TW-Acustic Arm

Hi Dertonarm. I agree with you about the common amnesia of recycling ideas. However, I haven't forgotten about the limited products of the pivot tangential arm genre through out history - recently I am accumulating data and researching on this genre. Yes, I am aware of the Garrard Zero 100 and I even owned it once but it was poorly executed. I meant the Thales Simplicity as new not in concept but new in execution with modern material. Sometimes the audio industry gives up on novel ideas too soon before it was developed into maturity. I guess that's determined by the market and various reasons but that's a different topic. I really enjoy tonearm designs and I have absolutely no interest in talking about the sound in pornographic prose as it's a mechanical device that I enjoy understanding the inner working and picking the designer's brain. It's an intellectual exercise for me. The Simplicity is exciting because for once we have a linear arm that does not involve a goddam air pump, at least for me. (I absolutely hate air pumps. No, I have no fish at home. Contempt can be the mother of invention for me.) I look forward to more products like that in the future.

I am sure the Raven arm sounds excellent but for someone like me, there's nothing new. For others, it's the sound that matters and I don't blame them.

_____

Hi Hiho, we have similar approaches to tonearm design. The Garrard Zero 100 could have been built in all details the way Micha Huber did it now. The materials, fine tooling - everything was there 30 years back. I guess it was more likely the overall approach and the missing care for detail which stopped the Zero 100 (... and a changing market ).
My reservations with either tonearm is the amount of bearings and moving parts involved in these designs. My reservations here are about energy transfer and the rigidity. But I will soon have the change to work with the Simplicity in person, - as I have already done with its big brother the Thales last November.
As for the Raven tonearm - whatever it sounds, my reservations were for the universal granted sonic laurels in advance. Before it was tested/auditioned. And then my question for unique design features or new solutions offered in this design were never answered.
I too don't blame others if its the sound only which matters to them - but how could they knew when they actually hadn't any chance to listen to the TW 10.5 yet?

I presume you've had a listen so if you can put the TW fans' enthusiastic claims and your own prejudice aside for a minute, does the TW 10.5 arm sound any good to you on the day?

Hi Jaspert, I have had the chance to listen to the TW 10.5 on two occasions. Both in private set-ups ( one on a Raven AC ) and with familiar cartridges (Titan i and UNIverse).
However - I do not think that anyone here would really appreciate my comment. Looking back in this thread and reading some of the posts here we can generally assume, that I have little clue and certainly are unable to appreciate or judge a great component anyway.
My prejudice was largely regarding the praise in advance - before any test or listening took place.
Did it sound good to me ?
It did not sound bad.
Pretty balanced, controlled, good and fast upper bass, nice integrated lower midrange. Good staging, not too detailed. Reproduction of height was a bit limited, but width and deep pretty good. I wished for a bit of more "air" and inner detail. This could be an issue of internal wiring maybe.
Bottom octave was not as good and fast as the upper bass - but then you rarely get that at all.
And hardly any speaker or woofer can show the picture.
It did however hold its own against a few other top-flight tonearms of today. But it did not outperform any of them either.

.
Dertonarm: "My reservations with either tonearm is the amount of bearings and moving parts involved in these designs. My reservations here are about energy transfer and the rigidity. But I will soon have the change to work with the Simplicity in person, - as I have already done with its big brother the Thales last November."

I think that's the Archilles hill of tonearms like that; too many bearings and moving parts and the lack of rigidity. Having a pivot point right above the stylus have the potential to introduce unwanted noise, obviously. Another concern I have is the vertical geometry. I know the Thales Original arm (the designer certainly is inventive in naming tonearm names :) ) is capable of zero degree tracking error using the Thales theorem but a pivoting headshell can introduce vertical error, unless the record is absolutely flat, since at the armbase the bearings are not capable of compensating the constant changing headshell angle, unlike a gimbal arm with the bearing angled approximately 23 +- degrees, so it can be very sensitive to VTA and azimuth adjustment - because microscopically they are constantly changing - also compounded by the fact the armwand is very short. The guiding arm, part of the Thales triangle, which is very long and pivot horizontally AND vertically and the vertical plane has to be below the main arm to minimize skating force otherwise it would swing down, adding inertia. I believe the guiding arm is where a linear motion bearing might work better but the insistence on avoiding linear bearing is its selling point. Overall a very clever design and looks to be well executed like a Swiss watch, as the designer is, not surprisingly, a watch maker. The Simplicity is rather more elegant and only sacrifice a tiny bit of tangential error. Please report more of your findings on these interesting arms and preferably on a new thread.

Sorry to hijack this thread with the post. I will quietly go away now. Please continue with discussion on the Raven.

_____