Origin Live Tonearms

@goofyfoot I have heard the Illustrious used with a Garrard 401 and have a long term usage of a 401 under my belt with a SME IV.

I never had a Cart' in use as the Sumiko Pearwood.

From Recollection, the experience of the Garrard 401 built into a Compressed Bamboo Plinth > Illustrious > Sumiko, mounted on a 2 X Tier of Panzerholz Board as a Sub Plinth, is possibly the best Idler Drive I have heard in a non owned system, and I would say this will possibly have been the outcome if the demonstration was in my own system.

The owner of the arm now has it mounted with Cart' on a Belt Drive Schue TT, which has been modified with a Origin Live Modified Motor.

I am yet to be demonstrated this, but the owner is claiming that it is as good as the SME 20/12 that was sold off not too long ago.  

Recently I missed a demonstration of comparisons between the Schue, and Two other TT's. 

@pindac Interesting, I've gotten mixed opinions about the SME tonearms. Originally, it was suggested to me that if I wanted a good but less expensive option in choosing a turntable, that a Thorens TD 160 was a good place to start but that some modifications would be necessary, including the replacement of the stock Thorens tonearm. So replacing the tonearm was a priority even prior to the plinth replacement, dampening of sub chassis, etc... It's just taking me a while to get to it. And, I'd be willing to consider the OL motor upgrade however the Thorens motor is apparently one of the reasons it was so highly regarded back in the early 1970's. Anyway, the original Thorens stock tonearm is underwhelming and with a better tonearm such as the OL, having a better tonearm cable running directly from the cartridge to the phono stage is an ideal solution. My other consideration within the same price point as the Encounter is the Thomas Schick tonearm but as good as the Schick appears to be, I'm guessing that for a few hundred dollars less, the Encounter would be a better value. But back to your description of the Garrard 301, that tonearm would have been a 12 inch tonearm meaning it could render a better tone than the 9.5 inch tonearm however I'm hoping that not to be the case. Anyway, it looks as though I'll have to eventually use my credit card for a portion of the purchase cost.

In the not too distant future, I will be receiving some of the fruits born from my encouragement, and will be in a position to be demonstrated the same New Design Tonearms in both 9" and 12" on the same TT, using the same Brand/Model Cart's with a very similar usage life.

There is also to be a selection of Types of Wand Wiring to see where the Signal Path is most benefitted. 

This same set up will also enable other Tonearm Brands to be A/B compared with same Cart's in use.

A new recent turnout has been that the Geometries for the New Design Tonearms are a relatively easy alteration and there will be a Overhung/ Underhung Geometry A/B compared as well, this can be done in both 9" and 12" if there is something discovered that is seemingly worthwhile having a furthering of the experience.   

I have donated a Cart', along with a selection of Tonearms to be A/B compared.  The Designer / Builder of the initial arms to be A/B compared, also has in their possession my no longer used SME IV to be compared in their early tests.

This will be the very first time, I will have been able to form a accurate view on the 9" vs 12" Wand and how the differing lengths effect a presentation, as these methods to be used for the demonstrating are not usually found readily available to be used.  

These tonearms, do they have a product name? Are they in the public domain? I’m just wondering. My understanding is that a 12 inch tonearm need not be hindered by anti skate and that this fact alone gives the longer tonearm an advantage. This is about the extent of my knowledge.

@goofyfoot , anti skating is not a hindrance. It is a very important mechanism for any offset arm, 12" included. 9" arms are superior in every aspect except tracking angle error and the difference in tracking angle error is inconsequential.