Linear-tracking Turntables!

karma

New Member
Jun 17, 2011
320
1
0
82
White Rock, New Mexico
HI All,
Boy, I can't believe I missed this thread because I am such a supporter of linear tracking. Specifically, air bearing arms. I have two Eminent Technology ET2.5 air bearing arms, one on a Sota Nova vacuum turntable and one on an Oracle Delphi V with the African Granite base and the Turbo power supply. I have been using ET arms since 1990. Before that I had several types of servo driven linear arms. I have not had a pivoted arm since the middle seventies.

That last statement is not quite true. Two years ago I bought a Thorens TD 125 and installed a Graham 2.2 Deluxe arm. It sounds pretty good with an AT OC9/2. This is not a system for serious listening but where I audition new/used records. The Graham is a good arm but suffers in comparison with the ET's.

I have a custom precision pressure regulated air supply that runs the ET's at 28 PSI with particulate and water filters. The air is supplied by a shop air compressor which is highly modified for silence and buried deep in the bowels of my house. In my listening room, the compressor can't be heard. But the glorious music certainly can be heard.

I love these arms. Every cartridge I have put on them gives better sound than any pivoted arm I have used and I have used some good ones. The problem with pivoted arms is the tracking angle error caused by the offset head. And they are all guilty. There is no way to avoid this error no matter the overall quality of the arm. It's is a built-in error and it is audible. The better the cartridge, the more obvious the difference. I am using a Lyra Skala on the Oracle and a Monster Sigma Genesis 2000 on the Sota.

I am not going to go into the reasons a linear arm, specifically an air bearing arm, is superior. Most of you already know the reasons. All I can say is those reasons are real and audible. I consider a pivoted arm to be a serious compromise. I can't justify installing an expensive cartridge on a pivoted arm, no matter the manufacturer.

I have answered Myles criticism of air bearing arms concerning bass performance before. But, I'll say it again. With my custom air supply the bearing is very stiff and the bass is explosive. There is not a problem.

I should mention that set-up is a bit more difficult and realignment is needed periodically if you are using a spring suspended turntable as I do. Alignment is not difficult. As for reliability, my arms have never failed to track properly. It depends on a clean air supply which is not hard to achieve.

Here are some pictures of my Oracle on a modified Lead Balloon stand:



Sparky
 

Attachments

  • DSCF1154-for-emai&#108.jpg
    DSCF1154-for-emai&#108.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 1,157
  • DSCF1153-for-emai&#108.jpg
    DSCF1153-for-emai&#108.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 1,093
Last edited:

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
HI All,
Boy, I can't believe I missed this thread because I am such a supporter of linear tracking. Specifically, air bearing arms. I have two Eminent Technology ET2.5 air bearing arms, one on a Sota Nova vacuum turntable and one on an Oracle Delphi V with the African Granite base and the Turbo power supply. I have been using ET arms since 1990. Before that I had several types of servo driven linear arms. I have not had a pivoted arm since the middle seventies.

That last statement is not quite true. Two years ago I bought a Thorens TD 125 and installed a Graham 2.2 Deluxe arm. It sounds pretty good with an AT OC9/2. This is not a system for serious listening but where I audition new/used records. The Graham is a good arm but suffers in comparison with the ET's.

I have a custom precision pressure regulated air supply that runs the ET's at 28 PSI with particulate and water filters. The air is supplied by a shop air compressor which is highly modified for silence and buried deep in the bowels of my house. In my listening room, the compressor can't be heard. But the glorious music certainly can be heard.

I love these arms. Every cartridge I have put on them gives better sound than any pivoted arm I have used and I have used some good ones. The problem with pivoted arms is the tracking angle error caused by the offset head. And they are all guilty. There is no way to avoid this error no matter the overall quality of the arm. It's is a built-in error and it is audible. The better the cartridge, the more obvious the difference. I am using a Lyra Skala on the Oracle and a Monster Sigma Genesis 2000 on the Sota.

I am not going to go into the reasons a linear arm, specifically an air bearing arm, is superior. Most of you already know the reasons. All I can say is those reasons are real and audible. I consider a pivoted arm to be a serious compromise. I can't justify installing an expensive cartridge on a pivoted arm, no matter the manufacturer.

