Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

Dear Oilmanmojo, let me briefly add that the vertical mass in the best linear trackers does indeed match the mass in most pivot tonearms.
But the horizontal moving mass is a completely different manner. In the pivot tonearm the mass in more or less equally dissipated on both sides of the bearing - i.e. on two antagonistic levers.
As it is moving around a center it puts no additional force on the stylus (if the bearing is any good....) especially so, as the bearing, armpipe (aside from slight off-set...) and cantilever are in line.
In the linear tonearm the horizontal mass is pushed forward by one (cruel...) lever only and at the tip-toe of that lever is the stylus /cartridge while most of the mass is far away but has to be moved by your stylus and the suspension.
The force pulling from 90° off which is not what your cartridges' suspension system was made for.
This dilemma was minimized by attempts as the ones of Lou Souther and Versa Dynamics with ultra short armpipe - only to add problems in other areas (very sensible to wrap/height changes in vinyl (the Versa Dynamic did feature vacuum hold-down for good reason - it is mandatory with its tonearm)).
I still believe that the striking and logic promise of linear tonearm will one day bring out a design addressing all the big problems - but so far this has not been done.
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working.

03-01-10: Dertonarm
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working.

Great explanation of the lateral forces, Dert.

It would be interesting to know if this heightened lateral force in linear trackers results in increased distortion and/or cartridge suspension/motor wear & damage. It would be nice to hear from cartridge manufacturers if they'd noticed any wear on their retip/repairs unique to carts used with linear arms.

While that force may be greater, it may not actually affect performance/longevity in the real world. Although, I'd find that hard to believe if it is as significant as it seems.

I will state up-front that I have been a fan of the ET2 for more years than I can remember. I have used the same sample on four different tables; currently a TNT6. During this same time period I have owned Rega, SME V, Grado, and Syrinx PU3 (still own). I used at least two of each of the aforementioned pivoting tonearms on each of the four tables that the ET2 has sat on. I keep the Syrinx PU3 as a backup, in the event that I have a problem with the air pump for the ET2; or some other issue, such as placement of equipment due to a move etc. There is no question that the use of the ET2 is more complicated than any of the pivoting arms that I have used. But well worth the trouble. I have consistently found the ET2 to yield a sound that is more like the sound of real music: spacious, well defined (especially with a higher pressure pump), with dense images, and good extension at both ends; and no emphasis on any one frequency range. Only the SME V gave me "more" bass; but that bass was unrealistically bloated. Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.

My point is, that with all the assertions, postulating about their superiority, and all the supposed technical advantages of pivoting arms, there has been in this thread, a conspicuous absence of accompanying discussion about the way that they sound. This is, unfortunately, a familiar story in audiophile circles; isn't it? Focus on the technical points as a way to justify our own preferences and bias, without a commesurate emphasis on what it's supposed to be all about: Does the arm make music? That, defined as getting closer to the sound of the real thing. It's always the same story: this or that has less of this kind or that kind of distortion, so it must be better. This or that phono pre has less deviation from RIAA standards, so it must be better. Blah, blah, blah. HOW DOES IT SOUND!? Compare how it makes a string section sound on a good recording. The ET2, BTW, lets strings sound glorious. The SME, pretty good except for the celli, and basses; way to bloated. The Rega: not even in the same league, with little harmonic complexity. Just as an example.

03-01-10: Frogman
Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.

That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm.

In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind.

I think I might make a few inquiries tomorrow with some reputable cartridge manufacturers/repairers to see if they've noticed excessive or unusual wear due to linear tracking arms.

Unless a linear tonearm murders your cartridge in the very first days, you will hardly notice any effect till you dismount it and realize that your cantilever is off line.
Why ?
Because it is a constant small decrease in quality and sound over time. Our brain and ear won't react to very tiny rather constant changes - there are no benchmarks to verify the changes.
So in the end - how does it sound ?
You'll never know. You may like the sound of a linear tracker.
I've too.
As long as you do not notice its shortcomings. Once you detect them in the sonic signature, the magic is gone forever.
I have owned and used for several years side by side the Triplanar, Graham, ET2 2.5, Goldmund T3F, Air Tangent 2B and Reference to name the more prominent ones and contenders from both "camps".
The mechanical stress showed its results over time - it wasn't the same in all linear trackers ( the ET2 was best when very carefully set-up (= leveled and painstakingly rewired with ultra flexible litz-wire which finally did NOT interfere with the progression...) and running with twice the air pressure as recommended by its manufacturer) .

The originally question of this thread was - as stated by Mepearson - whether the linear tonearms as superior performers by nature.
In my opinion they are not.
THere are plain mechanical and real-life trade-offs in their concept and so far there is no linear tracker on the market which does address all these problems.
The theoretical geometrical advantage can't be denied.
But then it is corrupted by the need of derivation for progression - so far as well in passive as in motorized linear tonearms.
All these conceptional musings do not mean that a linear tracker can't put up an impressive sonic performance.
So you may like its sound for good reason.
BUt on the way up to the very top of Mt Everest the air gets thin and on the last two tracks to the summit the linear tonearms give in - not enough oxygen to fuel their lungs any more.
In direct contest with the best pivots their geometrical advantage becomes very tiny - their bearing and mechanical problems begin to show.

Again - I love the linear principle in tonearms.
But we yet have to see one fulfilling the promise and addressing all issues.