Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

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.

There is as much if not more subjectivity with "real" as there is with "sounds good". If you really want the ravings of the self anointed, the "absolute sound" guys take the cake.
At least the "sounds good" guys know what they like, the "absolute sound" guys can be parading royalty, dictating to the heathens.

Cjfrbw, with all due respect, nonesense! As we expose our ears to more and more live, "real" music, we develop a deeper and deeper understanding of the obvious, and not so obvious traits of music performed live. A comparison to how a piece of electronic equipment is able to express any given trait becomes easier and easier. Most audiophiles are, unfortunately, in the dark about a lot of this. Even a lot of the reviewers (if talk about them we must) who claim to use the sound of live music as a reference fall way short. One very common (and pathetic) observation has always been something to the effect that XYZ component allows the listener to differentiate between, say, an oboe from an English horn. How pathetic can one get. I suggest that if a listener is not able to differentiate the sound of an oboe from an English horn while listening to Muzak pumped through a $3 speaker at the local Walmart, the main problem is not the speaker's lack of fidelity, but rather, the listener's lack of exposure to the sound of the two instruments. Would that same listener not be able to recognize the sound of his or her spouse played back over the same speaker?