I have answered Myles criticism of air bearing arms concerning bass performance before. But, I'll say it again. With my custom air supply the bearing is very stiff and the bass is explosive. There is not a problem.

I should mention that set-up is a bit more difficult and realignment is needed periodically if you are using a spring suspended turntable as I do. Alignment is not difficult. As for reliability, my arms have never failed to track properly. It depends on a clean air supply which is not hard to achieve.

Here are some pictures of my Oracle on a modified Lead Balloon stand:



Sparky

I have to say that I preferred the Graham 1.5 to the ET2 in my system on a VPI TNT using a Lyra Parnassus. Among the improvements that I recall (it was close to 13-14 years ago) were far better lows and dynamics with the Graham.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
HI Myles,
Here we are again. What air pressure were you using with your ET2?

Sparky

I tried different pressures with a super high compressor. I think it was around 21 or 22 (?); after that if I remember correctly, and it was a good 15 years ago (?), I could hear air whistling out the bearing. But I did listen at all pressures and obviously with the special manifold/trap/surge tank :)

As a matter of fact, I remember having conversations with Allen Perkins about what I was hearing with the Graham/Parnassus combo, esp. the much improved dynamics, and he talked about how out of phase reflections from the act of playing the record, if not properly addressed in the arm, could decrease dynamic range.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
I love these arms (linear-tracking arms). Every cartridge I have put on them gives better sound than any pivoted arm I have used and I have used some good ones. The problem with pivoted arms is the tracking angle error caused by the offset head. And they are all guilty. There is no way to avoid this error no matter the overall quality of the arm. It's is a built-in error and it is audible. The better the cartridge, the more obvious the difference.

I am not going to go into the reasons a linear arm, specifically an air bearing arm, is superior. Most of you already know the reasons. All I can say is those reasons are real and audible. I consider a pivoted arm to be a serious compromise. I can't justify installing an expensive cartridge on a pivoted arm, no matter the manufacturer.


Alignment is not difficult. As for reliability, my arms have never failed to track properly. It depends on a clean air supply which is not hard to achieve.

Sparky

You won't have any arguments on this comin' from me. :b
 

karma

New Member
Jun 17, 2011
320
1
0
82
White Rock, New Mexico
HI Myles,
If you could hear air whistling you must not have had the high pressure manifold. Both of my arms do have the high pressure manifold and I have never heard whistling. And I have listened because I was concerned about that with pressure of 28 PSI. Actually, I have run higher pressures but I heard no improvement after 28 PSI. That plus the compressor runs more as pressure increases so I saw no reason to go higher.

Myles, you seem to be determined to ignore the geometrical errors with pivoted arms. If you were here I could demonstrate the problems the errors introduce. After all, the job of a great tone arm is to provide the most felicitous and accurate alignment for the stylus with respect to the groove. This is especially important with fine line contact stylus shapes. If this were strictly theoretical I would not bother mentioning it. But, the tracking angle error is audible so I will mention it. A longer pivoted arm helps but does not eliminate it and introduces a set of problems of its own. Of course, skating force is a given and not controversial. All in all, I maintain that a pivoted arm is a compromised design.

I should also mention that I currently have a Thorens TD 125 with a Graham 2.2 Deluxe arm mounted. The cartridge is a AT OC9/II. While this is a somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison when going up against my Oracle with the ET2.5 arm with a Lyra Skala, the remainder of the system is identical so a comparison may have some value especially if the comparison is limited to dynamics and bass response. Otherwise the Oracle/ET2.5/Skala is in a different league. The ET arm is as least as dynamic and has bass response as good as or better than the 2.2 and OC9 on the Graham. BTW, the OC9 is a surprisingly good cartridge. And I do like the 2.2 but not as much as the ET2.5.

Do you remember which compressor you were using?

Sparky
 
Last edited:

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
HI Myles,
If you could hear air whistling you must not have had the high pressure manifold. Both of my arms do have the high pressure manifold and I have never heard whistling. And I have listened because I was concerned about that with pressure of 28 PSI. Actually, I have run higher pressures but I heard no improvement after 28 PSI. That plus the compressor runs more as pressure increases so I saw no reason to go higher.

