My thanks for all who chimed in on this, and lively dialogue is to be expected in one's hobby. Audio, in particular, seems to have really polarized thoughts and opinions, so we hope that the real goal - enjoying music - is not lost somewhere along the path. And I certainly appreciate Mr. 95's response - and welcome him (or any others) to contact me directly with questions and/or concerns. We will address them as promptly as my one head and 20 hats will permit...
On to the point that Mr. Stringreen brings up, I simply wanted to state that our designs are based on the best principles and materials we can find and use, not on promoting a certain production technique. For me, if I found that 3-D printing would add measurably to my designs, I would use it in an instant; however, I would NOT try to claim that the mere use of this technique (which is called "addive machining", and has been known for many years) is, in itself, going to be the magic button. Additive machining is slow, rather expensive in larger production runs, and relies on melting and reforming a useable powder into a new shape. While a fascinating proess to observe, it is NOT the magic wand for a good product. The very same results can be optained by traditional, subtrative machining by using pure ingots of the desired material. [And which, by the way, with certified materials, will be guaranteed to be free from voids or other impurities that I don't beleive additive machining (3-D printing) - can control to the same degree, if at all]. Let's just say I would not be comfortable boarding an airplane with a wing made from the process, at least not yet...
When one product (in this case, tonearms) is made identically, but one with 3-D printing and the other with CNC or some of the newer subtrative machining techniques such as "electrical discharge machining" (another amazing technique), then I claim the differences will the MATERIALS chosen, not the method of making them. So, if one tonearm is aluminum, and the other, idential design and dimensions, is stainless steel, brass, or plastic, the results will depend entirely on the difference in materials, including the choice that Mr. Stringreen tossed out in a very colorful example. And I agree with him, at least as far as the sonic results are concerned.
As I tried to make more clear by this note, in my first posting to this thread, I was attempting only to make the point that it's the design and choice of materials that matters most, and how you get there is entirely optional. 3-D printing is fine, and if someone wants to make a tonearm, turntable, living room furniture, or a dog-house with this process, I'm fine with that. But please don't try to tell me that it, alone, is the reason for a better product. That's simply not the case, and I object to the spin that sometimes becomes a buzz-word; in this case, 3-D printing is a useful tool, and an ideal means of making quick prototypes in my office if I want to check out a new design idea. When it gets to some exotic materials such as tungsten, however, it's going to be s-l-o-w, and in my opinion, entirely too expensive to warrant it's use in production. It's the hyperbole that surrounds some of these concepts that rankles me, as the wheel has not yet been reinvented; it's just another way to make one.
