What defines a good tonearm

Dear Syntax. Obviously that 95% of reviewers an audio dealers must disappear too.

Audiophiles too?, NO they are the ones that put their money to make AHEE " survive " !!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I think we have converted a thread about what defines a good tonearm to a thread about what tonearms we like. It was a natural and unavoidable evolution. But then, we all agree there is no "best" tonearm to the exclusion of all others.

Raul, you actually answered my question by saying that you found there was such a thing as "low enough" bearing friction and that if you went lower, you found no audible further improvement. How low was "low enough"? Also, wouldn't the minimum acceptable friction be different for a high compliance cartridge compared to a low compliance cartridge? I think yes. And the beat goes on.

Dear Lewm On high-end always is more easy to talk on subjective terms:
what can you argue when some one tell: I like it?, yes you can argue whatever but that " I like it " is the discussion " end ".

This subjective attitude hide the " audio cancer " and no one want to know which kind of cancer already has.

Instead, when we put some touch of objectivity we can show to other persons why he is wrong or why he is right too and even why agree with.
I'm not in favor of " pure objective " against " pure subjective " attitude but a mix of both but with good objective foundation.

Even in objective terms always exist " the best " and no one want to know that what they own are far from be the best even if they think is the best because what they paid for it or for whatever reason.
So the people feel " comfortable " when no one can " touch " their audio systems subjectivity " affair " protect them or at least that is what some thinked about.

Lewm, that's why many people have " problems " with my opinions when I " naked " their systems and when I did that I did it not to show/exhibit the audio system but for the people understand where in reality are seated and through the time could take a " better "/alternative road, I always try to help and many times we have to put " the finger where it hurts ".

Btw, people said that in subjective terms " the best " does not exist I support that exist that " the best " is there although the explanation is not only wide but needs absolute " open mind " to discuss about.

Yes on your questions about cartridge compliance issue.

And, unfortunatelly, the beat goes on!!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I posted:
+++ " It helps that we use a R2R as reference/comparison?, certainly yes ... " +++

I think I was plain wrong, certainly does not helps because a important part of the LP recording process is not on the tape, example: RIAA eq de-emphasis, cutting lathe amplifier added distortions to the process, vinyl pressing and the like.
For we can know what we are loosing through playback LP on an analog rig we need to differentiate between these two 2 stages " after the tape information.

Yes, a R2R give us a picture of what is the sound with out those two stages process where signal is heavy degraded.

So, IMHO that kind of comparison: R2R against LP playback at home is more " academic/retoric " than a useful one tool.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Hello Lewm....I must agree on the air bearing linear arms...they sound funny to me never liked them much...Now the old rabco (when working correctly) and the much newer pioneer's pl l1000a's arm is fabulous...uses a linear motor for arm movement the arm also uses a graphite composite arm tube and dissipates cartridge energy via high mass structure now that was engineering IMMHO