Myles, you seem to be determined to ignore the geometrical errors with pivoted arms. If you were here I could demonstrate the problems the errors introduce. After all, the job of a great tone arm is to provide the most felicitous and accurate alignment for the stylus with respect to the groove. This is especially important with fine line contact stylus shapes. If this were strictly theoretical I would not bother mentioning it. But, the tracking angle error is audible so I will mention it. A longer pivoted arm helps but does not eliminate it. Of course, skating force is a given and not controversial. All in all, I maintain that a pivoted arm is a compromised design.

I should also mention that I currently have a Thorens TD 125 with a Graham 2.2 Deluxe arm mounted. The cartridge is a AT OC9/II. While this is a somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison when going up against my Oracle with the ET2.5 arm with a Lyra Skala, the remainder of the system is identical so a comparison may have some value especially if the comparison is limited to dynamics and bass response. Otherwise the Oracle/ET2.5/Skala is in a different league. The ET arm is as least as dynamic and has bass response as good as or better than the 2.2 and OC9 on the Graham. BTW, the OC9 is a surprisingly good cartridge. And I do like the 2.2 but not as much as the ET2.5

Sparky

I'm well aware of the compromises inherent in each design. Neither design is perfect and there have to be some compromises (not that much different than any piece of gear in our systems). Glad you enjoy the ET because it is a great arm. I parted ways with my ET for many reasons, and have for the moment settled on a unipivot design. I wish Bruce had taken the ET to the next level but he didn't. Maybe he felt he milked all he could out of the design. Maybe he thought it was a dead horse and speakers were his calling? Hopefully my next arm will be 12 inches since I really hear the difference between the 12 and even the 10.5 inch arm.

You can check my reviews and see that I used the high pressure manifold. At that time, I was a leading proponent for the arm, which was bettered, for a bit more money, by the Air Tangent at the time.
 

karma

New Member
Jun 17, 2011
320
1
0
82
White Rock, New Mexico
HI Myles,
Actually, I think the ET2.5 arm is a brilliant design. Being an engineer myself, I can understand the way he manipulated the design and the materials to give a very cost effective and highly functional design. Living with the arm for so many years gives one an appreciation of how well he did this. It's relatively easy to build cost is no object designs. We are surrounded by them in hi fi. The real trick is to design a great product that many can and will afford and that functions at the state of the art.

This is what Bruce did. In my view the main difference between the very expensive air bearing arms and the ET is the air pressure that is used, very expensive materials, and extensive machine work. The ET arm is made from plastic mouldings done to a very high level of precision. This kept the price down to an affordable level. The air pressure issue can be dealt with. The expensive materials and machine work are not needed. Yet, the performance is excellent. This is the mark of a great design. You should appreciate this and encourage this approach for the health of the industry. The problem is most engineers are not as good as Bruce.

I suspect the design is maxed out. It can't get any better without a completely new model for which there is no market. Doesn't sound like a good business proposition to me. It probably won't happen unless the vinyl resurgence is much bigger than I think it is.

Bruce stopped developing the ET arm when it was no longer cost effective to put development money into them. CD's are the cause. And actually he kept refining the design past this point but the fact is there were few customers. However, the arm is still available but the price is significantly higher than you remember. I think I paid $3000 for my new ET2.5 about two years ago.

Air bearing arms have always been exotic. They have always appealed to the more technically inclined person who understood the advantages and were willing to walk the extra mile to extract the best from them. I'm one of those. Anybody who settles for a pivoted arm is, in my view, willing to settle for less than the best. I think of them as lazy which is not a good attitude for creating the best system possible.

Damn, there I go again-being honest!! But so be it. I know I have just insulted nearly every member here (everyone with a pivoted arm, that is). I don't care. I'm not here to play politics.

Oh, and Myles, you never did answer my question about which compressor you were using. I would still appreciate an answer.

