What defines a good tonearm

I don't care what fancy gimbal bearing you have you cannot beat a needle on a dimple.

That is of course exactly how the bearings in the Triplanar are built. Except they are about 8 grades harder than the hardest commercial bearings, DHS notwithstanding.

Gimbal arm does not guarantee azimuth accuracy. The Triplanar's way azimuth adjustment is placed before the offset angle at the headshell, unless the worm gear is angled accordingly--approximately 23°--that adjustment will affect VTA.

In this quote, the former statement is in no way supported or detracted by the latter statement. However the juxtaposition suggests that the latter statement is being used to support the former. This type of argument is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. A logical fallacy is by definition, false; this example is not an exception.

It is a simple fact that once set, the azimuth will not/cannot oscillate on a gimbaled arm as it is held in locus. That is a not feature of even the magnetically-stabilized unipivots, although the use of magnetics did dramatically reduce that oscillation and is a major step forward for them.

I use master recordings for reference. Its the only way I have found to really know if you are on the right track. So for me its not a 'cup of tea' thing. I'm just trying to get the LPs to sound as close to the master as I can.

And yet, the Talea is clearly superior to the Triplanar in playback performance.

That is of course exactly how the bearings in the Triplanar are built.

Notice the word "bearings" is in plural...

This type of argument is a logical fallacy known as a red herring.

All this fallacy talk is making my head hurt. What I want to say is I wish the azimuth adjustment on the Triplanar is done in relation to the offset angle. If the headshell has an offset angle, the azimuth adjustment mechanism should have an offset angle so it would not affect VTA. The Vector's second spike is placed with an offset angle just like the headshell. Same thing with outrigger weights on the early Graham. The Phantom's magnet sticking out of the bearing housing is angled 23° for a reason.

It is a simple fact that once set, the azimuth will not/cannot oscillate on a gimbaled arm as it is held in locus.

I did NOT say there's azimuth oscillation in a gimbal arm. It requires more set up care if the design of the azimuth adjustment disregards the relationship between azimuth and VTA in a tonearm with offset angle.

I'm just trying to get the LPs to sound as close to the master as I can.

Congratulations on finding the perfect tonearm while I look up what is a logical fallacy. Oh, I suppose you tried every tonearm in existence.

_______

to be clear, i've never claimed any specific tonearm as best, only the 'best i've heard'. what i wrote;

the very best arms i have heard are the Durand Talea 1 and Talea 2 in my system, in other systems, and at shows. i would also add the Continuum Cobra to these 2. i've heard the Cobra 5 different times at audio shows.

i never said or intimated i'd heard most or all tonearms. i've heard quite a few if i include various shows.

i did offer my opinion that i felt strongly that unipivots will turn out to be the ultimate tonearm design approach and stick by that.

This is what I posted:

+++++ " Do you think that a bearing friction as low as 4mcg. ( like in the Technics EPA-100MK2 ) permit that ride-free condition?, IMHO certainly yes.
Which advantage has any unipivot against a fixed bearing tonearm like that one ? , IMHO none other than disadvantages: you speak of " the micro and nano wiggling ... " and is that micro/nano work the one that unipivots IMHO not solve yet. " ++++++ and this was posted by Hiho:

+++++ " The problem with unipivot is, obviously, not about lack of movement but TOO MANY planes of movement, " +++++

any tonearm designer is freedom to choose the pivot bearing type and this fact is out of discussion.

IMHO a unipivot design is the " worst " choice for a pivot tonearm because its inherent unstability that's a main subject to permit not only that the cartridge rides the grooves but that that same unstabilities ( in all planes. ) add minute distortions on the cartridge/tonearm quality performance ( I'm not talking here if you like or not those distortions, this is not the subject: what you like or I like has no importance here. ).
The first issue in a unipivot design is try to fix what can't be fixed and I mean fixed not almost fixed.

I asked: what advantages gives an unipivot/dual point tonearm against a fixed bearing design ( gimball, jewell or what ever )on that specific regards?, my answer is none but disadvantages.

Do you think that the cartridge ( at microscopic level. ) only moves in horizontal direction?, certainly not it moves in all directions and all those cartridge random movements only excited the unipivot unstabilities more.

Maybe you think that the side-weight, oil damping and weigth a top is enough to fix the problems in an unipivot but certainly no.

In the other side and this is my opinion as an audiophile: why choose an inherent faulty type pivot bearing and try to fixed when exist other pivot bearing types where you have to fix nothing?, makes no common sense to me especially that can't gives us any advantage even if its unstabilities are truly fixed ( ideal world ). So: in favor of what can we choose unipivots tonearms to achieve performance cartridges levels of excellence.
Yes, a cartridge quality performance level does not depends only in the tonearm bearing type and at " random " through the tonearm design could be that those unipivot unstabilities bearing inherent distortions on playback could be more or less hide, but still there.
A cartridge ask for a extremely fast tonearm response to the different movements ridding the LP grooves, you can imagine a race car in a circuit where stability on the road curves ( one after one after one all in different directions. ) is a must to have:
in the race car there are several parameters/factors/car build characteristics that help the car stay on the " road " it does not matters how " agressive " were those "road " directions changes " ( at high velocity where the driver has control on that speed. ) in the other side the cartridge/tonearm has no control over " recording velocities " and the cartrridge movements are at random: in a fixed bearing pivot tonearm the cartridge is secure because has no single " free movements in all planes " as an unipivot that can't recovery fast as need it/asked by the cartridge, those very tiny movements that styll exist on unipivots/dual preclude to attain what the cartridge asks in the same way and with the applomb of a fixed bearing tonearm type. A priori the unipivots/duals have no unstabilities because those unstabilities were already fixedbut dear gentlemans that " fixed " was at macroscopic level not where really matter that's at microscopic stylus tip ridding grooves.

To all that we have to add all the LP imperfections as LP's hole off-set and several waves on the vynil ( between others. )

If some of you with unipivots/dual and fixed bearings tonearms have a method/process to detect trhough real music LPs different kind of distortions then you can be aware of the tonearm bearing distortions between an unipivot/dual and a fixed bearing tonearm design because this specific subject. The added distortions exist but not easy to detect with out specific tests.

Now, from the point of view of what we like everything is 100% subjective and each one of us have different preferences on tonearms, but this is not the subject.

Of course that I can be wrong on the whole subject or maybe I could missed something but today this is my take.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.