How to choose an upgraded tonearm.

I am with a limited understanding of these concerns, and have purchased known Brand Tonearms in the past that have been based on Brand, Aesthetic and Reputation.

My most recent Tonearm, is a Tonearm Model undergone a redesign, I have learned of many of the above considerations through discussion with the engineer who has produced the design and progressively improved on the micro mechanics of the interfaces.

I have been introduced through discussion and demonstration of how Traditional Materials that are industry go to choices, have been considered to be replaced, and then replaced in exchange for a more up to date modern version of a material that has a design intent to be much improved for the maintaining of stability to the materials properties across different environments.

These purpose produced formulas, especially when produced to work in an environment that might have similar conditions as met when used on a Tonearm Interface.

When combined with a 'state of the art', very modern low viscosity lubrication can show 'real time' benefits when incorporated into a Tonearm design.

The demonstrations I have received where the Progressive Work on Mechanical Interfaces has been presented as A/B comparisons between earlier generation and latest generation selection for materials has been quite revelatory.

Especially when a modern material in use that has once made a great impression when utilised, has been exchanged for a same material with a change in machining tolerance for the part to change the mechanics at the interface, and a 'cutting edge' lowest viscosity lubrication has been used.

I am now fortunate to have a friendship with Two Individuals producing Tonearms with the above design intent and considerations.

The other designed Tonearm using the above design considerations is a complete New Design, with all parts needing to be produced to unique forms for the assembly.

It does not utilise any off the shelf parts for the structure,  even the micro parts that are bought in, to be used in the concealed locations, are machined to a new tolerance to create a improved interface.

I do not use any of my earliest purchased Tonearms any more, I have now got access to Tonearms that I am confident are an improvement and are noticeably  better. 

It is a pleasure to know individuals who are not asleep at the wheel, and remain enthusiastic about materials and designs for a Tonearm, occasionally trying out that new idea that has been niggling them to investigate.

I thoroughly enjoy my invites to offer an assessment of the advancement of the designs as they evolve.

Again for the OP, what really matters is what is in place 'under the hood', $$$$$'s of outlay for a very attractive modern design aesthetic, might just be that only, a Ornament that has a added bonus of offering a Tangible Interaction.

The reality is that a much lesser value $$$$ selection of Tonearms can prove to be a match in the mechanics and operation and presentation.

How Old is your Tonearm? There might be an upgrade to your model available from the Manufacture.           

Pindac, my turntabe is about two years or so old and one of the last VPI Classic 2’s produced. The only upgrade I see on the VPI site is to use their dual pivot mod, which I’ll try first, or alternately if trying to get away from a unipivot design, to go for a gimbal type LF model at about $4500, which should fit the VPI tonearm base. I’d have to confirm that it would fit.

Thank you for all the information you provided. You’re fortunate to know the manufacturers you do.

Mike

I will offer a suggestion, and one that I was familiar with having happened in the past few years.

A friend who had purchased an SP10 R was needing to select a Tonearm for it.

As an avoidance of acting in haste, they had a Standalone Tonearm Pod produced for quite a reasonable outlay by a local to their home engineering workshop.

This mounting device enabled them to try things out in a manner that suited their needs, as the need to have a plinth produced to suit multiple arm types was not desired.

As the device and mounting of the TT was capable of allowing for all Tonearms Lengths, variances could be catered for, this proved to be very useful device to experience Tonearms of various Brands and Models.

The ideal for the wish list was to own a 12" Arm but all options were not discounted.

I loaned my SME IV for their evaluation and I know Origin Live, Reed and Glanz and possibly a Linn arm were also used.

A Glanz 12" was the choice made, and it remains mounted on the Standalone Pod still to this day.

A plinth is also produced that really sets of the SP10 to an aesthetically pleasing finish. The Plinth is finished flush with the TT's chassis and does not have a mounting designed into it for a Tonearm.   

I regularly attend this individuals home and can not fault the performance of the system for LP Replays, it is a reference system and used for many demonstrations.

