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
Hello Raul, well I think, to the inherent quality of the turntable itself. The LT has - normally - are very wide soundstage and is very silent between the notes. This can be limited from the TT itself (from the construction, there are limitations in the music flow), probably these old Micro Seikis are better in that than most of todays designs.
Dear Thomasheisig: Thank you and one more question: that very close relantionship between a quality TT and LTT can/could show with any cartridge ( I mean the ones you own. )?

regards and enjoy the music.
raul.
James
With the Conductor, air pressure is not critical as much as volume of air flow since it is a low pressure design. There is some low level "hiss" from the air escaping the air beam, which is not audible from the listening position. Cleaning of the air beam should be using alcohol swipes, and avoid the small holes on the beam. There's also a dust filter on the air pump, which is a simple to maintain.

For high pressure designs - Air Tangent, Walker, Kuzma, ET, etc. the pressure, moisture/oil removal and the smoothing tanks are critical. I've only seen the Walker close up, and his latest design takes care of all these parameters for relatively trouble-free playback.

As to how pressure impacts on bass - my gut feeling is that this is rather a relationship between the air's mass and design, and the system's (tonearm/cart) resonant frequency, rather than the pressure. The LTTs I've heard have not lacked bass at all, in fact I think they reproduce bass more "accurately" since theoretically there's no bearing chatter. You'll be surprised how similar the Schroeder and Conductor sound, both carbon fibre arm tubes.
Regarding Mike Lavigne from 7-27-08

i have recently purchased three additional turntables, a Technics SP-10 Mk2, an SP-10 Mk3 and a Garrard 301.

Me too, sort of. I bought the Technics SP10 MK2 about 2 years ago and the Technics MK3 this month. I don't have to wait to decide what these table do, this quote from Macrojack says it all:

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've owned the Versa Dynamics with linear track arm, the Air Tangent Linear track arm, two Rabco arms, the Walker Black Diamond linear track table and arm and also the Triplanar, Graham (three of them) the SME 3009, 3012, 312S and countless others.

My conclusion agrees with these statement
(1) Mike Lavigne
at the top of the food chain a pivoting arm and linear tracking arm are both great choices. There are many more great pivoting arm choices. If you get the right linear tracking arm and it's optimized for your turntable; it is very easy to live with. But that's not cheap and there are not many choices.

I think it's impossible to separate the turntable from the arm, particularly when some of the best turntables (Kuzma Stabi, Rockport, Walker, Versa Dynamics) all come with linear arm fitted during assembly and there is typically no way to fit a pivot arm on one of these to make a comparison.

I did make multiple comparisons with a Basis Debut Gold MK4 and MK5 with a Triplanar, two Graham arms and an Air Tangent 10B. All sounded different and in the end I abandoned the Air Tangent due to lack of a solid connection with the music, especially in the bass.

I am up in the air right now with turntable tests. I can hardly wait for Mike Lavigne to get his new (old) tables up and running and report on what he hears.
One thing I love about the approach of "so" many hobbyists,on this forum and from personal associations,is the desire to try and "push the envelope".

There are loads of amazing system approaches,and they all interest me.I'm not about to favor any one system approach as the best,mainly because I've heard alot of really good different set-ups.

So,this business of the "older tables" making a comeback,along with some pretty basic arms could be quite valid.It's fun too see how enthusiastic some guys are,and how far they are willing to go,to dig out the best from a viable component.

In the case of the Air Tangent Arm,my exposure tells a different story than yours, Albert.Yet,I totally "know for sure" you know what you are doing,and have been at the hobby for a long time.

I feel you've known abouy my enthusiasm for this arm from past posts,just as you've mentioned, in times before this one, that you were unhappy with the bass from the arm.

I got it!

My point being,that as it is understandable,and viable,to take the older tables(like the Garrard etc)and try to get the most out of them(some folks re-wire/re-work an older "classic" pivot arm too),many have passed them by as well.Many speaker designs are also seeing a comeback,with new approaches to componentry.

As in the case of the Air Tangent,I had two friends owning the arm.I was much friendlier with Sid,who collaborated with friend B.
They were not so inclined to move past the initial loss of bass quality(not an accusation,btw)which was definitely there,in the stock arm!I'm sure you tried the options available to you.

As I've mentioned in past posts,about the arm(because I loved what it was ultimately able to allow a cartridge to retreive)BOTH Sid and friend B went to the extent of finding a significantly different pump.They scoped out "quite a few" before coming up with the final one.What can I say?It worked.Too many folks were as amazed as me!It does happen,from time to time!

This was expensive,and took up rediculous amounts of room.Not to mention the noise(it had to be in a different room,and in between two pillows,in a closet).You really had to laugh(in a good way)upon seeing this commitment(not unlike the things you currently do,which I love,btw).

Far more air pressure,and there were most likely other little tid bits,I was not privy to.These guys are as serious as you!

This was a "profound" improvement in bass and overall performance.It is "this" change(mostly) that made that arm as fabulous as the many folks who've heard it felt(some you probably know).It was consistantly confirmed that it was in another league,now.

I had always been bowled over by the organic quality of the LP reproduction,especially in the bass.

I like to bloviate about this(sorry),because I simply loved the system with it in use....but sadly it is gone.I don't think I am crazy....maybe a little -:)

Don't get me wrong.I'm not denying your impressions,but just as you go to the lengths to rework a crossover(it must be superb),others are willing to take some components to the max,as well.

In the case of the A/T I heard it too many times,in a very high res/full freq set-up to think I was dreaming -:)

THAT's one of the things that is so much fun about the hobby...you just never know for sure .....

What "Riply" stated would apply here.

Best