"Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing."
I was going to let this go, but you have restated it and it is becoming obvious that you are ignorant of the scientific method. What I offered were several indirect proofs that unipivot arms perform well. Indirect proofs are repeatable, independently verifiable, and are sound science. That they mean nothing to you tells me that you are no scientist. You claim to know what you are doing, but this belies that claim. What "means nothing" by contrast are the You Tube clips you referenced which do not measure anything, do not provide a verifiable proof of anything and do not allow independent verification. Your "proof" is not science. It is worthless.
"Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE.... "
You have repeated this sentiment several times and it must be dealt with. How do you propose to establish "what should be?" And since we are talking about music, we are also talking about many intangibles such as for example acoustics. Are you suggesting that it is possible to establish one set of parameters for "what should be" that would be universally correct for all tastes and all situations? To illustrate: small group, acoustic performance, "should be" set in an entirely different venue than would be desirable for a full opera production. So what do you mean by "what should be?" Then too, are you advocating the elimination of free choice in our musical enjoyment? If Adolf Hitler had his way, we'd all be Wagnerians. Can we all agree that the world is a better place without that sort of restriction (no offense to any Wagnerians intended)?
Finally, your response to my tongue-in-cheek reference to the Holy Grail is telling. The obvious answer to your "why not?" is because such a thing does not exist. It is becoming clear that you are on a one man quest for something that a) is not practical and cannot be obtained (and may I say parenthetically, Thank God!), and it would not be viable even if achievable because as audiophiles we are all a bunch of free spirits who happily want to go our own way, make our own choices, in short, follow our own muse.
I was going to let this go, but you have restated it and it is becoming obvious that you are ignorant of the scientific method. What I offered were several indirect proofs that unipivot arms perform well. Indirect proofs are repeatable, independently verifiable, and are sound science. That they mean nothing to you tells me that you are no scientist. You claim to know what you are doing, but this belies that claim. What "means nothing" by contrast are the You Tube clips you referenced which do not measure anything, do not provide a verifiable proof of anything and do not allow independent verification. Your "proof" is not science. It is worthless.
"Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE.... "
You have repeated this sentiment several times and it must be dealt with. How do you propose to establish "what should be?" And since we are talking about music, we are also talking about many intangibles such as for example acoustics. Are you suggesting that it is possible to establish one set of parameters for "what should be" that would be universally correct for all tastes and all situations? To illustrate: small group, acoustic performance, "should be" set in an entirely different venue than would be desirable for a full opera production. So what do you mean by "what should be?" Then too, are you advocating the elimination of free choice in our musical enjoyment? If Adolf Hitler had his way, we'd all be Wagnerians. Can we all agree that the world is a better place without that sort of restriction (no offense to any Wagnerians intended)?
Finally, your response to my tongue-in-cheek reference to the Holy Grail is telling. The obvious answer to your "why not?" is because such a thing does not exist. It is becoming clear that you are on a one man quest for something that a) is not practical and cannot be obtained (and may I say parenthetically, Thank God!), and it would not be viable even if achievable because as audiophiles we are all a bunch of free spirits who happily want to go our own way, make our own choices, in short, follow our own muse.