I will state up-front that I have been a fan of the ET2 for more years than I can remember. I have used the same sample on four different tables; currently a TNT6. During this same time period I have owned Rega, SME V, Grado, and Syrinx PU3 (still own). I used at least two of each of the aforementioned pivoting tonearms on each of the four tables that the ET2 has sat on. I keep the Syrinx PU3 as a backup, in the event that I have a problem with the air pump for the ET2; or some other issue, such as placement of equipment due to a move etc. There is no question that the use of the ET2 is more complicated than any of the pivoting arms that I have used. But well worth the trouble. I have consistently found the ET2 to yield a sound that is more like the sound of real music: spacious, well defined (especially with a higher pressure pump), with dense images, and good extension at both ends; and no emphasis on any one frequency range. Only the SME V gave me "more" bass; but that bass was unrealistically bloated. Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.
My point is, that with all the assertions, postulating about their superiority, and all the supposed technical advantages of pivoting arms, there has been in this thread, a conspicuous absence of accompanying discussion about the way that they sound. This is, unfortunately, a familiar story in audiophile circles; isn't it? Focus on the technical points as a way to justify our own preferences and bias, without a commesurate emphasis on what it's supposed to be all about: Does the arm make music? That, defined as getting closer to the sound of the real thing. It's always the same story: this or that has less of this kind or that kind of distortion, so it must be better. This or that phono pre has less deviation from RIAA standards, so it must be better. Blah, blah, blah. HOW DOES IT SOUND!? Compare how it makes a string section sound on a good recording. The ET2, BTW, lets strings sound glorious. The SME, pretty good except for the celli, and basses; way to bloated. The Rega: not even in the same league, with little harmonic complexity. Just as an example. |
Dertonarm, discussion of this subject is absolutely not a waste of time. I think that the opinions, experience, and findings of someone who has so much experience with different equipment as you do, is invaluable. I, for one, appreciate it. But, I think you miss my point.
Whenever I see/hear an argument made, accompanied by a great deal of technical data supporting one viewpoint or another, without at least some mention of how a piece of equipment actually sounds compared to the real thing, the red flags go up for me. Not because technical data is not important (it obviously is), but because the ultimate importance of measurements, relative to real life end results has, time and time again, been thrown into question; at least to some degree.
Without meaning to get too "Zen" about it all, the beauty of music, and less importantly it's reproduction, is the incredible complexity of it all. I think we can all agree (or should agree) that there is still a lot about the playback of recordings that we don't understand. Long held ideas/truths are regularly debunked. Thankfully, there is a lot we do understand, but if we don't always return to respect of the music and IT'S complexity, I think all the other arguments are thrown into question.
Returning to the subject at hand, by way of practical example: While I certainly don't have nearly as much experience with tonearms as you do, I think that my experience with the SME vs. the ET2 makes a point. I think most audiophiles would agree that the SME V, while not the last word in pivoting tonearms, is a quality product, and was the standard in many audiophile circles for a long time. The ET2, in spite of it's "technical" inferiority, consistently sounded more like real music to me. I don't like to bring up this point too often, but I am around the sound of acoustic instruments for several hour every day, so I am sensitive to tonal and dynamics-related issues with equipment. The ET2 consistently let my analog set-up sound more like the real thing, than did the SME; both arms were set up, I assure you, to the endth degree. What does this prove? That I "like the sound of the ET2"? No. If you can demonstrate to me that the SME "works better", from a technical standpoint, than the ET2 does (you probably can), then what it says to me is that there are some things going on with the playback process that we don't fully understand. Personally, I can live with that. |
Syntax, I could not agree with you more. I disagree only with the implication that because the goal of achieving reproduction that is faithful to the sound of real music was difficult to achieve, the pursuit of that goal was abandoned. The pursuit of that goal was abandoned by audiophiles, not the High End Industry as a whole. I believe that there are still manufacturers that pursue that goal. The problem is that audiophiles not only "forgot" what real music sounds like, but younger audiophiles never learned.
This, ironically, is also the reasons that too much validity is given by some to the idea that because something is technically "better" than something else, then it must be better overall. Not so!
Audiophiles seem less and less willing to accept concepts that are not easily quantified or explained rationally. In an era of so much technical advancement, it is easy to understand why this is so. The problem is that we are talking about music. And music is an incredibly complex, subtle, and organic thing. It expresses human emotions. I find it incredibly arrogant, and not very insightful, that some think that they can fully explain what is going on in music, and it's reproduction, with numbers and technical measurements. In my opinion, to not understand that a certain amount of subjectivity is every bit as valid, in absolute terms, as purely technical analysis, is to not fully understand the meaning of music. |
Cjfrbw, with all due respect, nonesense! As we expose our ears to more and more live, "real" music, we develop a deeper and deeper understanding of the obvious, and not so obvious traits of music performed live. A comparison to how a piece of electronic equipment is able to express any given trait becomes easier and easier. Most audiophiles are, unfortunately, in the dark about a lot of this. Even a lot of the reviewers (if talk about them we must) who claim to use the sound of live music as a reference fall way short. One very common (and pathetic) observation has always been something to the effect that XYZ component allows the listener to differentiate between, say, an oboe from an English horn. How pathetic can one get. I suggest that if a listener is not able to differentiate the sound of an oboe from an English horn while listening to Muzak pumped through a $3 speaker at the local Walmart, the main problem is not the speaker's lack of fidelity, but rather, the listener's lack of exposure to the sound of the two instruments. Would that same listener not be able to recognize the sound of his or her spouse played back over the same speaker? |
Atmasphere, I understand your confusion with how I seemingly arrived at a different conclusion. I did not do a very good job of explaining that I agreed with Syntax as concerns audiophiles, NOT manufacturers, as a group.
Mepearson, from my vantage point, you prove my point. I don't believe I have the subjectivist argument reversed at all. My argument encourages listeners to listen and arrive at their own conclusions, NOT based on what others say. It has been demonstrated time and time again that numbers actually tell us very little about how something sounds. Remember "Perfect Sound Forever"?
Cjfrbw, where to begin? All I can say is that, with all due respect, you could not be more mistaken. Reference to the "absolute sound" as you call it, is exactly what most musicians use, and prefer. The fact that they are seldom satisfied with reproduced sound makes my point. They listen to music in very different ways than most audiophiles do. They are accustomed to listening for subtleties available in live sound that are simply obliterated by the recording process. That is at the root of their disatisfaction. And BTW, musicians, as a percentage of the overall population, have far more audiophiles in their ranks than not; to debunk a popular myth. And they most certainly are sensitive to the true sound of instruments other than their own.
Look, no one is suggesting that the pursuit of the absolute is the only way to enjoy music in the home. If it sounds good to any given person, great! As has been pointed out, why judge? But to deny that there exists, in fact, a true reference, is being closeminded, and to refer to the pursuit of such as "smug delusional" is a kind of aural equivalency that only serves to dumb-down excellence. |
Hiho, well said. The pursuit of the absolute sound does not have to be an end unto itself. Exposure to the only absolute sound (live music), educates us, and helps us put together more satisfying sound systems. That's the point. Simply because it can not ever be achieved, does that mean that we should abandon that which might help us get 50%, or 80% of the way there? Or should we just say the hell with it, why bother? To me the answer is obvious. |
