Sirspeedy,
The amount of damping fluid in the Vector is very important. I leave the term "critical" for the 2.2 and to give an idea of how I think the difference between the two arms is in regard to this. The idea with the Vector is to add enough fluid to the trough to tighten the base. Too little and the bass becomes muddy. Too much and you start to squash HF and dynamics. This is no different than the 2.2. But I think the 2.2 is much more sensitive. As you posted a while back, even an amount the size of the head of a pin can adversely effect the performance on the 2.2. With the Vector I find that I can stay to about 1/2 cc of silicon and get the level right. In short I don't find the fluid level to be as touchy as with the Vector, but it is certainly very important.
I would say that the micrometer option for VTA measuring does make minute VTA changes easier than not having it. As A.J. says, it is not a VTA adjuster, it is just a way to measure. It should not be touching the plinth while the stylus is playing.
Larryi,
that is exactly what I and others have found about the Vector. It can handle those cartridges that transmit a lot of energy into the arm. I think this is another reason why the 2.2 did not perform as well for me as the Vector. I have not calculated it, but the PSI value at the pivot bearing must be enormous. Another point that the Vector has over the 2.2 is the horizontal stabilization of that little bearing controlling azimuth.
Yes, I know A.J. doesn't like cantilevered armboards, on the fly VTA, and non-suspended tables. Just to name a few things. However, there are examples of such implementations that address his concerns and work extremely well.
The amount of damping fluid in the Vector is very important. I leave the term "critical" for the 2.2 and to give an idea of how I think the difference between the two arms is in regard to this. The idea with the Vector is to add enough fluid to the trough to tighten the base. Too little and the bass becomes muddy. Too much and you start to squash HF and dynamics. This is no different than the 2.2. But I think the 2.2 is much more sensitive. As you posted a while back, even an amount the size of the head of a pin can adversely effect the performance on the 2.2. With the Vector I find that I can stay to about 1/2 cc of silicon and get the level right. In short I don't find the fluid level to be as touchy as with the Vector, but it is certainly very important.
I would say that the micrometer option for VTA measuring does make minute VTA changes easier than not having it. As A.J. says, it is not a VTA adjuster, it is just a way to measure. It should not be touching the plinth while the stylus is playing.
Larryi,
that is exactly what I and others have found about the Vector. It can handle those cartridges that transmit a lot of energy into the arm. I think this is another reason why the 2.2 did not perform as well for me as the Vector. I have not calculated it, but the PSI value at the pivot bearing must be enormous. Another point that the Vector has over the 2.2 is the horizontal stabilization of that little bearing controlling azimuth.
Yes, I know A.J. doesn't like cantilevered armboards, on the fly VTA, and non-suspended tables. Just to name a few things. However, there are examples of such implementations that address his concerns and work extremely well.