Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

I will state up-front that I have been a fan of the ET2 for more years than I can remember. I have used the same sample on four different tables; currently a TNT6. During this same time period I have owned Rega, SME V, Grado, and Syrinx PU3 (still own). I used at least two of each of the aforementioned pivoting tonearms on each of the four tables that the ET2 has sat on. I keep the Syrinx PU3 as a backup, in the event that I have a problem with the air pump for the ET2; or some other issue, such as placement of equipment due to a move etc. There is no question that the use of the ET2 is more complicated than any of the pivoting arms that I have used. But well worth the trouble. I have consistently found the ET2 to yield a sound that is more like the sound of real music: spacious, well defined (especially with a higher pressure pump), with dense images, and good extension at both ends; and no emphasis on any one frequency range. Only the SME V gave me "more" bass; but that bass was unrealistically bloated. Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.

My point is, that with all the assertions, postulating about their superiority, and all the supposed technical advantages of pivoting arms, there has been in this thread, a conspicuous absence of accompanying discussion about the way that they sound. This is, unfortunately, a familiar story in audiophile circles; isn't it? Focus on the technical points as a way to justify our own preferences and bias, without a commesurate emphasis on what it's supposed to be all about: Does the arm make music? That, defined as getting closer to the sound of the real thing. It's always the same story: this or that has less of this kind or that kind of distortion, so it must be better. This or that phono pre has less deviation from RIAA standards, so it must be better. Blah, blah, blah. HOW DOES IT SOUND!? Compare how it makes a string section sound on a good recording. The ET2, BTW, lets strings sound glorious. The SME, pretty good except for the celli, and basses; way to bloated. The Rega: not even in the same league, with little harmonic complexity. Just as an example.

03-01-10: Frogman
Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.

That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm.

In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind.

I think I might make a few inquiries tomorrow with some reputable cartridge manufacturers/repairers to see if they've noticed excessive or unusual wear due to linear tracking arms.

Unless a linear tonearm murders your cartridge in the very first days, you will hardly notice any effect till you dismount it and realize that your cantilever is off line.
Why ?
Because it is a constant small decrease in quality and sound over time. Our brain and ear won't react to very tiny rather constant changes - there are no benchmarks to verify the changes.
So in the end - how does it sound ?
You'll never know. You may like the sound of a linear tracker.
I've too.
As long as you do not notice its shortcomings. Once you detect them in the sonic signature, the magic is gone forever.
I have owned and used for several years side by side the Triplanar, Graham, ET2 2.5, Goldmund T3F, Air Tangent 2B and Reference to name the more prominent ones and contenders from both "camps".
The mechanical stress showed its results over time - it wasn't the same in all linear trackers ( the ET2 was best when very carefully set-up (= leveled and painstakingly rewired with ultra flexible litz-wire which finally did NOT interfere with the progression...) and running with twice the air pressure as recommended by its manufacturer) .

The originally question of this thread was - as stated by Mepearson - whether the linear tonearms as superior performers by nature.
In my opinion they are not.
THere are plain mechanical and real-life trade-offs in their concept and so far there is no linear tracker on the market which does address all these problems.
The theoretical geometrical advantage can't be denied.
But then it is corrupted by the need of derivation for progression - so far as well in passive as in motorized linear tonearms.
All these conceptional musings do not mean that a linear tracker can't put up an impressive sonic performance.
So you may like its sound for good reason.
BUt on the way up to the very top of Mt Everest the air gets thin and on the last two tracks to the summit the linear tonearms give in - not enough oxygen to fuel their lungs any more.
In direct contest with the best pivots their geometrical advantage becomes very tiny - their bearing and mechanical problems begin to show.

Again - I love the linear principle in tonearms.
But we yet have to see one fulfilling the promise and addressing all issues.

Dear Darkmoebius, if indeed

..."In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind." ...

then all discussion is kind of waste of time - isn't it ?
This is similar to discussion about religious issues. In the end - when one party runs out of arguments - the final defensive statement will always be "but I believe".
Here is all comes down to "but I like the sound".
Fine.
In my point of view this is the ultimate thorn-wall against progression.
But then progression in itself was already judged as an erratic way of life by some greek philosophers 2400+ years ago.
Which shines a philosophical spotlight on analog high-end audio.
Now - isn't that nice.....

Dertonarm, I wrote:

"That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm"

Now, in this particular case, there are two possible outcomes to this "million dollar question": 1) the increased lateral force does not produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear, 2) the increased lateral force does produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear

If outcome #1 is true, then I think that such force is a non-issue and it all comes down to personal preference as to what sounds best.

But, if outcome #2 is true, then I(obviously) think that such force IS AN ISSUE beyond personal preference of sound. I don't think many people want to intentionally subject their cartridges to excessive wear/damage.

I hinted that I might contact manufacturers/repairers because they would be the best suited to judge if, and when, a cart is out of spec or damaged - not just from a technical perspective, but also from a statistical one because their sample pool is likely to much larger than that of an individual audiophile.