Sparky
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I don't think us lazy guys really care either Sparky :D
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
HI Myles,
Actually, I think the ET2.5 arm is a brilliant design. Being an engineer myself, I can understand the way he manipulated the design and the materials to give a very cost effective and highly functional design. Living with the arm for so many years gives one an appreciation of how well he did this. It's relatively easy to build cost is no object designs. We are surrounded by them in hi fi. The real trick is to design a great product that many can and will afford and that functions at the state of the art.

This is what Bruce did. In my view the main difference between the very expensive air bearing arms and the ET is the air pressure that is used, very expensive materials, and extensive machine work. The ET arm is made from plastic mouldings done to a very high level of precision. This kept the price down to an affordable level. The air pressure issue can be dealt with. The expensive materials and machine work are not needed. Yet, the performance is excellent. This is the mark of a great design. You should appreciate this and encourage this approach for the health of the industry. The problem is most engineers are not as good as Bruce.

I suspect the design is maxed out. It can't get any better without a completely new model for which there is no market. Doesn't sound like a good business proposition to me. It probably won't happen unless the vinyl resurgence is much bigger than I think it is.

Bruce stopped developing the ET arm when it was no longer cost effective to put development money into them. CD's are the cause. And actually he kept refining the design past this point but the fact is there were few customers. However, the arm is still available but the price is significantly higher than you remember. I think I paid $3000 for my new ET2.5 about two years ago.

Air bearing arms have always been exotic. They have always appealed to the more technically inclined person who understood the advantages and were willing to walk the extra mile to extract the best from them. I'm one of those. Anybody who settles for a pivoted arm is, in my view, willing to settle for less than the best. I think of them as lazy which is not a good attitude for creating the best system possible.

Damn, there I go again-being honest!! But so be it. I know I have just insulted nearly every member here (everyone with a pivoted arm, that is). I don't care. I'm not here to play politics.

Oh, and Myles, you never did answer my question about which compressor you were using. I would still appreciate an answer.

Sparky

Sparky: I'm not hiding anything. I don't remember the name. It was a long time ago. I'm sure I wrote about it though somewhere.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Sparky, I never had the courage to say what you just said in your above post.
Bravo, I fully agree with you! :b

Those uni-pivot arms looks cool, and they come in all shape and material, and prices too.
A good quality turntable isn't known to the general public; it is a niche market that is very restricted for only the hardcore vinyl people in search for the closest to perfection possible. And not only that, but also the best quality pressings which cost more than what the normal people can afford.

Still, it's fun to see those big records spin on a nice turntable with just the right light above.
...Accents of crystal, acrylic, gold, silver, chrome, aluminum, exotic woods, etc...

100 years from now, they will write 'bout what was right, and what was true.
Right now, spinning LPs is still a force with the manufacturers and the buyers and the converted from yesteryear...

I just shared my opinion, your turn now. :b
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Oh, almost forgot; how much is a good quality cartridge, and how long will it last?

Plus you need a record washer, a good one that works! That too cost money.

And I can keep up, with all the rituals and time it takes to set up everything quasi perfectly,
and $25,000* later with bills from the doctor because not enough sleep and a sore back!

* Price includes few LPs. Not too many though. Good pressings, not those depressing ones!
 
Last edited:

cjfrbw

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
3,323
1,313
1,730
Pleasanton, CA
Yeah, I'm vinyl slob, not snob, and I like it that way. We used to spin these in the day and get massive enjoyment on primitive, macerating, plastic and aluminum spinning clam shells, and now, nothing is correct unless it entails hours of OC disorder fiddling.

On the other hand, for the OC disordered, vinyl entails endless hours of fussing and rearranging fun, hair splitting rituals, and even occassionaly playing a record.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,467
11,363
4,410
Anybody who settles for a pivoted arm is, in my view, willing to settle for less than the best. I think of them as lazy which is not a good attitude for creating the best system possible.

your above quote begs for a response.......

