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.
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.