General question on Carbon fiber tonearms versus aluminum

Clearly execution matters, but if we know what it takes to make a great tone arm, then this question is answerable. Carbon fiber simply has more strength and stiffness as aluminum at the same weight. If that’s what it takes, then yes. But I expect it’s not that cut and dried. There’s got to be cartridge-arm interplay, so I’ll bet it just depends on getting a match. Like the bicycle frame example. The most comfortable is steel. It flexes. Riding cross-country 100 miles a day day after day? I’ll take steel. Racing around an oval for 60 seconds? Probably carbon. Want an 11-inch tone arm that accommodates a “heavy” cartridge? Ask an engineer, but it’s great to have the options we do. The first time an aerospace engineer handed me an early carbon fiber rod and its titanium (or whatever metal it was ) counterpart, I was flabbergasted. And it was a rotor control rod on a helicopter! It goes, the helicopter goes (down). Yet the carbon rod weighed, I don’t know, ounces vs. pounds. It was that dramatic. Amazing stuff.

That subtle lack of noise and distortion in the upper frequencies were considered a lack of "air" and consequently colored the sound in a bad way.  

This isn't the same as acoustic ringing or damping. Dolby effectively filtered frequencies (-3 dB at 600 Hz/ -6 dB at 1.2 kHz/ -8 dB at 2.4 kHz/ -10 dB at 5 kHz) resulting in a removal of ambient information. Back in the 80s, we never used Dolby B or C as both sounded worse than the clear and airy unadulterated sound—albeit with tape noise.

it is possible that the live sound from aluminum, if indeed  it is from the arm itself, could be energy from the cartridge that is causing the arm to color the sound in a rather pleasing way.  The dead sound from fiber, if indeed it is from the arm itself, could be the lack of this coloration.

I'll take the live sound any day for it's pleasing nature over the dead sound of possible lack of coloration. 

noromance

Dolby effectively filtered frequencies (-3 dB at 600 Hz/ -6 dB at 1.2 kHz/ -8 dB at 2.4 kHz/ -10 dB at 5 kHz) resulting in a removal of ambient information. Back in the 80s, we never used Dolby B or C as both sounded worse than the clear and airy unadulterated sound—albeit with tape noise.

Dolby NR does not "filter" frequencies and the result after NR is essentially flat when the system is properly aligned. That requires precise adjustment of Dolby level and bias/eq for the specific tape being used. The prevalence of cheap cassette decks and lazy or misinformed users contributed to Dolby getting a bad rap for filtering highs, which obviously remains to this day. But it is really unwarranted. Both Dolby B and C remain very, very effective when properly used. I still have an outboard Nakamichi NR-200 and on the rare occasion that I play a cassette I'm amazed at the fidelity of mix tapes I made decades ago.

@cleeds Thanks for pointing that out.  The Dolby equalization curve concept is no different than the RIAA concept we all live with when we play vinyl.  There is a Dolby pre-equalization of the music and a post equalization when playing, which reduces hiss.   RIAA pre-equalization and post equalization reduces surface noise.   

Since I wrote that first post, I realized I forgot about Titanium.  My first high end tonearm, a SME III, had a titanium tube, as do several tonearms today.   So, we have Carbon Fiber, Aluminum, and Titanium to consider as tonearm materials which can influence sound.