Maybe? a Standalone Pod could be compatible with your TT and mounting set up, offering an extension to the opportunities for yourself to try out New Tonearm options.

 A/B demonstrations with the insitu Tonearm would be possible, but the two different mountings would need to be considered when assessing.

Two Budget Cartridges could also be used to be consistent with the assessments of the Demonstrations.

The Cart' in use at present could be introduced when a discovery is made that impresses beyond the normal, and the Kleos could be kept for the final evaluation. 

There are a few Ortofon Kontrapunk B's stored as spare Cart's within my local HiFi Group and these are available for such types of demonstration for Group members.

There is also the possibility that could be realised, where the TT ends up with a Two Tonearm configuration, this could be very beneficial to reducing the rate of wear on the Kleos. 

Thank you pindac. I hadn’t heard of Stand Alone Tonearm Pods before. I’ve started looking into them to see what I can find out. Interesting idea,

Mike

In relation to my suggestions, a further investigation might uproot some of the pro/con material to be discovered about a Stand Alone Pod, the following might clarify why some of the discussion takes place.  

There is a die hard element in the use of Vinyl and LP Replays, that objects to the idea of using a Pod, the concern is usually seen that maintaining a consistency to the Spindle > Pivot distance is compromised when adopting this method.

I have not at any time seen this as being a concern, and have seen TT's that are at risk of compromising the dimensions for this critical Geometry due to the Plinth Materials chosen to be used by the Manufacturer.

If the TT and Pod are both mounted onto a very stable material, that does not swell in differing environments, this material will serves as a Sub Plinth.

There are many out there, I have trialled many types, and most recently have been very impressed with a material called Panzerholz when used on a system I am familiar with.

When both TT and Pod are securely seated on the Sub Plinth, the Sub Plinth will not contribute to creating micro dimensional movements impacting on Geometry of the Spindle > Pivot distance.

There is then the risk that the materials used for producing the TT's Chassis or Plinth is made from materials that are not stable, and micro dimensional movements can occur.

Unfortunately if this is the case, the conventional method to mount a Tonearm will be impacted on with the same influence, and in differing environments dimensional changes can occur.

The use of materials with properties that are very stable for the Chassis / Plinth are the only method that ensures the rigid coupling philosophy for a TT > Tonearm interface having a chance of a success, when keeping with the required tolerances that allow for the design to be called a rigid coupling .

As my knowledge of the critical mechanical interfaces on TT's has grown.

My experience of TT's which have had an unknown amount of usage hours behind them when encountered, has been to discover many TT's, I have been able to manually inspected the Spindle Bearing, has shown a high percentage have a detectable sideways movement on the Platter Spindle, that in some cases can be made to rattle.

I have my own thoughts on how such a condition can develop, but that is a separate subject.

This sideways movement condition on a Spindle will when functioning during a replay put any of the above concerns out of the Ball Park, as these are no longer micro dimensional changes, but eccentric rotations and speed fluctuations.

The Tonearm Pod is in my view a totally acceptable method to mount a Tonearm when compared to how many other TT's function in relation to the Spindle > Pillar distance being maintained.

There is no reason why the correct methods when adopted are any lesser than other more common options used to maintain the critical Geometry.

The Tonearm Pod can also be a design that offers increased options and allows for differing Base Plate Materials to be used, that will further allow for a selection of a preferred interface materials to be discovered, and ultimately end up with a Bespoke assembly to suit an individuals unique preferrence. 

If a Detachable Head Shell Tonearm design is also considered, the New Tonearm can be tried with differing Headshell Materials, which will further enable a opportunity to discover a Bespoke and preferred interface for your Cart' of choice.

The Detachable Head Shell will all so enable a Speedy exchange of the Preferred Cart' to a Head Shell that has a Cart' mounted, that is a of a lesser concern, which can be used to preserve the life of the Cart' of choice.

A little food for thought, Your Tonearm in use at present could? become an improved Tonearm if mounted on the Pod, as the separation from the TT's imparted energies might suit its overall function for the better.  

@ skyscraper I hope you are not feeling as limited as you were when the thread commenced