i owned the Rockport Sirius III with linear tracking arm for 8 years. i can't say whether it's the best linear tracker; but it's likely among them. it was certainly built to a very high standard, and the air pressure system and arm shaft design were very nicely done......and designed and built without regard to expense. for the last 4 years i owned it, i also owned 4 other different tt's with a number of pivoted arms. the final couple of pivoted arms i owned did clearly out-perform the Rockport Linear tracker to the degree i can isolate the Rockport arm from the Rockport tt; particularly the final pivoted arm i owned. this is no criticism of the Rockport or the arm, both were designed 17 years ago. i'd say that is a long time to be at the cutting edge.

all during this time i used (and continue to use) master tape as a consistent reference to judge tt and arm performance.

looking back, i started out thinking exactly as you do in your above quote. based on all my previous experience the Rockport linear tracker took on and easily defeated all comers in performance. and my overall perspective is that up to a certain point Linear trackers do overall have advantages. but a pivoted arm is simply 'free'er' to wiggle and a solid bearing ultimately can be more dynamic and explosive than an air bearing. no doubt the Rockport arm is very dynamic and explosive, but the very very best pivoted arms are more so.

among pivoted arms a unipivot has the highest potential. up to a point the execution is more important than the design heritage. but past that point a unipivot has a higher potential. the problem of stability in a unipivot becomes it's biggest advantage as you apply higher and higher levels of execution.

in the final analysis the very best pivoted arms surpassed the best linear tracker i heard at image solidity, note decay and space rendering......which previously had separated a great linear tracker from any pivoted arm. and in detail retrieval it was not very close with the nod again to the pivoted arm. it turns out that perfect tangency is not as critical as agility to track the groove.

maybe someday someone will throw a big budget at pushing linear tracker technology beyond where it is now. in the end you may be right......but i very much doubt it. and at this point you are not right.
 
Last edited:

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
Just a thought that popped into my mind: would linear trackers be more susceptible to less than perfect record centering? If the groove wasn't perfectly aligned, so that that the spiraling inward did not maintain at a constant rate, but essentially wobbled back and forth on each revolution then the whole arm assembly to some degree has to dance to this tune. Which wouldn't help SQ: may be subtle, but still audible.

Just curious ...

Frank
 

karma

New Member
Jun 17, 2011
320
1
0
82
White Rock, New Mexico
HI Frank,
You do have a point. This has been written about before and can be a concern. However, I have not had problems with this but I don't have many off center hole records. The ET 2.5 once was offered with an optional fluid damper trough that was supposed to dampen horizontal arm movement and prevent resonance. I had one installed on my first ET2.5. I finally concluded that it was was more trouble than it was worth and removed it. It's not missed.

Do remember that off center holes also can be a problem with pivoted arms as well. Quite a few high end arms had horizontal damping mechanisms. The SME V comes to mind. I don't know anyone who uses it though. Horizontal dampers seem to be a thing of the past because the problem is not common enough to be worth the trouble. But, theoretically, you are right. Practically speaking, it is not a problem worth fixing.

Sparky
 

karma

New Member
Jun 17, 2011
320
1
0
82
White Rock, New Mexico
your above quote begs for a response.......


...... in the final analysis the very best pivoted arms surpassed the best linear tracker i heard at image solidity, note decay and space rendering......which previously had separated a great linear tracker from any pivoted arm. and in detail retrieval it was not very close with the nod again to the pivoted arm. it turns out that perfect tangency is not as critical as agility to track the groove.

maybe someday someone will throw a big budget at pushing linear tracker technology beyond where it is now. in the end you may be right......but i very much doubt it. and at this point you are not right.

HI Mike,
Thanks for your experienced response. But I must take you to task. But first, some caveats. I have not heard the Rockport, only great things about it. I have not heard a number of the most expensive pivoted (unipivot) arms either. I also don't know how you did your testing which is the crux of the matter. But, I'll assume you do know what you are doing so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What you are saying about concerning perfect tangencity makes no sense. My position is entirely based upon the geometry and physics of stylus to groove alignment. A pivoted arm, due to its head offset angle, can never achieve a perfect fit in the groove except at the classical protractor null points. Because the head is angled, so too is the stylus. It will always fit into the groove at a rotated angle which prevents the stylus from perfectly conforming to the groove modulations. This is especially important at high frequencies with fine line contact styli. This means the finest detail in the groove is glossed over and not reproduced by the cartridge. Further, it also means there is distortion because the waveform cannot be reproduced with accuracy.

