Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?


My answer to this question is yes. Linear tracking arms trace the record exactly the way it was cut. Pivoted arms generally have two null points across the record and they are the only two points the geometry is correct. All other points on the record have a degree of error with pivoted arms. Linear tracking arms don't need anti-skating like pivoted arms do which is another plus for them.

Linear tracking arms take more skill to set up initially, but I feel they reward the owner with superior sound quality. I have owned and used a variety of pivoted arms over the years, but I feel that my ET-2 is superior sounding to all of them. You can set up a pivoted arm incorrectly and it will still play music. Linear tracking arms pretty much force you to have everything correct or else they will not play. Are they worth the fuss? I think so.
mepearson
03-05-10: C1ferrari
The Thales arm reminds me of the Garrard Zero table/arm combo that I had in college
I was just reading this website which gives does a decent job of describing the Garrard Zero 100 & 100SB turntables/tonearm and how the Thales type arm derives from that.
Hello Dertonarm,
I was intrigued by what you wrote above in regard to the SME V:
"The impression that many audiophile experienced with the SME V ( kind of dull, life-less sound with an over-prominent upper bass ) has to do with its very design and a few construction details which added up to an unhappy marriage".
I am a longterm SME V user but I am by no means wedded to it. Which elements of its design or of its construction would you hold chiefly responsible for the perceived sonic result?
I know about the internal and external wiring problems with this arm (and I have replaced these wires on mine - with good results).
I am also aware of its limitations regarding adjustment (azimuth, zenith)and of the problems that arise when one mounts a cartridge with non-standard stylus to mounting point distance (I recently mounted a Benz Ruby II).
Surely, though, the basic design aim of the SME V - highest possible rigidity through a single casting of magnesium from headshell back to counterweight - is on the right track?
By the way,I would join Hiho in saying that I find your contributions to this forum very interesting and stimulating. I have learnt a great deal about arms (not least about the SME V by reading them).
Best wishes,
Peter Taylor
Pgtaylor, its the arm tube. It has a mid-frequency resonance and is poorly controlled by the materials within. That's where the Graham and the Triplanar take it to task.

The Sayles arm looks brilliant. Now can we have a version that puts the bearings in the plane of the LP?
Hello Pgtaylor, the original idea of the team around Mr. Robertson-Aikman of SME turned against them.
Indeed - as Atmasphere already pointed out - it is resonance inside the magnesium armpipe. While all done and designed in the best intention,the shape of the magnesium armpipe with the widest diameter at the bearing does somehow amplify and ill-control armwand inherent resonance. The heavy pre-tension of the bearings doesn't ease things in this manner at all.
However - there is something you can do to lessen the effect and better the sonic performance of your SME V:
- do get "blue-tec" or something similar. Do apply small amounts (about the size of a cent) at the widest diameter of the armpipe and close to the headshell. It looks ugly, it will increase the effective moving mass, but it will dampen the unwanted inherent resonance quite well.
The sound will open up and will get more "air".
The SME V is a somehow fine example of a very impressive design approach with very consequent execution - cost little to o object indeed.
However - here two design features implemented with the very best of intentions combined to an unwanted side-effect.
Thank you - and Hiho as well - for your kind comments on my posts. Nice to get some positive feedback.
Cheers,
D.