What defines a good tonearm

Looks cool sounds cool.

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.

I don't know why people get so worked up on this gimbal vs unipivot debate. Raul, you really take the cake.

I have both kinds of tonearm and, again, I have no dog in this fight. I enjoy tonearm design and it's fun for me to think about these things but I'm no dogmatist. I maintain audio to me is a hobby not a religion.

Let me start with the positives of a unipivot design. A tonearm needs to move in at least two planes, horizontally and vertically. A unipivot can do that easily with very little friction and no bearing chatter in a single fixed bearing point, which to me is a very nice advantage. It also forces the resonance to travel in one direction, into the bearing and into heat. But every rose has its thorns... It also by nature exhibits torsional movement that affects the azimuth during play. If all records are perfectly flat , perfectly same thickness, and perfectly centered, there should not be azimuth rocking even in a unipivot arm. The same with a car on a perfectly flat straight road then the car would not even need steering. Since records are not perfect, the arm has to hold the cartridge to travel the grove of mountains and valleys. In a "controlled' unipivot design that allows what Mike called some "wiggle room" is not necessarily a bad thing to some designer. Just like cars have suspension for uneven roads with the occasional bumps and nasty potholes. I am not defending this is exactly the case but I at least allow this possibility. In the quasi/pseudo-unipivot with non-compliant/rigid secondary bearing like the Cobra, Copperhead, and Vector, the "unstabilities" that Raul refers to does not even exist. Modern unipivot tonearm designers are well aware of the azimuth instability, hence the emergence of new breed of unipivot tonearms in combating this problem. They stick to unipivot because they believe the positives outweighs the negatives. All they did was to spend the time, resource, and effort into addressing the issues at hand. And what's wrong with that?

Happy listening!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. For a good read on the topic, let me quote passages from Dick Olsher's now classic review of Graham 1.5 tonearm from 20 years ago, that its points are still valid today.

It starts with the role of the tonearm in an analog system to the Graham solution. Obviously Graham didn't solve all the problems with the original design otherwise he wouldn't proceed to design the Phantom.

The perfect tonearm
The role of the tonearm has been compared to that of the enclosure in a loudspeaker. In this analogy, think of the bass driver as representing the cartridge. The first important point is that it is impossible to assess the driver's performance without considering its interaction with the cabinet. The cartridge/arm combination should be viewed in the same light. The arm's effective mass should be compatible with the cartridge compliance to produce an optimal low-frequency resonance. Just as enclosure wall flexure and resonances may color a speaker's reproduction, so can arm resonances influence the overall frequency-response and time-domain behavior. Arm resonances, both lateral and torsional, should be minimal and well-damped.

From the perspective of the cartridge, the arm is essentially a "monkey on the back." As the stylus negotiates delicate groove modulations, the cartridge has to literally drag this monkey, kicking and screaming, down the groove spiral. Bearing friction at the arm pivot, sufficient to impede the motion of the cartridge, gives rise to distortion because frictional forces along the groove wall increase as a result. Thus, low bearing friction is an automatic prerequisite for a good arm. For a magnetic, velocity-characteristic cartridge, the differential velocity between the stylus and cartridge body gives rise to the output signal. Should the arm rattle the cartridge, the signal's amplitude and the system's frequency response will both be affected. This can happen when the arm bearings are loose and "chatter." Unfortunately, for conventional bearings of the gimbal or ball-race design, the requirements for low friction and tightness (no chatter) are contradictory; some compromise must be struck between the two. In other words, the tighter the bearings, the greater the friction.

The dynamic behavior of the arm is critical to overall performance. Real-world records are eccentric and warped. Trying to negotiate such a record subjects the arm to lateral and vertical accelerations. By far the most serious practical problem is that of negotiating a small-radius warp. As the stylus starts to climb the uphill side of the warp, the cantilever is compressed upward, which may significantly increase vertical tracking force. This is bad enough in itself—increased VTF accelerates record wear—but the cantilever may be displaced upward to the extent that the cartridge enters the twilight zone of nonlinearity: either because of suspension overload or operation in the fringe of the magnetic field.

On the downhill side of the warp the cartridge begins to lose contact with the groove. The effective VTF is reduced, which increases distortion, but the ultimate danger is that of complete loss of contact and groove skipping. What's required here is a nimble arm, dynamically able to keep the stylus in the groove while negotiating a roller coaster.

A figure of merit for assessing a tonearm's dynamic performance is the ratio of VTF to effective mass: the greater the better. This (with an important caveat) gives the maximum acceleration in gravitational "g" units that the arm can withstand before leaving the groove. The effective mass for the Graham arm is about 11 grams. Thus, with a VTF of 2.0 grams, the maximum safe acceleration is 2/11, or 0.18g.

