Thanks ,from down under.for sharing that info....
Happy listening Helmut
Happy listening Helmut
Hassel,great input,from you.Thanks.
Also,on the same TNT site(just recently)there is a very compelling piece about the Audiomecca table and arm!I am particularly interested in the tonearm,as the writer(not a formal review,due to conflict of interest reasons)makes a very compelling case for it(very few parts,some of which can be taken off for superior sound,and a stunning,one piece arm-tube).Also,a unipivot,that has NO damping fluid to fotz around with!!!SERIOUS design,as far as the little I can make of it!!!
I DO wish some of the vinyl experts,like Nsgarsh and others could take a look at this,and chime in!
Sirspeedy, I was reading the same series of articles the other day and was particularly interested in the tonearm as well. The neutral balance idea seemed good to me since I would like an arm that would maintain its vtf when vta is adjusted. There do not appear to be many arms that allow for independent adjustments of all the pertinent set up features, probably because it's complicated to do and could even effect performance negatively, but it would be nice.
Mab,the thing I was taken to,with the arm,is it's ability to be set up,and then one can take away many of the "normal" set-up parts,which supposedly add coloration.I like the "fabulous" one piece armtube(it's shape seems well thought out),as well as the use of lead in specific places, for damping.FINALLY,a seemingly great NEW unipivit,not needing damping of the pivot assembly!Hope it works!!
I am probably "clueless" as to all this(leading to follow ups,but "what the heck"),but the writer(note this is NOT a formal review,but seems to be done out of affection,and respect,for the designer)REALLY makes a compelling case for this particular arm design!!
Also,if one was to agree with the "argument" made,indicating that the more parts an arm has,the more vibration potential exists(which DOES make sense),I think some of us(me included)would have to take a HARD look,at our current arms!MY GOD,suddenly I am looking at my 2.2,and saying to myself "Oye vey,it has SO many parts!What if..."!
Just imagine if this argument about tonearm "parts count" really adds up!!!Can we effectively do away with the Triplanar too?...Please don't get mad at me Doug,just some of my "mindless" humor!-:)
This,all,is fun to ponder,though!Maybe the "Septum" arm will get reviewed,in the future.I like the fact that it can fit on most tables.Another potential "contender" which can keep us all going for awhile!
Best to all!
Mab,I like the reviewer's take on how the Septum arm is designed.Alot of the discussion makes sense to me.It is not a formal review,but has some viable points.This business of "low parts count" on a tonearm seems to make sense.Also,with the Septum,one can set it up,and take off some parts,afterward.Nice touch.
Making me a bit "nutz" though,as I am looking at my own arm,and saying to myself..."wow,this has ALOT of parts,and maybe it could sound better if there were less.Like the Septum".Hmm!!
Sirspeedy, yep, it does seem to be a well thought out arm. At least it was explained well enough to make me think about what advantages it may have over my own. I really liked that aspect of the article - that it tried to demystify the engineering and give what seemed like reasonable explanations for the design choices. Nothing to out in left field to comprehend and even some real discussion with the designer. Kudo's to the author for getting me excited about something without really giving much info about how it sounded etc. In some ways, that makes more sense to me because everyones impression of sound is kinda subjective, but good engineering(in this case at least) can be even more persuasive.