Comparison of sonic qualities of some tonearms


I’m relatively new to the world of vinyl, listening seriously for probably only 2 years.  Of course, many big picture items (e.g. turntable, phono stage, cartridges) are discussed extensively on this forum, but I haven’t seen much discussion comparing different tonearms.  I would be interested to hear about different people’s experiences with different tonearms, mentioning the audible advantages and disadvantages of each tonearm, realizing that there is no perfect sound, although from what I read about others’ experiences, SAT tonearms may come closest, albeit at a very high price.  

drbond

@mijostyn : " Those are huge benefits, not that you can ignore other aspects of tonearm design. "

In the example measurements of the SAT tonearm its maximum tracking erro is a " huge " 1.42° but only at one surface place, normally the tracking error is around 0.5° to -0.5°

What I said is that pivoted LT has no " huge " differences or beats the normal pivoted tonearms and both normally beats any LT tonearm in the bass range performance more or less in the same bass range where digital always is superior to the LP experience/alternative..

R.

 

 

asvjerry, That may be why the Vestigial tonearm, supplied by Transcriptors with their still futuristic turntables, lies in the dustbin of audio history.  The other reason is it was a terrible design.

Pindac, I was surprised not to see carbon fiber on your list of headshell materials to be evaluated.  In the right context (with medium to high compliance cartridges), I have had favorable experiences. Also, Ortofon and Yamamoto both make creditable wooden headshells that are not P'holz.

@rauliruegas 

Yes, the standard pivoted tonearm has a 1-1.5 degree tracking error.  The linear tracking tonearm that I have mounted (Reed 5A) has a 3-4 minute tracking error (which is 1/15-1/20 of a degree);  I don't know if it is this lower tracking error is responsible for the difference that I hear, but it seems reasonable that it could account for the improved soundstage that I hear when playing the LT tonearm.  

Did anyone ask @drbond what the goal is with another arm? Improvement over the Reed (which looks very nice)? A second arm for mono or a cartridge that likes to see higher mass?

If you want an amusing read, go find j.g. holt's original review of the Transcriptor's arm- it is a hoot to read and the back and forth with the manufacturer in the follow up comments to the review are equally funny.

I have no overarching view on the merits of various tonearms- since I'm not looking at specs, and have to hear them in situ. 

@mijostyn 's comment about the lack of bass from a conventional linear tracker is fair, but somehow, changing the cartridge-- Koetsu stone, adding subwoofers and readjusting the entire system to a new room gives me dimensional, very filled in bass that sounds natural on the lower registers with acoustic instruments- piano, double bass, etc. So, even that "truth" about the lack of bass in the conventional style linear tracker can be shaded by context and may be system-dependent in my experience. 

I am going to offer a slightly different perspective here as there have been several mentions of the Safir in this thread. I own a Safir and combine it with a Koetsu Blue Lace, a Koetsu SUT and a CS Port turntable. I have progressed through five different analog combinations over the past 5 or 6 years, ultimately arriving at my current setup. I had previously run an Audio Oragami arm on a Palmer turntable and so the change created by the Safir was truly material. 

I understand the potential for multiple types of bias in evaluating the impact of a new component and unfortunately the audiophile game doesn't lend itself to blind studies and controlled A/B testing (cartridge buying, for example, is often a leap of faith as what dealer will "lend" you a cartridge to try?) We can read reviews and look at the measurements and test data, but in the end it comes down to the actual sound. I recently read a review of some new Dan D'Agostino equipment and Dan was quoted as follows:

"In the end, I'm only interested in how good a component sounds. I'm never going to make something that sounds impolite, buzzes, hums, or only works with a certain speaker. But I do not care about the measurements when I look at my Audio Precision or HP stuff. When it shows me a reasonable output and indicates that it's doing a good job, that's all I care about."

For me, the Safir brought a new level of presence to the music I love (Bill Evans, Art Pepper, Steely Dan, James Taylor, etc) and I heard detail previously lost. And more importantly to me, there was nothing "tiring" in the reproduction and so I can listen for hours and enjoy. And when I then moved to the CS Port and added the new Koetsu pieces, I again heard and experienced a similar improvement. 

I will leave it to others to debate that on paper (or in specs) there are "better" choices, because in the end it really should come down to how the music sounds.