Rabco SL-8E Tone Arm

Hi Lewm,
I'm guessing on the Dynavector, but I would assume that although the Dynavector has a high mass in the vertical plain, because it is a balanced beam, ie the counterweight at the back balances the arm to zero, then they have added electromagnetic damping to minimise excessive overshoot of movement on eccentric records. One thing I know, their argument for high horizontal mass/biaxial design is that the inertia of the heavy beam provides better bass as you have alluded, so I guess the damping may be an extension of this thinking.
Certainly on the ET I have to turn the volume down when the e/m damping is applied, which is quite astonishing to think that excessive lateral movement can affect the audible or dynamic output to that degree.

The thinking 'behind' the new Morch 8 tonearm from Denmark
is also connected with the 'horizontal mass' . If I grasped
the description well(?).

Nandric,

I believe that Morch may be referring to the importance of the moment of inertia around the longitudinal axis of the tonearm. This was first explored by Michell Cotter many decades ago, and was the basis for the development of the Magnepan tonearm of the late Seventies.

Mark Kelly discussed it on another forum back in 2005.
Here

Dear Mosin, thanks for you reference to Kelly but his lecture is to complex for me to understand. I mentioned Morch 8 in the hope that some others will investigate what
the designer is at and explain to us in the 'layman vocabulary' the issue. We all want to know 'what there is' but are, alas, not all capable to understand without help.
This to me is the 'sense' of our forum; to learn from others.

Regards,

Nandric, The short of it is that the mass and placement of the counterweight of a unipivot tonearm has more importance than just VTF adjustment. It also significantly affects the lateral motion of the armwand.