What we have ignored so far in the dynamical analysis of the arm are the effects of damping fluid and arm-pivot restoring forces. Damping is normally applied at the pivot of the arm in the form of a fluid. Used in moderation, damping is a good thing. It is not a magic potion that will somehow convert a poor arm into a good one, but it does help an already good arm perform even better by reducing the "Q" of any resonances. Used in excess, damping can backfire by reducing the dynamic capability of the arm. Damping fluid resists acceleration and exacerbates the problems encountered by the arm while negotiating warps.

Another negative complication involves the action of restoring forces acting at the pivot. On some arms the pivot is located above the arm's center of gravity in what is known as a "stable static balance." The analogy suggested by Bob Graham is that of a high-wire artist balancing himself with the use of a large pole which bends at the ends to well below the plane of the wire. The pole confers stability by lowering the center of gravity below the "pivot point," in this case the artist's feet, thus opposing the decentering of the center of gravity. Again, this makes it more difficult for the arm to navigate warps. Once the arm is knocked out of balance by the warp, the arm attempts to steer back to stable balance regardless of what the dynamic situation demands.

The Graham Solution
Let's look at how the Model 1.5 addresses the various criteria for the "perfect arm," starting with the pivot design.

It may surprise some of you to find that Graham has chosen to go with a "unipivot" bearing. Nevertheless, a unipivot has a lot going for it: First, it is the simplest design. Second, it pre-loads the bearing surface to zero tolerance, and is capable of yielding the lowest possible friction in a mechanical design.

Bob sent me a videotape of a test he conducted where he pitted an SME IV against an undamped Model 1.5. Both arms carried the same cartridges and were statically balanced. Both arms were displaced vertically downward the same distance at the start of the test. The idea was to see which arm bobbed up and down the longest, as this would indirectly reveal the degree of vertical friction in the bearings. The SME pooped out after about 30 seconds. The 1.5 kept going for two and one half minutes before Bob stopped the arm for fear of having me fall asleep. He claims that the arm actually continues its pendulum-like motion for over five minutes.

Third, bearing performance does not drift out of tolerance, as there is nothing to adjust. Graham uses tungsten carbide for both the bearing cup and pivot. Both elements are said to be polished to stylus-tip tolerances. With a typical 7-9gm cartridge mounted on the arm, Graham calculates the loading on the bearing point to be in excess of 100 tons per square inch. With this sort of loading there is no play in the bearing to interfere with the transduction process. Finally, a unipivot design makes it easy to add damping fluid around the pivot point. Viscous silicone fluid (about 0.75ml) is used here to provide damping in both vertical and horizontal planes.

Older unipivot arms, such as the Formula Four, used stable balance with the pivot point well above the center of gravity of the system. In contrast, the 1.5 places the pivot point in the vertical plane essentially at the center of gravity of the assembly, hence in neutral balance. The pivot point is in line with the longitudinal axis of the arm tube, main pivot housing, and counterweight. Two outrigger weights are positioned to either side of the pivot housing and slightly below the pivot point to provide lateral stability—otherwise the arm could tip over to one side or the other because it does not favor a particular rest position. The short lateral levers connecting the outriggers to the pivot housing create a strong stable balance along the line connecting them, thereby resisting torsional motion and keeping the arm in the correct upright position.

The outriggers manage to lower the center of gravity of the assembly—but only slightly in the vertical plane—and the arm operates essentially in neutral balance with minimal restoring forces. According to Bob, if the arm is lifted a full 0.5" off the record, the generated restoring force at the stylus tip is only about 30 milligrams. Because the outriggers are so close to the pivot point, their effect on the effective mass of the arm in the vertical plane is minimal. However, they account for most of the moving mass in the lateral plane.

These same outriggers are used to adjust the azimuth. The weights are moved in and out along threaded rods that provide a precise and stable adjustment. A closer look at these weights shows that they are displaced from true perpendicular in reference to the arm tube. This is by design, and assists in preventing the cartridge from twisting while negotiating record warps.

_______

Dear Hiho: Things IMHO are really more complex that what you posted or to that DO review.

I like to " see " things not only more in deep but where things happen: stylus tip/tracking grooves. As I said what almost all people see as " solved/fixed " unipivot unstabilities are really only at macro level but not at micro/nano levels where the unipivot simple has no time to recovery to take and execute the next cartridge " order " where a fixed bearing design IMHO is the best " slave " and best friend the cartridge is asking for.

