. I'm a bit of a collector of TT classics and have a few more non-working examples under the bench waiting to join the ranks. I love all these turntables and can say without fear or favour that the Garrard holds its own in performance with the others and is way out in front in terms of character. It certainly deserves its place in this little collection of classics.

The main problems with the Zero 100 were marketing ones rather than performance. It had a clunky, noisy auto return mechanism that looked and sounded cheap and nasty in operation and a plastic headshell that had a non-locking slide out cartridge carrier that looked like it should be a performance weak point, but, in practice, turns out not to be. The auto return mechanism has no connection to the arm when not in use so its operation in no way affects the quality of the arm's performance and it still works today in exactly the same cheap and nasty, clunky, noisy, efficient way that it did in 1973.

If Garrard had incorporated a classier auto return mechanism, a single piece headshell and had charged significantly more for the turntable it would probably have had an easier ride into the high end where it belongs.

As I remember it, the first significant stab at a "linear tracking" tonearm was the one fitted to the 1973 Garrard Zero-100 turntable. This was basically a conventional pivoting tonearm, but with a cantilever meachanism which rotated the headshell as it tracked across the LP, theoretically correcting the tracking error in the process. The arm was made of plastic, and the 'table was idler driven. Needless to say, it sounded pretty awful. The B&O came out a couple of years later and was a commercial success, if not a compelling audiophile performer.

I believe that the biggest obstacle to a satisfactory affordable linear tracking design is the lack of a simple mechanism to drive the arm along its linear bearing. It seems to me that this is where the costs of producing the existing molto expensivo designs builds from.

FWIW, I would expect that above a certain performance level, a linear tracking arm would indeed offer the potential for further sonic improvements. I say this by employing an arm-waving argument that says the geometric magnitude of linear tracking errors is potentially larger than the geometric correction applied by VTA adjustments, etc.

Eldartford . . Good point, linear tracking alone would not have made a mass market difference. Correction to yesterday's note: though not the Sony's equal, the Phase Linear spec is 0.2°

At one time used a parametric equalizer, SAE 5k impulse noise reduction (click and pop filter) and a dbx 3bx. The remote was nice, but later realized (TAS) how important speaker placement and the minimal approach can be. With two grand boxed up, the unveiled clarity outweighed other benefits (to my wooden ears). Placed using a spectrum analyzer, my pathetic mid-fi two ways placed a realistic upright bass in my room. Recently discovered they can surpass Infinity RS-IIb's on basic instrumental works.

A decent cartridge costs more than Joe Schmo's system, we're stuck with the source material.

Getting late and for now, off this tangent,

Steve

trimmer@nodomain.net...With regard to groove spacing...it not only varies between records, but varies within a record according to the program. Loud music requires wider groove spacing, and for soft music closer grooves are OK. Variable groove spacing makes it possible to get more minutes of music on an LP.
The servo controlled linear tracking system of the Sony PS-X800 varies the arm movement speed so as to keep the tangential error angle down to nearly zero. (The spec is 0.05 degree).

And with regard to "CD disease" linear tracking would not have prevented that, but DBX-encoded records might have slowed it down.

Phasecorrect,

Its a shame this never caught on; might have prevented the CD disease. No, not trying to start THAT discussion . . .

Have not read the whole thread, but have heard (2nd, 3rd and/or 4th hand info?) many albums were produced, i.e. the wax masters were cut, on linear tracking arm equipment, such as Ortofon (Ortophon?) systems. Hence, the arguement to play 'em on equipment like they were made.

I had an HK / Rabco ST-7 linear tracker. Nice but not all LP's have the same number of grooves/inch, so tangential tracking goes awry with albums differing from the average.

Currently have a Phase Linear Model 8000 Series Two. IIRC the photo-diode interrupt maintains +/- 0.3° true tangential. You can see it work on an album with an off-center hole, though movement is usually imperceptible. I've heard it was based on or OEM'd from Pioneer, though the unit Sean listed makes me wonder all over again - perhaps it was the other way around?

If anyone has a manual for the Phase Linear, I would be more than happy to reimburse expenses. Bought second hand, and the dealer never came through on the promised owner's and tech/repair manuals.

Had hoped to get a Sota or ClearAudio down the road, though it may be after some monoblocks. Guess I'm an outtadated wanabe, I'll have to read up on the Maplenoll.

Sean, please, let me know if you're selling any "excess" linear inventory!

Steve

Sean, how would you rate the players - from most favorite to least?

