What defines a good tonearm


I'm in the market for a very good tonearm as an upgrade from an SME 345 (309). Most of the tonearms I have used in the past are fixed bearing except for my Grace 704 unipivot. I dont have a problem with the "wobble" of a unipivot, and they seem the simplest to build, so if they are generally at least as good as a fixed pivot, why wouldnt everyone use a unipivot and put their efforts into developing easier vta, azimuth and vtf adjustments, and better arm materials. Or is there some inherent benefit to fixed pivot that makes them worth the extra effort to design and manufacture
manitunc
I don't care what fancy gimbal bearing you have you cannot beat a needle on a dimple.

That is of course exactly how the bearings in the Triplanar are built. Except they are about 8 grades harder than the hardest commercial bearings, DHS notwithstanding.

Gimbal arm does not guarantee azimuth accuracy. The Triplanar's way azimuth adjustment is placed before the offset angle at the headshell, unless the worm gear is angled accordingly--approximately 23°--that adjustment will affect VTA.

In this quote, the former statement is in no way supported or detracted by the latter statement. However the juxtaposition suggests that the latter statement is being used to support the former. This type of argument is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. A logical fallacy is by definition, false; this example is not an exception.

It is a simple fact that once set, the azimuth will not/cannot oscillate on a gimbaled arm as it is held in locus. That is a not feature of even the magnetically-stabilized unipivots, although the use of magnetics did dramatically reduce that oscillation and is a major step forward for them.

I use master recordings for reference. Its the only way I have found to really know if you are on the right track. So for me its not a 'cup of tea' thing. I'm just trying to get the LPs to sound as close to the master as I can.
And yet, the Talea is clearly superior to the Triplanar in playback performance.
That is of course exactly how the bearings in the Triplanar are built.

Notice the word "bearings" is in plural...

This type of argument is a logical fallacy known as a red herring.

All this fallacy talk is making my head hurt. What I want to say is I wish the azimuth adjustment on the Triplanar is done in relation to the offset angle. If the headshell has an offset angle, the azimuth adjustment mechanism should have an offset angle so it would not affect VTA. The Vector's second spike is placed with an offset angle just like the headshell. Same thing with outrigger weights on the early Graham. The Phantom's magnet sticking out of the bearing housing is angled 23° for a reason.

It is a simple fact that once set, the azimuth will not/cannot oscillate on a gimbaled arm as it is held in locus.

I did NOT say there's azimuth oscillation in a gimbal arm. It requires more set up care if the design of the azimuth adjustment disregards the relationship between azimuth and VTA in a tonearm with offset angle.

I'm just trying to get the LPs to sound as close to the master as I can.

Congratulations on finding the perfect tonearm while I look up what is a logical fallacy. Oh, I suppose you tried every tonearm in existence.

_______