All this is built into a pivoted arm due to the offset head and there is no way around it. A tangential tracking arm, if it is truly tangential, will permit the stylus to fit the groove perfectly, thus, retrieving the finest detail and reducing distortion. This is simply the geometry of the situation and has nothing to do with the beauty of the arm. It's the nature of the beast.

This situation can be proven and is audible. I have spent many hours experimenting both by ear and with instrumentation. The result is always the same. The pivoted arm is inferior.

Could a similar (not identical) situation be caused by other factors? Yes, I think so. Other factors could reduce distortion and improve resolution. But there is no escaping the geometrical facts which establishes the base level performance of the arm. So, at a theoretical level there can be no argument with my position. However, I'm willing to concede that a great pivoted design could better a poorly executed linear design. But, this has nothing to do with the pivot type. Other factors-yes. The pivot-no.

Please note that I have not mentioned skating forces. But, I should because skating force summarizes the problems with a pivoted design. I have owned and operated professional audio repair shops for 13 years. During this time I examined thousands of styli under a purpose designed stylus microscope. I examined every stylus that came into my shop. Without exception I could identify if the stylus was used on a pivoted arm or on a linear arm. The stylus wear on those used on pivoted arms was always non-symmetrical due to poorly compensated skating force. And skating force is ALWAYS poorly compensated because there is no single value that works due to the fact that skating force is constantly changing because of friction due to groove modulation. OTH, the wear on styli that have spent their lives on linear arms, even cheap ones, is always symmetrical. This is obvious under the microscope. My customers were always amazed when I showed them these results. This is just another nail in the coffin of pivoted arms.

So, what was the problem with your Rockport? It should have been better than you describe.

BTW, my favorite pivot type is the unipivot. I just don't like pivots at all. They are all flawed and sound it.

Sparky
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
... i also owned 4 other different tt's with a number of pivoted arms. the final couple of pivoted arms i owned did clearly out-perform the Rockport Linear tracker to the degree i can isolate the Rockport arm from the Rockport tt; particularly the final pivoted arm i owned. all during this time i used (and continue to use) master tape as a consistent reference to judge tt and arm performance.

Hi Mike,

I am reading very carefully what you and Sparky are posting, and it has been your OWN experience from the quote above. That is totally fine. And I have the greatest respect for you.

looking back, i started out thinking exactly as you do in your above quote. based on all my previous experience the Rockport linear tracker took on and easily defeated all comers in performance. and my overall perspective is that up to a certain point linear trackers do overall have advantages. but a pivoted arm is simply 'free'er' to wiggle and a solid bearing ultimately can be more dynamic and explosive than an air bearing. no doubt the Rockport arm is very dynamic and explosive, but the very very best pivoted arms are more so.

Again, your own personal opinion based on your great knowledge and experience;
and without mentioning all the handicaps of a unipivot arm, like Sparky told us.

among pivoted arms a unipivot has the highest potential. up to a point the execution is more important than the design heritage. but past that point a unipivot has a higher potential. the problem of stability in a unipivot becomes it's biggest advantage as you apply higher and higher levels of execution.

Man, would I luv you to expand on that... Because as you said it that way,
it is missing important parts IMO.

in the final analysis the very best pivoted arms surpassed the best linear tracker i heard at image solidity, note decay and space rendering......which previously had separated a great linear tracker from any pivoted arm. and in detail retrieval it was not very close with the nod again to the pivoted arm. it turns out that perfect tangency is not as critical as agility to track the groove.

Yes, more elaboration would be very welcome sir.

maybe someday someone will throw a big budget at pushing linear tracker technology beyond where it is now. in the end you may be right......but i very much doubt it. and at this point you are not right.

I respectfully disagree with you sir.

Best regards,
Bob
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,570
51
38
Calgary, AB
I cannot comment with any degree of accuracy about which is better, but Sparky's comment in his Post #101 seems to me to make a whole lot of sense. Having said that, I don't mean to infer by simple agreement to what was posted, that a tangential arm should be preferred. There are always other factors that come into play.....
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing