Unipivots Hadcocks Vs Grahams

Dear Dsa: I respect your idea that the unipivots is the way to go. IMHO the bearing design ( that is very important in many differnt ways ) can't tell any one ( per se ) how good is a tonearm ( if reviewer have unipivots they have not because are unipivot designs, things are a lot more complex that the bearing subject. ).

Here is something that could help you to understand or at least a different point of view on how complex is the cartridge/tonearm relationship, you can see that " things " are not so simple like you imply about unipivot tonearms:

+++++ " The only measurable " cartridge parameters to arm matching. " that I know is what almost all already knew about effective tonearm mass along weight/compliance cartridge where the result ( resonance frequency ) must be ( or have to be ) between 8hz to 12hz ( more or less ).

+++++ " . Share the reasons the match works well " +++++

I have almost non " true/measurable/repetitive " reasons about other that the one above.

The relationship between a tonearm/cartridge ( other that the one mentioned ) is extremely complex for say the least.

I already say many times that I own/owned so many tonearms not because I'm a tonearm collector but because trying one cartridge with different tonearms let me to obtain ( know ) where that cartridge show its best quality performance.
I find with several cartridges that even ( in one tonearm ) when the resonance frequency value is 5hz-6hz those cartridges could perform better than with other tonearm where that resonance frequency is on target: 10hz, reasons?, any one you name could be true but we can't know for sure!!!

My very long experience ( in deep cartridge/tonearm quality performance research ) on the subject tell me that there are not simple explanations about, let me explain:

IMHO almost every tonearm and cartridge each one design parameters contribute ( more or less ) in the final quality performance.

Take the tonearm ( for example ):

- bearing design: unipivot, linear tracking/air bearing, dual pivot, gimball/jewel, etc, etc. Each one bearing design has its own signature " color " ( in the right color word meaning. ).

- each tonearm bearing design is added with the " color " of the bearing build material ( ruby, air, magnetic, steel, ceramic, etc, etc ), how is this?, hard to say how contributes and in which " quantity " to the final " color tonearm performance ".

- we have to continue adding more " colors ", tonearm shape: J, S, straight, etc, etc. Each design has its own resonances, dissipations vibrations speed, etc, etc Which one is the right one?, IMHO almost no one can say it.

- continue on the adding color to our quality performance matched final " picture ", tonearm build material: aluminum, steel, ceramic, titanium, wood, hybrid, plastic, etc, etc, etc. Each one of these tonearm build materials has its own characteristics: self damping, elasticity point, self resonances, easy to vibrate, etc, etc

- fix or removable headshell in each tonearm bearing design type/bearing build material/shape tonearm/tonearm build material/etc/etc. How many combinations here? !!!!!and each combination give us a different quality performance.

- we can go on on this: headshell shape, headshell weight, headshell build material, tonearm dynamic or static balance way, internal wiring, counterweights?

Now, we can go to the cartridges own parameters:

- MC or MM.
- magnet type
- coil material
- output level: infinite number!!!
- cantilever material
- cantilever length
- stylus shape
- body shape
- build material shape
- cartridge weight
- cartridge compliance
- internal impedance
- suspension type
- suspension build material
- cartridge channel balance
- cartridge channel separation
- cartridge frequency response
- tracking ability
- tip mass
- etc, etc, etc

Well, IMHO all those single cartridge/tonearm each one parameters/characteristics ( between others ) contribute to the final great or poor tonearm/cartridge quality performance. I can't say for sure the reasons but I can say again that is extremly complex to say the least. " +++++

this is not only my experience and the experiences of many other people in fact we are ( Guillermo and I ) in the tonearm design right now where we already made an in-deep research about.
Maybe you are right and the unipivot tonearm design is the way to go, like I say I respect your opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Hello Raul,
Do you count tonearms to get to sleep? All of what said is true and some of it I even already know. To a degree, it's like russian roulette. However, the weight/compliance issue is at least a good starting point.

It's a little like front wheel drive versus rear wheel drive. Everyone has an opinion on it. For the record, front wheel drive only makes sense to me if I look at manufacturing costs and, perhaps petrol consumption. Beyond that, its plain dumb. However, like certain tonearm designs, if done well, it does work well.

In the end, due to money, time and availability, we go with design principles as a starting point (at least I do). The theory behind Unipivot arms makes real sense. Keep it simple, use good materials, and manufacture to tight tolerances.

With so many tonearms and cartridge combinations tested, what would you suggest I do? We have a few givens. (1) I own a direct drive Technics SL1210 (2) I will soon have an Ortofon 2M Black (3) I have a strong preference for a unipivot arm (4) this thread is about choosing between the Hadcock and a Graham (older 1.5 albeit) (5) It actually has to be able to fitted to the Technics (6) I don't want a Rega or a Moth or a Origin Live Silver.

You could also give me your take on the Graham 1.5. Too old? Too light in the bass?

I just bought an Ortofon 2m Black to put on my (unipivot) Basis Vector tonearm. It replaced a Grado Signature (I need a high output cart because it plugs into a restored McIntosh MX 110.

The Grado was failing (all sorts of problems), but even in its best days, it never had the tight bass that the Ortofon has. The Ortofon is a little bright, but it's new so I'm waiting to see what happens as it breaks in.

I own a Graham 2.0 (upgraded) with ceramic arm - but never mounted it because I bought it with the mistaken impression it would drop in to my Basis 1400 turntable. If you're interested in the arm let me know. I haven't tried to sell it because I was thinking about buying another turntable.

Dear Dsa: Like I told you : maybe you are right.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I've been using a Hadcock 228 for many years. Despite its light weight it has matched well with every cartridge I've put on it irrespective of weight, compliance, MM or MC; however, in principle it should match the Ortofon perfectly. The only problem is setup. Unless Hadcock has changed its design, set screws hold everything in place requiring a lot of patience whereas I believe the Graham allows you to dial in many of the adjustments but perhaps at a performance cost.