How to choose an upgraded tonearm.

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

The Rega RB3000 tonearm mounted on the RP 10 is available as a separate item at a very reasonable price. It is not neutral balance and has it's vertical bearings are above record height. With a perfectly flat record none of this is a problem. Unfortunately there is no such thing. Even with vacuum clamping there are undulations in the record's surface that the tonearm has to negotiate without causing the cantilever to deflect. Such deflections cause wavering of the sound as the relative speed of the vinyl changes. This happens to some degree even if the tonearm tracks the record perfectly but a poorly designed arm makes this worse. It is built in wow and flutter. The reason vacuum clamping turntables with great arms sound better is better speed consistency, less wavering. This is more important then wow and flutter specs is todays better turntables. 

Tonearms, regardless of specific design points are captive to the laws of physics. Effective mass and cartridge compliance determine resonance. Effective length determines tracking error - especially important when using Shibata or other thin-line stylus designs. Bearing design is at the heart of the conflicting tonearm design requirement of infinite mass, which gives the stylus a firm platform to work against, minimizing loss of dynamics and zero friction allowing the arm to move freely as it tracks across the vinyl. What shortcoming in your current rig do you feel are addressed by a new arm?