Unipivot vs Linear Tracking


I set up my first Unipivot arm night before last. It took roughly 5 hours to set up and I am still tweaking various parts and cartridge, what a work out. The arm is a Scheu classic with the Scheu Premier I turntable and a Scheu Benz cartridge.

Now I have two questions for the Audiogon club.
1. Do you consider linear Tracking superior to Unipivot?
2. Which would you say is harder to set up properly?
128x128spl

Showing 2 responses by macrojack

Mikelavigne and Raulruegas are the guiding lights here. Technics applied more money, expertise and R&D muscle to the development of the SP-10 series than all modern turntable manufacturers combined will acces during their lifetimes. You have to remember that this was the mighty Matsushita corporation at the peak of their high end audio venture. The SP-10 was subsidized by the sale of millions of mass market turntables. No one will ever sell turntables in those numbers again. I went from a Well-Tempered Reference table to an SP-10 MK II and it was a leap upward in terms of stability, authority and even quiet. And let me say that very few of you currently own a quieter table than that WTT.

Raul's point about set-up is also very strong because the matter of which design is optimal becomes moot unless both comparative units are optimized. While you are amazed that moving your speakers an inch makes a big difference, you must then realize that moving your stylus forward .2 mm or rotating it one degree can make as big a difference. I have a Technics EPA 100 MK II tonearm with a variable dynamic damping system built into it. This allows adjustability in damping of the arm to accommodate a wide range of cartridge compliances. I've noticed that very small changes in my damping adjustment can affect the sound of my system in significant ways. I would guess that no LTT could match the performance of this pivoting arm without a similar damping capability unless the cartridge match was absolutely perfect.

Some while ago I started a thread about the relative merits of belt drive and direct drive. It went on for quite a while and generated some pretty emotional observations and banter. Ultimately nothing was really resolved but the same result became apparent there as what we are seeing here. People seemed to agree that implementation was more important than the fundamental design approach.

Many years ago I had the first version of the ET tonearm and I could use it happily today if it was a little more user friendly and convenient. I knew less then and maybe I'm being naive in my recollections about it but I mention it because I have experience with both. I've also owned the B&O 4004 LT table and a Yamaha PX-2. I don't really have a preference. I am starting to see, however, that a lot of the best products to come along in history were provided by manufacturing giants. Led by reviewers, we have tended to overlook them in favor of home based garage creations with gimmicks , panache or political connections. This old Technics stuff is absolutely killer.
I think linear tracking is theoretically superior. However, it seems plain that, for whatever reasons, pivoting tomearm designs have more thoroughly exploited their inherent potential than their linear tracking counterparts so far have. It is entirely possible that some company could develop a $300 LTT that would make all of us forget about pivots.
But it's going to have to be funded by massive grant money as a senior thesis at Caltech or, more likely, some school in the third world. The probable market size for such a product is not going to inspire the venture capitalists.
In any case, it hasn't happened yet, and pivot still rules the roost among off-the-shelf offerings.