+++++ " the positives outweighs the negatives. " +++++, well IMHO a fix bearing tonearm design has no discernable " negatives ".

Btw, thw whole subject is not only azymuth unstabilities but any single one around in all planes.

Statements like this with out any objective explanation is in the best case a misunderstood on the unipivot bearing type behavior and is something like if I say ( talking on motion cars. ): " the cycles will be the way to go and the ultimate design approach and stick by that ":

+++++ " unipivots will turn out to be the ultimate tonearm design approach and stick by that. " ++++

why is that? what makes the differences sole by the tonearm bearing type?, here we can say: " hey I like it that way " and if said it: yes, why? and probably the answer will be: " I don't know but I like unipivots ".

I think we have to be or to take a little more serious our hobby or at least try or intent to understand it even if we like a different approach. Please remember that what we like is no important when we are talking in objective terms.

I'm not against Mike or other unipivot advocates I'm questioning that: " I like it " with out foundation in objective terms in that specific tonearm bearing pivoted design, with no single explanation.
Seems to me that for some of you this unipivot subject is the " today fashion " just like the 12" long tonearms that gives no real advantages ( but disadvantages ) to the cartridge ridding: just think that the cartridge needs extremely fast response from the tonearm that depends on the pivot and from the stylus tip distance to the tonearm pivot. A 10" tonearm has a faster response over a 12" ( everything the same. ): don't you think?, remember that a tonearm must works in favor of cartridge grooves ride as better and faster respond to cartridge needs as better that tonearm.

I'm not questioning that a cartridge/unipivot combination likes any one of us over a fixed bearing cartridge combination because this quality performance level depends on many factors where the pivot tonearm bearing type is one of those factors.

I don't know the whole method/process that Mike, you or any other person have to detect in a precise way distortions and to discern from where that distortion comes but I can say for sure that if we don't have that method/process to be aware about all what we have to say on the pivot subject has almost no validity other that " I don't know but I like it ".
I hope some of you have a better answer than that.

Anyway, I think that from my part was enough and in the other side the thread helps to know what each one of us " think " on the issue.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

As with most 'purist' audio concepts like 'valves vs SS'....'belt-drive vs DD vs rim-drive'.....'horns vs panels vs dynamic speakers'.....there is no one 'correct' solution or answer.
Rather, it is in the execution of a particular solution whereby a particular design may excel over another?
I have unipivots ( or dual pivots) like the Hadcock GH228, Phantom II and Copperhead.
I also have double gimbal bearing arms like the DaVinci 12" Ref Grandezza, Fidelity Research FR-64s and FR-66s and Micro Seki MA-505s and I have a double knife-edge bearing arm....SAEC WE-308.
You would think that if there were 'differences' inherent in the design philosophies of these arms alone...... they would be audible in side by side comparisons?
Apart from the Phantom II not liking high-compliance MM cartridges and the Hadcock not liking high-energy cartridges like the Titani, I find the differences between the various arms to be those of execution and quality.
There are far greater differences between cartridges than those between differently-principled arms IMHO.

Hiho, are you beginning to see the religious nature of all of this? ;-)

So much misinformation here.

A properly designed unpivot arm does not rock due to stylus tracking simply because the design has the stylus aligned with the pivot point; there is no torsional leverage and the only degrees of freedom from the stylus are the planes in the vertical and horizontal, which is what ANY arm has to have. There is no torsional "rocking" due to stylus motion in the two planes of a stereo recording going and what little of very low frequency may be provided from record warps and non-centered hole are effectively damped and remian unheard.

This is a very intelligent, reasoned discussion. It seems we all agree on certain major points as regards the advantages and disadvantages of unipivot designs vs fixed bearing designs. And I like that Hiho mentioned the issue of azimuth adjustment (AA) when it takes place upstream from the headshell (cannot avoid also altering both VTA and the angle in space between cantilever and LP surface). But that would be the same for both basic types of pivoted tonearm. As far as I know, the only "modern" tonearm that permits AA at the headshell itself is the Reed, when ordered with the optional AA headshell. I hope you unipivot guys will agree also that it is the cartridge that needs to follow the groove and that Ralph is quite correct to say that if the tonearm per se were to respond to the groove undulations, there would be no music. What lies in between those two extremes is probably what actually happens with most unipivots. Still, I have to explain the ethereal quality of the Talea that I heard locally. It made me want one. Obviously, the Talea "works". In thinking about what I heard from it, I came to the tentative conclusion that in part I was responding to highly euphonic "imperfections" that I have heard before with unipivots in my own system. I think this is what Mike was trying to get at; there is a certain sense of freedom (still not a perfect word for it) associated with unipivots that is very beguiling. And that's perfectly OK in my book.

