Integrityhifi TRU-GLIDER Pendulum Tonearm

So doctor V, you know people who only read stone tablets in ancient Greek or other ancient languages?  Internet says the Greeks first intuited that the earth is round about 500 years BC.  In the 1600s, Galileo added to the pile of evidence with his telescope.  Since the printing press was invented around then, most printed historical texts would say the earth is round.  But it is fair to point out that perhaps I should have either quoted a source or made my own case against the Nasotec, instead of smearing it by implication.  I have never owned or heard one, but I did read some reviews of it on WBF and elsewhere.  If you have one and have a more positive view, let's hear it.

And is the recommended pivot to spindle distance greater than the pivot to stylus distance?

The Nasotec headshell is by itself a problematic product from what I’ve read.

So can any one of the happy users of this tonearm tell me whether it is meant to be set up so that the stylus tip underhangs the spindle? In other words, is the spindle to pivot distance greater than the pivot to stylus distance? Thx

There may be an aspect to this tonearm that totally escaped my notice, first time around. Is it meant to underhang the spindle? I searched this thread, a review article in Positive Feedback, and the Integrity website in order to answer my own question, and I did not find the information. (Not to say it isn’t there, but if it is there, I missed it.) In some of the photos on the Integrity website, it does appear to be underhung. If its mounting geometry is such that it is meant to overhang the spindle, then I agree with its detractors; the design seems hopeless. But as an underhung tonearm, it is quite interesting. However, it cannot be free of at least some bearing friction, and it cannot be free of skating force. Nor can I imagine why cartridges mounted on it would not need any attention to azimuth.

Several times I have wrestled with Mijostyn's statement: "A tonearm must be limited to 2 degrees of motion. It must be held rigidly in all others. I will never personally consider an arm that is designed otherwise." I think by this statement, M is meaning to indict unipivot tonearms in favor of gimbal bearing tonearms. But the principle is poorly stated. I gimbal bearing will fix motion at the pivot in two dimensions, up and down and side to side, but at the other end of the lever, those two dimensions are always additive and permit motion of the headshell /cartridge in all directions in the vertical plane, with respect to the center of rest, just as with a unipivot. Indeed that has to be the case, else gimbal bearing tonearms could not track a flawed LP that has a slight warp and is also slightly offcenter.

I am trying to figure out how some of the claims are justified.  "Weightless"?  "No pivot"?  The arm and headshell MUST have effective mass in order to work with cartridge compliance, and it is clear from visual inspection that they do.  Therefore it is not weightless. There definitely IS a pivot with its center at the attachment of the string; it's just a sloppy one.  That reminds me of at least the early WT tonearms, which also claimed no bearing, when in fact they had a pivot that was just not close tolerance.  And that headshell...  Does it really work without any friction? (If there is any friction in its lateral movement to maintain tangency, then there would be at least a small skating force.)  Anyway, all of that said, I have heard other oddball tonearms that cannot meet the claims of their makers yet sound great.  So I would never say without hearing this one that it cannot sound great.  Lord knows, no orthodox pivoted tonearm is perfect.