Peter, all I could add to what I have written in the post in your inital thread, would be theoretical background and a dive into dynamic vs. static mechanics. I have learned in the past 4 months on Audiogon that these theoretical backgrounds aren't really welcome.
When using a dynamically balanced tonearm and the user can not hear the difference between static balanced and dynamic balanced mode - then I strongly recommend improving the overall resolution of the entire system.
If one can't hear it, it doesn't mean its not there.
In another system the same listener would hear it quite easy.
The technical advantage is indisputable and everybody would realize (...well, may be not everybody...) as soon as the dynamic behaviour of the cantilever/tonearm while tracking a grooved record is laid down on a sheet of paper.
This is the one big problem in all discussions here - everybody has his (don't think there is any "her" around...?) subjective, yet imperial, experience of sound and assumes in those moments when some part (= component) is "under review", that the rest of the system is as good as it gets.
In any case he assumes that the rest of the system is NOT under review, but only the "new" part.
When the entire chain is of the highest resolution (hard to achive....) then the difference between dynamic balanced mode vs. static balanced mode becomes obvious and the practical result meets the theoretical advantage.
There will be others around who disagree, but that is their problem - neither mine nor the problem of "oldskool" physics in the Einstein Continuum.
For those who disagree - fine, please don't feel invited to explain your point of view or arguments.
I know them already and there aren't any worth serious consideration.
Cheers,
D.
