Comparison of sonic qualities of some tonearms

"Something is broken" on which one? Or rigged? Which is it?

Based on my experiments, all five are plausible with the same cartridge. Not to mention changes in set-up. When changing tonearms, it is impossible not to change the alignment of arm board (or head shell) and cartridge. Azimuth can do some of that, so can VTA. So can countless decisions in tonearm design.

What calibrated instrument do you use? What is it's accuracy? What judgements are required?

Typo, sorry. 

I'm glad I am usually looked on as a enigma, it sure beats other Labels one can be attached with.

Maybe it is just plain old speaking what you know, that makes the content seemingly indefinable.

How many can say their interest in music is not really such, but more a nurturing of friendships, well worthy of looking after.

I don't have a alter ego when behind the Keyboard, maybe just a Wax Lyrical use of words on occasion.

I don't see too much within this Analogue Forum that really shows it as being a cutting edge place to be, there are only a few I know, who really have found a way to rise to possibilities through not displaying procrastination, these very few are a pleasure to see a post from.

Much of what is seen from the Old Guard is their 'resting on their laurels', this is not a valuable message to send to anybody very keen to work with the Vinyl LP as a source material, especially if they want to optimise the function of the additional equipment required to create the signal for producing sound.

Since it seems that some on this forum are already on LSD, this quote might help us venture towards the cutting edge of musical and tonearm theory more thoroughly, if that’s even possible:

Forks in the quantum road

At its essence, the ontic vs. epistemic debate hides the ghost of objectivity in science. Onticists deeply dislike the notion that observers could have anything to do with determining the nature of reality. Is an experimenter really determining whether an electron is here or there? One ontic school known as the Many Worlds interpretation would say instead that all possible outcomes are realized when a measurement is performed. It’s just that they are realized in parallel worlds, and we only have direct access to one of them — namely, the one we exist in. In Borgean style, the idea here is that the act of measurement forks reality into a multiplicity of worlds, each realizing a possible experimental outcome. We do not need to speak of the collapse of the wave function since all outcomes are realized at once. 

Unfortunately, these many worlds are not accessible to observers in different worlds. There have been proposals to test the Many Worlds experimentally, but the obstacles are huge, for example requiring the quantum superposition of macroscopic objects in the laboratory. It is also not clear how to assign different probabilities to the different worlds related to the outcomes of the experiment.

The agent and the nature of reality 

On the epistemic side, interpretations are just as varied. The Copenhagen interpretation leads the pack. It states that the wave function is not a thing in this world, but rather a mere tool to describe what is essential, the outcomes of experimental measurements. Views tend to diverge on the meaning of the observer, about the role the mind exerts on the act of measuring and thus on defining the physical properties of the object being observed, and on the dividing line between classical and quantum. 
 

From:  bigthink.com. (Cannot post link without being blocked)

Now consider that, at the time of the Big Bang, the entire cosmos was in a quantum state. When the Big Bang is observed, say with a radio telescope, it is changed by the observer (Copenhagen). What is the nature of this change? One can only supposes that the universe is changed to make the observation itself more likely; that is, to optimize the universe for the being to see furthest back in time, and to ’see’ in the most detail. That being would be the Maximal Observer.

This explains the mechanism behind the Anthropic Principle.

The question is, to what extent should we fund astronomy? Are we in a universal race to see furthest back in time? Mr. President, we cannot allow a Radio Telescope Gap !!!