Unipivot vs Linear Tracking

Raul,this is the "ONE" time(in almost ten months) that your "Enjoy The Music" signature expression may apply to me!

I "MAY" finally be close to getting my system operational again.Awaiting the updated pre/phonostage,and "another" new Phantom series II....

If you don't hear from me for awhile it will mean one of two things..

1- I am able to listen again,and am having fun voicing the st-up!

2- I am still having system problems,and have decided to shoot myself(or a particular mfgr,and dealer, both who'll remain nameless...."for the time being") -:)

Enjoy "your" music!

Dear Sirspeedy: Sounds great! ( 1 ).

regards and enjoy the music.
raul.

Raul, "Sounds great"(great sound) is something I haven't heard for a LONG time!...

If I'd had a simple answer to a basic question(from a clueless dealer),or a piece of info in the instruction sheets of a "new" product I got,I'd have had NO problems at all!!....

Of course the "issue" cause failure in other components,that I was able to turn into an upgrade,but the wife is "peeved",and thinks I ought to send the bill to the mfgr!

Of course this isn't something I'd do,yet ya just don't want to get the little woman too pissed off -:)

Best...enjoy your(and all others)music.

Like Albert, I've been through a few arms too. I like the *idea* of LT, and have had a few. But- I found myself preferring a uni-pivot (the Graham) and ultimately the Triplanar over that.

I still want to see an LT happen though. My feeling is that the air-bearing approach is fundamentally flawed, as the lateral tracking mass is several times higher than the vertical tracking mass (which is about the same as a radial tracking arm). You need a *really* low compliance cartridge to make that work, otherwise you get tracking distortion as the cantilever sweeps back and forth.

In addition, the more pressure you put in the bearing the better it sounds. Here is a fundamental rule about LP playback:

There can be no bearing slop between the platter spindle and the cartridge cantilever. The coupling between these parts must be absolute! (BTW, any of you that ride motorcycles will recognize this rule, it is the same one that says there will be no slop between the handlebars and the rear wheel, if you want the bike to handle safely).

Air bearings break this rule, as a result, you can always get them to sound *better* but you can never get them to actually work completely right- and so they can be shown up by a radial tracking arm, which simply should not be.

There is a solution. There are motion devices that have zero slop in their bearings. Some are small enough to be used easily in a tone arm, solving the Rabco track issue. One problem that the old Rabcos had was excessive slop in the track and there was nothing you could do about it (in addition there were a host of other problems- I had one of these for years and solved some of them, but some were fundamental to the design and could not be solved).

The kind of arm I am talking about currently does not exist. But- if you used one of these tracks and installed a modern arm tube/bearing system on it, and then an updated electro-mechanical means of arm advancement along the lines that Rabco made, you could make something that would work really well. I've been thinking about this ever since I got rid of my Rabco 20+ years ago... :)

Until then I'm using a radial tracking arm and its awesome. It is so nice to put on a record and not fear any tracking issue, any dynamic range; just have the music emerge (and buy more records) :)

There are extremely high tolerance, precision, liner bearings(air and otherwise) & linear motion slides used in optics & robotics/automation in semiconductor equipment, fiberoptics, photonics industries that would seem to be a perfect match for TT use.

As to whether they have been shrunk to a usable size or cost is another thing.