VPI 2nd Pivot for 3D

billstevenson

This is a response to Raul's contention that there is a "problem" with unipivot tonearms ... It falls far short of proof in any scientific sense that a problem exists with unipivot tonearms. Yes they wobble a bit at first drop, but stabilize very quickly ... Properly set up, the ability of any given cartridge to track well is not noticeably different when mounted in a unipivot tonearm. This can be heard and observed using an oscilloscope. That is a fact. Cross talk for any given cartridge is not measurably diminished based on two arms of comparable quality, one double gimbal type vs. a unipivot. That is a fact. As any stylus wears I have carefully observed the patterns of wear for cartridges mounted on quality arms of various designs and have not observed any aberrations in wear patterns that resulted from unipivot arms. This has been done using a Herr-Wildbrugg microscope, Model M3 or M5 starting in 1975 or 1976. That is a fact ... there is no inherent problem with unipivot tonearms. They are different and not to eveyones' liking, but functionally they are fine. If you don't like them, don't use one, but you have no cause to malign the design.

Bill, I couldn't agree with you more. I have heard some outstanding unipivot arms - truly exquisite - and Raul's insistence that there are "facts" that make them inherently flawed is just nonsense. There are reasons that unipivots endure in the marketplace, and performance is certainly one of them.

Nevertheless, I admit that I really don't care for unipivot arms and for that reason I've never owned one. It's a tactile thing with me; they just don't inspire confidence and don't exude the precision that I expect of a fine pickup arm. I've always indulged that preference, as I have my other audiophile preferences. The difference between Raul and me is that I don't insist that "facts" support my choice. It's just a preference. I don't feel obligated to convince the world that "facts" support my choice.

Raul,

I am having an extremely difficult time comprehending your message. Extracted from your last post is the following example:

" Your " facts " about can’t prove that I’m wrong in my main " at micro levels unstability in any unipivot tonearm ". Reason is that those measures were not made it to prove it but to prove other targets.
We have to know what kind of measures where and how to achieve it to prove a specific subject. This time: at micro levels unstability in unipivot tonearm designs."

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Really I am at a complete loss. Would you try again?

It seems you are trying to make some point about instability due to wobble, but it is not clear to me what it is. Moreover, it is entirely unclear to me what the practical consequences might be? If it is to make the point that unipivot arms sound different than comparable double gimbal arms, I concede the point. But, we must also acknowledge that two different double gimbal arms sound different from each other too. Where does that lead us?

Dear @cleeds : Good that agree with bill. I that regards are wrong because the Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing.

I'm not talking if you love unipivot kind of sound or if you do not, this is not the MAIN SUBJECT but its inherent unstability.

You said: """  that make them inherently flawed is just nonsense. """
but you did not say why is inherently flawed all what I posted .. Through my posts in this thread I explain those facts in a wide manner, read it again and please please come back here and tell us the why's of that " inherent flawed ".

 You followed:   """  There are reasons that unipivots endure in the marketplace... """

As several other audio " myths " is only because ignorance. Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE that is where lives the MUSIC and the audio hobby.

That " should be " is something that each one of us have to make and take a day by day learning path where in many audio/MUSIC subjects on that whole " should be " are almost unknow for many of us.
Not an easy process task that it's not only time consuming but dificult to understand and where we need to ask our selfs: what is happening down there, at each single step that any audio link makes its job. 
In the case of the ridding cartridge job almost we have to analize as if we were the cartridge and have the vision of " our " job ridding those tortuos LP grooves and all what this means. We have to do first with out taking in count TT or tonearm but as a stand alone cartridge and from here analize what in the " hell " are the cartridge needs to fulfill its very hard task.

It's an overall process at each step, we have to go as deepest as we can with patience.
We have to analize at least from where comes the recorded information in the LPs. Well, that normally comes from what the recording microphones pick-up in NEAR FIELD not at 30 m. from the music source as happens when we are seated in a music hall.

Those are incomplete examples to sooner or latter know how everything in audio SHOULD BE and improve our listening quality levels.
The rewards are fenomenal and we learn several things as if we discover a new audio world.

When we start to make the audio systems changes to achieve that " should be " we will know that in the past we were wrong and in this " new world " we really enjoy the MUSIC as never before.
I'm still in the quest to finish that " should be " and I can tell you that's worth to do it.

I'm not different of each one of you: I'm a MUSIC lover and I want to achieve the true best listening experiences through my home stereo audio system. Tha's all and as many other audio items unipivots can't help to approach that targets.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

To summarize @rauliruegas lengthy, incomprehensible and misspelled post

"I imagine myself as the cartridge tracking the record and I thereby know unipivots cannot work"

hmmm ...

folkfreak

To summarize @rauliruegas lengthy, incomprehensible and misspelled post

"I imagine myself as the cartridge tracking the record and I thereby know unipivots cannot work"

That's a fair summary. I would only add that Raul asserts his claims as "facts" and when pressed for proof, basically just repeats the assertion. Yet he demands rigorous proof from anyone else who cites a fact. So it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with him, which is why I've given up.

It's plain to see that Raul is wrong about unipivot pickup arms. I share his distaste for them. The difference is only that I consider it a preference. I'm not trying to convince anyone that "facts" support my preference, or that I have some special understanding of how they function.