Sean, I figured that might be your answer and in general I agree. I found the 4002 to be more than OK, but did run into reliability problems with the lifting mechanism. Got an Oracle Alexandra Mk IV with Rega 300 after that.
BTW, one could fit other cartridges than the B & O on the 4002 using an adaptor, although I never tried that.

Bob: I never really liked B&O gear. It is "stylish" and all but i always thought of it as being "gutless". While their TT's might be okay, i have a hard time with any design that is proprietary i.e. support components ( phono cartridge ) has to be bought from them and only them. Sean
>

Sean, what no B & O 4002?!

How did i miss this thread???

I've got a Sota Star Sapphire vacuum platter with an ET II air bearing linear tracking arm on it.

I've got another Sota Star Sapphire vacuum platter with a Clearaudio TQ-I linear tracking arm on it.

I've got a Maplenoll Athena with an air bearing linear tracking arm on the way. It should be here sometime late next week.

I've got an HK / Rabco ST-7 linear tracker.

I've got an HK / Rabco ST-4 linear tracker.

I've got a Revox B-790 linear tracker.

I've got a Pioneer PL-800 linear tracker.

My guess is that the reason that Linear tracker's never took off is because very few people have ever seen or heard one. That's because i bought them all : ) Sean
>

If a Linear Tracking Tonearm like the ET2 are set up correctly with table/stand being level there are very few ajustments after the initial setup, I have had my ET2 set up for over a year and have only had to adjust it once just last week. Most tables need an adjusting every 6 months just to keep it right (if you use your table alot). I had an Linn LP12 that their was always something to tweak on it and I messed with this more than my current setup that's why I switched to the Teres 255/ET2/Shelter 901 and haven't looked back since. I should have bought the ET2 a long time ago, now I enjoy the music the way it was supposed be with NO inner groove distortion like regular tonearms have.

Steve.

Wazzup Everybody!

I had a Revox 791 AND a Maplenoll. The Revox was decent anf the Maplenoll was a killa! But I got tired of the fuss and the pumps and what-have-you so I've been happy for the last 15 years with my LP12.

Julie, yeah and there was lots of misinformation! First of all, the first air-bearing tonearm was apparently designed by Infinity, the makers as well of the Black Widow tonearm, as well as speakers. From there, the design went on to Old Coloney, and eventually morphed into the Maplenoll air-bearing 'tables which Bruce Thigpen was involved in before he went on his own and designed the ET tonearms. As I wrote above, problems with the arm bottoming out at the end of a side can easily be taken care of by re-orienting the manifold inside the arm-block on Maplenolls and adjusting the air-ports via the hex-screws, which thereafter never have this problem. And in practice, MCs work very well in this rig, and I have used Grados and Deccas on it as well. So reports of difficulties concerning high lateral mass are simply not audible in practice, so this difficulty is exaggerated in the article and "out there" in general. As always, imporper set-up/understanding is to blame. Of course, MCs with low compliance do work best, but since the scene is currently dominated by such cartridges, then this is not a problem.

There was a big article on linear tonearms in this month's HIFI+ magazine (Issue 28). Kind of interesting reading.

Julie

I have a Maplenoll - had different iterations through the years and have gone back to the original Athena with fluid damping trough which, as was said above, sounds VIVID compared to most of the 'tables out there, with great Prat and deep, powerful bass. It is also silky smooth, and of course, has excellent imaging. Once set up, the 'table stays set up, and I would say it has been my most reliable 'table over the years, excepting some recent classic acquisitions. For pump noise, I run two of the older, smaller pumps together, which were very quiet. Low-compliance MCs word excellently in this, and I have managed to overcome the physical problems associated with the 'table, which came down to orientation of the manifold. I am the resident expert on Maplenoll maintenance. I think a brilliant success, it was the aesthetics more than anything which led to its demise. If you are interested, Phasecorrect, I have a friend who is interested in selling his, an Athena (looks kind of like a large oak jewel-box) with updated arm, no damping trough. Works perfectly, with pump, tank and hose. He recently found something he likes better.

Hello,

I have a solution for the Sony PS-X 800 trouble, that the tonearm is not going down over the vinyl. You can do it yourself. Please contact me under MHartmaier@t-online.de

I just fired up the old Sony PSX-800 for a quick listen. The old Shure V15 pickup tracks perfectly over the complete disc at the minimum downforce setting of 0.5 gram. Try that with your SME! If you have a MC pickup tracking at 2.5 grams I guess it doesn't matter.

Also, review of the service manual tells me that the tracking angle error is held within 0.05 degree, not 0.1 as I suggested in my post. That matters for any pickup.