+++++ " And what's wrong with that? " ++++

nothing, evryone is free on his choices.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Lewm: +++++ " Still, I have to explain the ethereal quality of the Talea that I heard locally. ............. the Talea "works". In thinking about what I heard from it, I came to the tentative conclusion that in part I was responding to highly euphonic "imperfections" that I have heard before with unipivots in my own system. " +++++

at least a " sight " on the unipivots. Halcro, got it?

As I agree and posted: nothing wrong with that, our each one choice.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Stevecham, You wrote, "A properly designed unpivot arm does not rock due to stylus tracking simply because the design has the stylus aligned with the pivot point". I completely agree with you, but who said that in the first place? I did not see such a claim being made here, but I may not have read all the posts. However, I cannot agree with all that you go on to claim; it seems to me that the interplay between skating and anti-skating forces, which can be neither perfect nor constant as the tonearm traverses the surface of an LP, could cause variations in azimuth as a unipivot moves. This cannot happen with a fixed bearing design. Granted, all the best unipivots use one or another of several strategies to mitigate this issue.

With a WT tonearm, which you may or may not liken to a unipivot, I have personally seen that azimuth changes dramatically over the surface of an LP. WT likes to say their tonearm has no bearing; that's the problem, IMO.

It's a "system" with tradeoffs for any current design. No tonearm does everything perfectly for every cartridge. But that's been said several times already in thie thread.

There are obvious "winners" in the tonearm wars, each with unique characteristics and plenty of reviews to read. These "winners" do tend to be expensive though. The right one will depend on the cartridge being used, which will depend on the phono stage being used and its loading capabilities, and good sound is still not assured unless the turntable and its isolation and the overall setup is addressed properly.

Isn't it fun? No matter how well you manage all the above you will still have doubts about whether it can still be better, or just different. And that's why there is a thriving used market for all of this crap.

Hiho, you can look here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

I've pointed the link to Red Herring but a number of other fallacies are described. I've found the site really helpful over the years as I found myself guilty of some of these. The more I was able to drop them, the easier my conversation has become! The explanations are terse, but its worth wading through.

Dan-ed, I came to the opposite conclusion regarding the Talea. I thought I heard better tracking and a more stable soundstage (similar to tape playback) with the Triplanar. However my exposure to the Talea is limited, and it was not a particular target of my comments. In my eyes it has yet to prove itself but is clearly a contender. I've still got unipivots in the stable...

Interesting. You are the first person who has made such comments that I know of, but I do understand loyalty.

I came to the tentative conclusion that in part I was responding to highly euphonic "imperfections" that I have heard before with unipivots in my own system.

A strange conclusion Lew especially when transposed alongside "the ethereal quality of the Talia" which you heard?
Sounds like you are buying Raul's claim that anything which sounds good must be attributed to 'distortions'?

You Guys kill me..Fighting over flawed(pivoted) tonearms is beyond me...

Where is all the NEW Thinking?! lets see some real R&D and invest some money in some real tonearm engineering...I have seen enough of the pretty wood arms...

Any pivoted arm new or old is flawed from the get go besides being only tangent on 2 points of a record other parts = (distortions)......the mechanical bias on any of these arms are not totally linear/calibrated across the entire record so you have torsions/distortions etc... if that is what you like so be it..

I guess I will just stick with my graphite composite Linear motor...tangent arm.....

Dear Halcro. Sooner or latter you will " discover " ( no ) better yet you will discern about " good sound " with distortions ( as the one you are hearing. ) and good sound with out distortions.
You need practice tobe aware and discern about but this needs not only a method/process to do it but a " new way " of thinking on the audio subject: new excellence level targets. I hope sooner or latter you will be there, good lucl on that regards.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Seems to me that it is no better example of the Red Herring fallacies, that Atmasphere linked, than Dan_ed.

WSe are talking here on tonearm bearing not if the Talea performs better than a triplanar or not.

Well, we can't be surprised coming from a Talea dealer.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Hiho and other unipivot advocates: Some of you name it the " very low friction " in vertical/horizontal planes the unipivots have as an advantage but till today no one of you ( including the dealer ) posted any low friction spec/figure on any unipivot tonearm.

I posted those 4mgrs. as bearing friction for that EPA100MK2 ( and other Technics models. ), so it could be interesting for all of us to know these 4mgrs bearing friction compares against those " very low bearing friction " unipivot specs.

