Why is the price of new tonearms so high

Because of many threads in the past, some now deleted, most of us know that in these analog threads there are two people who are much more alike than not...
a) One person loves music, enjoys analog more than digital, has acquired a bunch of interesting knowledge over the years, has tried (and still owns) a bunch of turntables, tonearms, carts, has helped build a phono/line-stage, is designing/building a tonearm, has ambitions to design/build other stuff, occasionally sells on Audiogon stuff he has talked about in the past, and does NOT think the FR-60 series tonearms are good tonearms.
b) The other loves music, enjoys analog more than digital, has acquired a bunch of knowledge over the years, has tried (and probably still owns) a bunch of tonearms, carts, has built a TT, is designing/building a tonearm, has designed/built/had built a line/phono stage, and a bunch of other equipment to go with it, has sold things he talks about on Audiogon in the past, and thinks the FR-60 tonearms are better than the other gives them credit for being...

I think there are three possibilities here:
1) it is a shadow conspiracy. There are two people out there with some decent knowledge who at times are polite and can actually virtually exist in the same space. They contribute to a thread which becomes informative, then almost without fail they suddenly turn on each other and do their utmost to kill off the thread and get it removed from the public space. The conspiracy is to remove the analog threads from the archives so that they can later publicly "make up", then release an expensive book called "R&D on Analog", effectively selling us back all the the knowledge that had accumulated in these fora, but making it available to us analog lovers for the low, low price of $100 a pop.

2) it is a biblical sign ("And Brother shall turn against Brother") of imminent unholy retribution being visited upon mankind for our accumulated sins against each other... or...

3) it is a couple of putzes who, if they were neighbors, would compete by having beautiful (but different) gardens which everyone could admire and talk to them about, and would do the rest of their neighbors the service of not talking to each other, but because this is the internet, can't seem to manage even that.

Hmmmm.... Occam's Razor would suggest...

Hi T_Bone,
let me pick a small _bone, say Chicken_ not a T_bone :-)

>>> Occam's Razor would suggest...<<<
"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

I think your scenario is already too conspiracy flavoured for Ockham.

So, what we have here, are two VERY competitive individuals that just can't contain themselves?

I'd got at times to the point, were it passed some others' natural comfort-zone.

In deed, pushing past comfort-zones can be at times educational of sorts. Opening Pandora's box ('can of worms') and then only looking into the same 'can' over-and-over, alas looks a bit more like compulsive-obsessive. Also sometimes called 'over-motivation'.

I do hope your conspiracy theory is not the case, and that Ockham once more got it right :-)
A.

Dear T_bone, the use of the term "occam's razor" seems to be en vogue among US-audiophiles right now........
As I am quite sceptical about the biblical Kain and Abel-picture as a whole, I would rather favour the equal well known picture of the old, lazy and used to enjoy wide homage because of his presence lion all a sudden facing a new competitor showing up in "his" territory.
Even if we were living next door, I doubt that we would see a "keeping up with the Johnsons" situation.
In fact, I am sure that our concepts in the way we want to hear reproduced music are very dissimilar. As are our backgrounds and taste.
I am certainly no philantrophist and I make no secret about this.
Questioning things again and again till you get to the core and being critical about what people really have to show behind their mere words is a lesson I have learned from history - not only of my home country and not only from days past.

But to get to the core and to give your post the answer it deserves.
You are right that the exchange of personal posts between Raul and me does indeed do no good to this thread (although I know that the "oldskool tonearm"-thread - which was MUCH more informative than this one here - was eliminated because of the direct insults exchanged between Bob and Raul).
I do a favour to you, the other Audiogoners, Raul and last but not least me: - I will ignore all posts by Raul from now on.
Will continue to post, but will do so as if he doesn't post at all.
Cheers,
D.

Dear T bone: The best we can do in a forum like the Agon one is try to learn ( while are there. Over the time, if no one " use/post " on it, the threads disappear/delete in automatic. ) and make a personal archive of what is interesting for each one of us and in the mid-time try to have fun as you can get.

The opinion differences are what make a forum comes " alive " and learning one. In the analog audio world that is full of imperfections/errors/mistakes there is no absolute rules as there is no absolute opinions only relative/flavored ones due to those audio imperfections and different each one experiences: there is no " Bible " .

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Off the original topic, but hopefully answering a question posted here:
A straight tonearm or a tonearm that is s-shaped(but is in perfect lateral balance) that relies on the counterweight to be moved for setting VTF will NOT cause a VTF change when moved up or down because of differing record thickness, as long as a line connecting the center of gravity of the arm's mass behind the vertical pivot(endstub, counterweight...) and the center of gravity of the arm's mass in front of the vertical pivot(armwand, headshell cartridge...) goes right through the vertical pivot.
But, one can't overcome inertia, so on the up a warp, VTF increases, on the way down VTF will be below its nominal value, then, finally increase above it(think ski jumper when landing) before returning to the nominal value.

If the arm has a total COG below the pivot(due to a low slung counterweight on a unipivot arm or one used on, say, a Rega arm just because it is supposedly adding "stability"(which is what lots of aftermarket counterweight ads claim), the VTF changes are more pronounced due to the resulting restoring force(think pendulum).

A so-called "dynamically balanced" tonearm will not(!), contrary to what I've read here and elsewhere, maintain the same tracking force when used with records of different thickness. It makes no differences whether a coil or a flat spring is used, VTF must increase when the arm's front is raised(spring tension is altered). This is true irrespective of the mass distribution(see above).

The advantage of using a spring is that, while the VTF will increase more strongly on the way up the warp, it will not fall (much)below its nominal value when the arm is on the way down. Mistracking as a result of too low a VTF is less likely to occur.
This was mostly an issue with very high compliance carts(70s and early 80s). Other theoretical advantages are the reduced inertia on arms with reversed tension springs(Rega: zero = - VTF), constant VTF despite a non-level tt platform(not really an argument as any turntable should be perfectly level(but Dual loved to display their cardanically suspended decks with dynamically balanced ULM arms back then...) and the more reliable VTF setting on (European)broadcast turntables(no tools, scales or gauges required for exchanging the cartridge).

Lastly, a dynamically balanced arm with an undamped spring is something I'd stay away from....

Have fun,

Frank