Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

>>Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice?<<

Yes, we did as follows:
Basically in the same system, except the TTs, Scheu Das Laufwerk I with Cartridge Man Conductor II(w/Isolator) and Acoustic Solid Wood Ref with Ortofon AS-212. The cartridge used was an Air-Tight PC-1. Music: classical, jazz, vocals and other instrumental. We played all records once in Acoustic Solid/Ortofon combo(alias: AA combo) and then removed PC-1 and mounted it on Cartridge Man arm on Scheu/Cartridge Man(alias: Scheu combo), and played all the passages again.

In short, the same PC-1 sounded rather different on both setups. Scheu combo, whatever we fine-tuned, would deliver a more relaxed feel as a whole, laid back, a little bit more spacious, violin sounding stunningly "airy" and "real", not thin-sounding, etc.

With AA combo, the soundstage was a tad different, imaging became more solid(a positive term, here), bass tighter and more extended with more weight(but not booming), less laid back, as a whole rather transparent but not that "stunningly airy". Playing pipe organ, AA combo could deliver, what we call, real bass authority!

We did tried another cart, Dynavector Te Kaitora II. A very airy cart and extended at the top but could be a bit thin-sounding, rather "light-weighted" presentations, without much bass authority, extremely relaxed mid-range,...overall sonic results were not as satisifactory as the above, though.

We found the same cart could sound differently with the pivoted and air-bearing linear arms we used. Some of us thought AA combo was closer to recordings without less character of its own. However, some of us preferred Scheu combo which could just sound better to their tastes.

Dan

Amendment: I did try another cart, Dyna Te Kaitora II, with Conductor II air-bearing arm...sorry for the mistake.

Dan

Hi Danwkw,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you tried the same cart on two different tables and arms, but never on the same table with both arms?

So, your test was PC-1/Conductor/Das Laufwerk, then PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Acoustic Solid Wood?

But never PC-1/Conductor/Das Laufwerk, then PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Das Laufwerk or PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Acoustic Solid Wood, then PC-1/Conductor/Acoustic Solid Wood?

That's two completely different turntable designs of completely different materials (Scheu's delrin/acrylic vs Acoustic Solid's wood/aluminum).

How do you separate out the the influence of the turntable from that of the tonearms in that test?

BTW, I own a Scheu Premier MK2 w/ the upgraded 80mm platter and their flagship Tacco tonearm AND the Cartridge Man Conductor linear-air bearing arm. Unfortunately, the Premier I own is not a 2-arm version, so I can't do both at the same time.

I wish I could, then I'd just get another Denon DL-103D and see for myself, or a couple of Music Makers.

Yes, Darkmoebius, Scheu with Conductor and Acoustic Solid with Ortofon but not vice versa. That was not supposed to be an official comparison for both arm designs(not solely for that purpose). However, that's the closest comparison we could have at that time. We also had time and other limitations, too. Fortunately, both turntables are high mass, rigid designs(Note: Acoustic Solid's 35kg platter had been covered with a 5-mm acrylic layer and a thin leather) with separate motors, string-driven, on identical Solid Steel racks, and all other rigs were basically the same, except the phono cable.

I have to stress that both TT setups were performing so well that no one of them could capture all our hearts at the same time. That is to say, when we play solo violin, Scheu combo prevails. When we played piano or vocals, both perform very well but in a rather different way. When we play pipe organ in the church, AA combo outperforms Scheu. But no one could predominantly outperform the other with all types of music we had thrown in.

Unfortunately, Scheu were only with 2 arm plates one mounted with Conductor and the other with Scheu's own unipivot. Both plates weren't made for an Ortofon. (Off the topis, we sometimes found a two-armed TT sonically less ideal...maybe due to the resonance of the idle one feedback on the TT.) At that time, we had removed Scheu's arm(for unipivot it was very easy) when playing with the Conductor II.

We had a Conductor mounted on Transrotor ZET 3 with Dyna Te Kaitora II later...the results were not as satisfactory as(thin sounding, no bass authority, etc) on Scheu with PC-1. Maybe it was due to wrong matching of arm/cart/other rigs' synergy. I wish I could have made more arms switching if I know you may ask me this question, Darkmoebius;)

Best regards
Dan

I see alot of discussion here about the theoretical downside of linear arms relative to forces on the stylus/cantilever, but not much real-world testing.

OTOH I have an article from High Performance Review circa 1986, where they used a special test device, the Orsonic Side Force Checker SG-1, to measure stylus deflection of the device mounted to an ET-2 arm compared to the device mounted to a pivoted arm (can't remember which arm right now, I'll have to go check). The pivoted arm showed much greater side-to-side deflection of the stylus during play as compared to the ET-2, the conclusion being that the pivoted arm was causing greater wear of the stylus and cartridge suspension. Unfortunately they haven't made the Orsonic for a while, as it would be interesting to make the same test with more modern pivoted tonearms.

I would agree (and the second link below seems to come to the same conclusion) that mechanical linear trackers (whether passive or active) do put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=155855

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/34126-opus-3-cantus-parallel-tracking-arm.html#post395258