Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

actually, the basic guts (of vintage tables)...with a modern arm, improved plinth, and LOMC cartridge can compete on the highest level of tt performance.

I agree with you, Mike. By now, the idler-drive genre has enough ink on them without me adding anything new to the topic. What is little talked about is the "guts" of direct-drive tables. Many vintage DD units suffered from bad plinth design with inadequate solidity (often mounted to crappy plastic or flimsy particle-board), and isolation from resonance and interference of electronics. I like the bare bone approach, that is, to take the motor out of the chassis/plinth/enclosure and mount it to a something solid, material of your own choice, and extend the cable by at least couple feet to the stock chassis or an enclosure that contains the electronics/motor-drive/control-console/power-supply. In fact, the Monaco Grand-Prix, Teres Certus, or early Micro-Seiki DDX/DQX-1000 takes the same approach.

Almost ALL DD tables can be improved this way. Mike have done that with your Technics SP-10Mk3 with the slate plinth, same concept. There are many other brands of superb DD tables with great potential out there can be had for very reasonable price and can be converted this way with good result. I no longer have any Technics tables but I still got great results with many mid-priced JVC, Pioneer, Kenwood, Yamaha, etc... I haven't tried it on Sony and Denon tables yet because they require mounted a tapehead to check platter speed so the mounting is tricky. Modern belt-drive turntables have been doing similar things by separating the motor from the main plinth. Once again, Micro-Seiki was ahead of their time with their RX-1500 and beyond. It's only logical DD will go that direction. The days of having everything in a box for DD tables seems less attractive to me now.

Once again, I went off topic from tonearm discuss so I guess I should really create a new thread. Anyway, just a thought.

_________

High End Audio Industry has lost its way, there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. Fidelity is irrelevant to music.
Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality.

Syntax,

that's some heavy s*** for a Sunday. you need to cut down on your Wagner and listen to more Bob Marley. it's springtime, enjoy the music.

cheers.

Syntax, I could not disagree more. I've spent the last 20 years working out what the human hearing/perceptual rules are, and then making sure that our gear obeys those rules. This work is on-going- I am also exploring what Chaos Theory has to say about audio electronics, and have further research showing how important it is for the playback system to reflect human perceptual rules, backed up by some well-known neuro-scientists.

Now maybe I have got my own findings and the like, but I know I am not the only one who is engaged in such research. Its true that there is less research than there was 40 years ago, but it is not true to say that current equipment is made simply to sound pleasing. There is a difference between that and being made to be as good as it possibly can be with the known science.

Syntax, I could not agree with you more. I disagree only with the implication that because the goal of achieving reproduction that is faithful to the sound of real music was difficult to achieve, the pursuit of that goal was abandoned. The pursuit of that goal was abandoned by audiophiles, not the High End Industry as a whole. I believe that there are still manufacturers that pursue that goal. The problem is that audiophiles not only "forgot" what real music sounds like, but younger audiophiles never learned.

This, ironically, is also the reasons that too much validity is given by some to the idea that because something is technically "better" than something else, then it must be better overall. Not so!

Audiophiles seem less and less willing to accept concepts that are not easily quantified or explained rationally. In an era of so much technical advancement, it is easy to understand why this is so. The problem is that we are talking about music. And music is an incredibly complex, subtle, and organic thing. It expresses human emotions. I find it incredibly arrogant, and not very insightful, that some think that they can fully explain what is going on in music, and it's reproduction, with numbers and technical measurements. In my opinion, to not understand that a certain amount of subjectivity is every bit as valid, in absolute terms, as purely technical analysis, is to not fully understand the meaning of music.