I forgot where I read it, but I seem to remember reading somewhere (I know this doesn't help) that the Classic arm was just slightly lengthened. This would affect your setup. It very well may be that the arm now conforms to the Rega dimensions as VPI says, but then again it may be which arm you have if indeed the dimensions were changed. I have a 10.5i, and set it up with a MINT, and the setup sounds better to these ears with the MINT.
MintLP Protractor for the JMW-9T tonearm
I was just about finished with my order of a MintLP protractor for my Scout's JMW-9T tonearm when an issue with the geometry of this particular tonearm arose. Yip from MintLP at first assumed the tonearm was the regular JMW-9, which has the same effective length as the Signature version. When I sent him a link to the description of the 9T from the VPI website to make sure he knew it was the upgraded version, he said he had made a mistake as the description stated that the 9T had the same geometry as the Rega RB-300 and could be dropped onto any Rega armboard. He suggested I contact VPI to get a definitive answer about the 9T.
So I did contact VPI and they responded that the 9T indeed has the same geometry as the Signature and the same as the Rega. So I'm now a little confused why Yip seemed to think the Rega RB-300 and the JMW-9 have different effective lengths? Is anybody familiar with the above mentioned tonearms and can confirm either way to settle this? I'd hate to waste over $100 on a custom made protractor if it's made on a wrong assumption.
Thank you.
So I did contact VPI and they responded that the 9T indeed has the same geometry as the Signature and the same as the Rega. So I'm now a little confused why Yip seemed to think the Rega RB-300 and the JMW-9 have different effective lengths? Is anybody familiar with the above mentioned tonearms and can confirm either way to settle this? I'd hate to waste over $100 on a custom made protractor if it's made on a wrong assumption.
Thank you.