I hope some of you could help about and come with that unipivot advantage spec/measure.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

i had the Triplaner VII in my system on 3 different tt's over three years compared directly with the Reed 2A, Schroeder Ref SQ, Reed 2P, and then the Talea 1 and Talea 2. each tt had 2 arm boards and although i used multiple different cartridges mainly i used 2 A90's and the Allnic H3000 with 2 identcal inputs for direct comparisons.

i liked the Triplaner better overall than the Schroeder Ref SQ. simply more energetic and once optimized, more detailed. the Triplaner is an excellent arm, although it took quite a few different tweaks and multiple sessions to get it to sing.

a couple other local friends also used the Triplaner and thought highly of it.

the Reed 2A came along and bettered the Triplaner head to head on a couple of different cartridges. more detail, more space, more solid images, more precision. the Reed 2P even slightly better. then the Talea 1 went further and the Talea 2 even better.

all this time i had the Rockport sitting there as a constant reference. and i had multiple phono stages.

other friends have had the same experience.

which is not to say that the Triplaner is not an excellent tonearm. but; it has been passed by in overall performance by others. not sure how long it's been since the basic Triplaner design has been seriously tweaked, but performance does inevitably move forward.

disclosure; i'm not a dealer for any of these arms.

Dan_ed is right, whether he is a dealer or not.

Dear Mike: The subject with Dan is not if he is correct or not the point is that that is not what we are under discussion.

Anyway, every one can post whatever he want.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear friends: Well seems that there are not precise measures on an unipivot bearing friction level. I wonder from where came that " very low bearing friction ", I think we need this date.

In the mid-time could be interesting that we can think in a unipivot bearing characteristic as " similar " to a tip-toe/cone feet and what it happen around, here we can read about:

http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb200207.htm

so seems that this kind of unipivot bearing is a distortion focus in many ways. I know that some of us like some kind of distortions but IMHO I think that lowering distortions or at least not adding more helps to be truer to the recording.

Of course that Lewm is not " buying " nothing but through his experiences he noted a " signature " that I call: distortions.

Yes, it is true that there is no perfect tonearm yet but if we follow analyzing unipivots IMHO this type of bearing design is " surrounded " by higher and more ( different ) distortions that a fix bearing design.

That some of us likes to live with those higher distortions means only that : that likes higher distortions but not that is a better bearing type design and some of us here are talking not on what we like ( as Mike. ) but what is wrong/worst or not through a bearing tonearm type design.

I wonder why some of you can't for a " second " try to be objective or think on objective terms? why can't take-off the subjective " cap " ?.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

i liked the Triplaner better overall than the Schroeder Ref SQ. simply more energetic and once optimized, more detailed...the Reed 2A came along and bettered the Triplaner head to head on a couple of different cartridges. more detail, more space, more solid images, more precision.... Dan_ed is right, whether he is a dealer or not.

Yeah, problem today in Audiophile life is, whatever someones likes, is good. Personally I have no problem with that, because I know, most Systems can't show any difference at all, lots of users have no idea from what a top analog System can really do and a lot save some lines from a "review" in the personal memory and repeat that as "knowledge" later. Tonearm Design is pure knowledge (Geometry, Material mix, what is responsible for what and so on). The Triplanar for example is a nice Arm, but not more. It can't work with vibrations coming from the cartridge properly, it has no holographic pressure like other Arms with dynamic classical music. I sold it too after I made my comparisons with other Arms I had. The Schroeder Arm...well, let's say, some believe, that wood on a string is the top of the Audiophile Reproduction, some prefer the MP3 Player instead or a cheap Well Tempered/Hadcock...
Every new Arm gets the attention, that is ok, but the real breakthrough is the time frame, what kind of user tries it with his System and with what kind of records (with Diana Krall for example it is not really easy to rate something). Same with Digital analog masterings (with some very, very few exceptions).
There are endless records out there which can show the differences, but this is depending on the quality of the System of course. Listeners like Mike who put the record onto the table and are curious what that one will tell him, are rare. Most want an Altar and aren't interested in the Time Trip at all. For those there are the "Best Lists".
Unfortunately they aren't the Best. Maybe best for Manufacturer, maybe Best for Dealer, maybe best for ads, maybe best for Profit, but best for Sound????
Let's go the other way, we could buy the really best Arm out there, no doubt about it, but it would cost only 1500$, what do you think, would happen?

the wrong decision...???

Mike and Dan, I assume that both of you have LPs that you recorded yourself and released commercially. What is the title of the LP? I'd like to get a copy.

Dear Hiho: Due that you stated: +++++ " A unipivot can do that easily with very little friction..... " ++++++

even that no one posted a number/figure/spec on that unipivot bearing friction I would like that you think if that's possible: when all the tonearm weight is concentrate at one point.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Ah, atmasphere, the "I'm a Pro" trump card. I'll ask you a question. Just how much time did you ACTUALLY spend with any Talea.

At RMAF last year I watched a guy walk into a room, over to the turntable and mumbled something about Triplanar this or that. Then he turned and walked out. I certainly hope you spent more time with a Talea than that guy did.

I have never said the Talea is the BEST, but it is no doubt better than some. I still own my Triplanar after 5 1/2 years. It works very well for me. I've had a Talea, in one form or the other, for over a year.

Halcro, You wrote, "Sounds like you are buying Raul's claim that anything which sounds good must be attributed to 'distortions'?"

In a word, no. Please don't re-interpret what I wrote. Further, IMO you are not even giving Raul's ideas a fair interpretation. He certainly never "claimed" that what sounds good must be therefore distorted.

Dear Mike, Did you actually hear a difference between a Reed 2A and a Reed 2P? I thought the only difference between those two was the fine-ness of the VTA adjustment up and down.

Syntax, Thanks for the humor break. That is one of my favorite Monte Python bits.

Raul, What is the evidence that lowest possible friction at the pivot is a major determinant of goodness of a pivoted tonearm?

Lharasim, I am interested in linear trackers, but I am not interested in air pumps, filters, tubing, pump noise, etc, that inevitably go with them. Plus, if they are not perfectly adjusted in all planes, there is a kind of "chronic" tracing distortion across the entire LP. I agree they do sound "different" from pivoted tonearms, as a class.

Gosh, to think I've spent 50+ years with dozens and dozens of tonearms without making a record.

I'm a vinyl failure.

Pass the zoloft please.

Ralph wrote;

Mike and Dan, I assume that both of you have LPs that you recorded yourself and released commercially. What is the title of the LP? I'd like to get a copy.

i have your Lp (or at least one of your Lps), and respect your dramatically greater all around music/hifi experience compared to myself. although i'm no professional music guy in any way shape or form, i have had a bunch of pro audio guys record off my tt, and then do a commercial digital release with that recording.

i'm just a guy who observes and offers opinions on what i hear and then sometimes likes to connect the dots on what that might mean. i do have a ring side seat to some pretty amazing tonearm development that has openned my eyes to cause and effect way beyond what my previous viewpoints might have been.

i did use my Rockport as a reference for anything to do with a turntable, but now i use my Studer A820, Ampex ATR-102 and collection of master dubs. these are helpful as a reference to have sitting there.

it's still just subjective perceptions and resultant conclusions and not scientific facts were are considering here. i'm just speaking about what i think i hear and how my mind interprets it.

i'll leave it at that.

Dear Lewm: I can't understand your question because a pivoted ones are either an unipivot or a fixed bearing one. In the other side if I remember I did not posted nothing in that sense, I only posted the Technics fixed bearing friction spec and that's all.

During our tonearm/cartridge design research/tests we been aware that exist a boundary ( that depends mainly on the cartridge tracking habilities. ) where a " very low bearing friction " is no more an advantage. The cartridge " ask " some kind of control when due to the tracking grooves demands and whole LP imperfections under playback conditions it's going " crazy/out of self control " ( as a race car that by its inertia wants to goes out of the road on curves. ), VTF/AS and bearing friction are the main helpers about. This is really a thought subject on pivot tonearm design, obviously that VTF is the major helper but not always enough. We have to remember that we need that the cartridge stylus tip stay always at the groove and main differences between quality performance level on cartridges came from this " stay in the groove " subject.

Btw, looking at the cartridge stylus tip needs during playback tell us that not only in theory but on real circumstances the AS that some of us diminished is a misunderstood and IMHO a mistake.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Mike, Did you actually hear a difference between a Reed 2A and a Reed 2P? I thought the only difference between those two was the fine-ness of the VTA adjustment up and down.

Lew, my first Reed was not designated 'A' and in fact was somewhat 'prior' model to official North American import, then my next Reed was an 'A' but without the azimuth adjustment. then i got 2 of the '2P's.

the sound of the first one was not quite as good as the others, not as precise and refined; i think it's bearing was not quite as good. then my 'A' was short the azimuth adjustment.

i felt that the 2P's sounded a small bit better than the 'A', but likely that is the azimuth adjustment, which can be acquired with the 'A'. also, with the VTA lever of the 2P's, it was easier to dial in VTA.

so good catch, it was probably wrong to assign a ranking of Reed's without considering the azimuth adjustment for both....as they ought to sound the same assuming maybe more time for dial in with the 'A'.

Dan_ed and Mike, are you attaching meaning where none existed? I really did assume that you and Mike did have such an LP, as I know others in this community for which that is true. I just wanted to get a copy.

As for the Talea, I refer you to my previous comments about the arm- it seems to me more was read into them as well.

I just wanted to get a copy.

right. :^)

Well that's it. I'm going to round up Mike and Dan so we can make a record.

Then we can add our names to the long long list of Audiogon vinylphiles who have actually released a record. Can't speak for Mike and Dan but it's humbling to be part and parcel to such a large group.

Since this is a 3 man tonearm based power band, I will call us Tri-Plunders.

Dear Syntax: I, for one, agree with you. In many ways I posted the same with different words on other threads. Although I think something has to be added and that " something " is our self.

IMHO it is not enough that the audio system has the resolution need it it is a must that we already be trained first to be aware ( example ) of distortions , different ones, and to discern it as distoritons and not part of the music. This needs that we been trained about.

It helps that we use a R2R as reference/comparison?, certainly yes if we are trained too to discern on the own R2R distortions: like odd generated R2R odd harmonics.

It is not an easy overall task to be " there " where you I assume are and I assume because this is the third time that I read from you posts on this specific critical and don't understood yet subject.

Maybe my system is not the penultimate in resolution against a lot of other systems out there altrhough I have a specific training on that subject that help me on my opinions. I let you know an example of what you posted that's happening in the " last times " in that MM long thread:

++++ four-five ( maybe more ) persons that posted there have a " die for " attitude with two-three MM cartridge models from the same manufacturer. These guys own very different audio systems ( and I mean : Different. ) and all of them are in agree of the " great cartridges " performance characteristics. Those cartridges are at five, six and seven steps down the same line top of the line cartridge that some of them does not like.
Due to their posts they " force " me to buy/borrowed and test all those cartridges ( I own the top of the line too. ) and after that I give my opinion about that was way different an almost contrary of what those guys found out.
I stated and telling why those cartridges performance were full of distortions against the top of the line one and other top of the " family " cartridge.

Far from try to understand why I posted what I posted they " hide " under their " shared findings " ( thinking this supported each to the other opinion. ) thinking that the one wrong in this " stage " was me because no one of them be allowed to identify the distortions I posted and obviously can't discern about. This cartridge episode put some of them " angry " with me.

What happen there?, exactly what you said: no system resolution ( at least not the one need it for. ) and no training to be aware of some kind of distortions. +++++

This happen every single day and happen coming even from persons with KKKKK$$$$ systems where exist almost non specific training about.
A KKKK$$$$ system is IMHO warranty of nothing other than KKK$$$$$. What IMHO is almost a warranty even with modest audio systems is each one knowledge/skills level: this extremely PERSONAL characteristic/training is what makes differences and it is what gives " weight " to each one of us opinions: not the audio system it self.

Try and want to follow supporting any audio subject on 100%/full subjective point of view goes IMHO aginst our hobby.
Subjectivity IMHO is only the " mediocrity's mother " ( no I'm not saying any one of us are mediocre people but thinking in that way create: mediocrity. ) where the AHEE belongs and that's why the AHEE never never promote a touch of " objectivity ".
A " touch of objectivity " even a tiny one put " on light/shine " all the audio mediocrity out there where ( that 95% of the people are unaware of it. To convenient to the AHEE. ) if the AHEE could ( only on my dreams unfortunatelly. ) promote " objectivity " I can asure you that the 95% of the audio manufacturers must disappear in its today level.

Don't you think that that should be great in favor of MUSIC and in favor of each one of us audio system enjoyment and where we can understand for sure what each one is talking about?

Anyway, this thread left at least something to think about unipivot tonearms characteristics that maybe some of us never thinked in the past. Thank's Manitunc.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Audiofeil, you make me laugh: good!!!!!!

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Syntax. Obviously that 95% of reviewers an audio dealers must disappear too.

Audiophiles too?, NO they are the ones that put their money to make AHEE " survive " !!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I think we have converted a thread about what defines a good tonearm to a thread about what tonearms we like. It was a natural and unavoidable evolution. But then, we all agree there is no "best" tonearm to the exclusion of all others.

Raul, you actually answered my question by saying that you found there was such a thing as "low enough" bearing friction and that if you went lower, you found no audible further improvement. How low was "low enough"? Also, wouldn't the minimum acceptable friction be different for a high compliance cartridge compared to a low compliance cartridge? I think yes. And the beat goes on.

