Why is the price of new tonearms so high


Im wondering why the price of new tonearms are so high, around $12k to $15k when older very good arms can be bought at half or less?
perrew
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
Aahh, sorry, please ignore my last post as its core content can be found in some of the earlier posts. I replied, not realizing that there were two more columns of posts to read.
Guess I should hit the sack...

Good night,

Frank
Frank (Berlinta),
Thanks for your detailed/clear explanation. Despite similar things being said earlier, it was quite clearly stated. Your comment about spring tension being altered based on record thickness is true for most short springs, but there is no reason why one could not make a longer spring. Also, if the spring mount was tied to the VTA-adjustment base, when you adjust for VTA it would keep spring tension constant across record thickness.

Separately, I'd be interested to hear what people thought about spring dampening materials.


I've kept out of this thread but now that we are getting contributions from people who actually understand tonearm design I thought I might contribute a little.

Frank it is true that VTF will increase with record thickness but by my calculations the effect is very small indeed. Taking a dynamically balanced arm and assuming the VTF adjustment allows say 30mN range for a full 360 degree rotation gives us an effective compliance around 47,000 um/mN assuming 225 mm arm length. A typical record thickness differential of 1mm will cause a change of about 0.02mN which is around 0.1% of typical tracking force.


Mark Kelly