Dear Perrew: +++++ " do you think the Reed can compete with the dynamically balanced tonearms ... " +++++
in theory the dynamically balanced tonearms are a little better ( some advantages. ) that a static balanced one, I agree with Dertonarm in this subject.
But things are not so easy ( theory ) but how good is the design on that precise tonearm mechanism and its execution, IMHO tonearms like: FR, SME, Lustre, Sumiko, Micro Seiki, Dynavector, etc, all but the Micro Seiki MAX add resonances for the topology that use for the dynamically balanced mechanism ( using some kind of spring. ), the Micro Seiki use a different mechanism where the resonances are no-audible but in all the other tonearms those additional tonearm resonances are audible and that's why in the real world ( not theory ) all those tonearms are more neutral running in static way that in dinamically way.
I agree too that if you can't hear the differenes between static/dynamically then there are/is some other trouble in the audio chain that preclude to hear those bad resonances.
Perrew, nothing is perfect in our beloved audio world and what you have on " paper " in a tonearm design not always is achieved in the right way when the tonearm is build and running in our audio systems.
The implementation of a design is what make a difference between different quality performance level in tonearms.
The geometry and all the heory aplicated in a tonearm design is as good as the execution is and as good as the tonearm build materials choosed.
A tonearm design is a complex " task " where exist multiple factors to achieve top quality performance level, the static vs dynamically is only one of those multiple factors and not one that in the today/vintage tonearms makes " the difference " due to that " wrong " implementation.
IMHO we can have very good performance in either design if we know what to do on the design and execution tonearm design.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