Dear Lewm On high-end always is more easy to talk on subjective terms:
what can you argue when some one tell: I like it?, yes you can argue whatever but that " I like it " is the discussion " end ".

This subjective attitude hide the " audio cancer " and no one want to know which kind of cancer already has.

Instead, when we put some touch of objectivity we can show to other persons why he is wrong or why he is right too and even why agree with.
I'm not in favor of " pure objective " against " pure subjective " attitude but a mix of both but with good objective foundation.

Even in objective terms always exist " the best " and no one want to know that what they own are far from be the best even if they think is the best because what they paid for it or for whatever reason.
So the people feel " comfortable " when no one can " touch " their audio systems subjectivity " affair " protect them or at least that is what some thinked about.

Lewm, that's why many people have " problems " with my opinions when I " naked " their systems and when I did that I did it not to show/exhibit the audio system but for the people understand where in reality are seated and through the time could take a " better "/alternative road, I always try to help and many times we have to put " the finger where it hurts ".

Btw, people said that in subjective terms " the best " does not exist I support that exist that " the best " is there although the explanation is not only wide but needs absolute " open mind " to discuss about.

Yes on your questions about cartridge compliance issue.

And, unfortunatelly, the beat goes on!!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I posted:
+++ " It helps that we use a R2R as reference/comparison?, certainly yes ... " +++

I think I was plain wrong, certainly does not helps because a important part of the LP recording process is not on the tape, example: RIAA eq de-emphasis, cutting lathe amplifier added distortions to the process, vinyl pressing and the like.
For we can know what we are loosing through playback LP on an analog rig we need to differentiate between these two 2 stages " after the tape information.

Yes, a R2R give us a picture of what is the sound with out those two stages process where signal is heavy degraded.

So, IMHO that kind of comparison: R2R against LP playback at home is more " academic/retoric " than a useful one tool.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Hello Lewm....I must agree on the air bearing linear arms...they sound funny to me never liked them much...Now the old rabco (when working correctly) and the much newer pioneer's pl l1000a's arm is fabulous...uses a linear motor for arm movement the arm also uses a graphite composite arm tube and dissipates cartridge energy via high mass structure now that was engineering IMMHO

Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " I'm just trying to get the LPs to sound as close to the master as I can. " +++++

well, IMHO the best you can do it is to be nearest to what is on the LP grooves that in the records you produce/produced you know what is what is on the LP grooves and this advantage you have help to fine tunning your system on that regard.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

For the ones as me that don't produce records/LP the way to go and critical issue is what Syntax pointed out:
+++ " System and with what kind of records (with Diana Krall for example it is not really easy to rate something)..." ++++

the choice of those recordings ( analog ) is vital for those comparisons, master tapes are useles on this regard.

Now, if what we are testing/under bench are audio items not related to our analog rig the IMHO digital source ( native DVDA/SACD recordings. ) is a great choice and even better than analog master tapes ( R2R ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Just because I don't have the specs for the friction measurement of a unipivot tonearm, all of a sudden I am a poster child of the subjectivist camp without even a "touch of objectivity"? Thanks for the flattery, Raul. I'm not that ambitious.

In audio, I am an atheist and polygamist. I like choices. If you want to be the high priest of the absolute sound, go right ahead.

_______

Dear Hiho: I like choices too and I'm not married with any audio subject.

About that " very low bearing friction ": the main subject to me is not if you or other people have it( I really don't care about. ) but that you and other people are " spreading " as an advantage that LBF and my first question to my self is: hey where that statement came?

IMHO and when we are discussing something of interest for several persons we can't ( certainly we can as almost all of us used to do it in forums. ) spread information with out any single " reference "/foundation.
How can we " validate " what other person said it if ( even if had it . ) the persons does not gives any " foundation " to his statements?

I don't agree any more with that common: " Paul is correct " with out any explanation on : why is correct? because I say so? or the more common " I like it " with no additonal explanation.
I know that this is a free forum about but we have to think that at least we all need to understand what the other pérson said or at least be near of it.

In the case of that LBF I think that the spec/number is important because no one here knows what could be a " very low friction " or what is VLF for you.

I try almost always post ( on agree or disagreements. ) for we can ( try at least ) have near the same subject perspective, try to have a reference overall frame. Yes, because my trouble with the English language many times I don't achieve that target.

I think that we are " here " to share audio experiences and to learn and IMHO we can enrich each one opinions along the " forum values " if we can/try to put a " tiny touch of objectivity " in our judgements/statements/posts against the usual: 100% subjectivity. I know that almost every one of us likes to improve his music/audio knowledge/skills and ignorance level and I think that what I'm " proposing " could help about.

Anyway, only an opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.