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
Darkmo-I did say that I had a new 103R that had a stylus off-center after using it for a short time in the ET-2. What I don't know is what caused it.
Aaah, duly noted. Sorry about the mistake, Mepearson.

I'm really ambivalent on the subject as far as sonic performance, whichever works best. My pivot arm actually costs more than my linear, so it's not a matter of defending a precious investment.
As far as evidence against theory, evidence achieved through carefully controlled experiments is always preferred. In reality, I don't know of an easy way to do this. Would you run two "identical" cartridges for a predetermined number of hours with one being installed in a linear tracking arm and the other in a pivoted arm and after said hours are up, would you then examine/meaure each cartridge for changes to the suspension and cantilever alignment? I can see lots of variables creeping in here that could affect the outcome. The reality is I don't know how practical this experiment would be.

As far as cartridge manufacturers giving us any meaningful info on this debate, I am old enough to be cynical enough to think that we couldn't depend on it. Aside from the issues that manufacturers may have no idea what type of tonearm was tracking their cartridge before it was sent back for a rebuild, politics and money are pervasive in everything. Even if it was true, I don't know that cartridge manufacturers would tell you that using a linear tracking arm will shorten the life of your cartridge. Not only do they have to worry about lost sales to potential linear tracking arm customers, they would also most likely incur the wrath of linear tracking tonearm manufacturers.
Yes, carefully controlled experiments are the scientific way. If available, they are the best evidence, however evidence has a hierarchy, at least in the legal world.
The highest standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". Granted, that is not the scientific way. However, a lower standard is, "by the preponderance of the evidence presented". We can all draw our own conclusions, but so far I see that even by this very modest standard, the burden of proof has not been met in the matter of "poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge". I vote for acquittal.
Dear Dertonarm: Like you I agree ( I posted several times. ) that the cero tracking error advantage on linear trackers in this imperfect analog world could means almost nothing against the less than 2° error in pivot tonearms design.

Till today I always support a pivot tonearm over a linear tracker at least for the better bass quality performance that btw Atmasphere, you and me point out through the thread.

Now, no one and I'm reffering to M. Lavigne, F. Crowder, Atmasphere or A. Porter deny if there exist more cartridge stylus/cantilever/suspension stress through a linear tracker than a pivot design, otherwise they give cartridge names, how many years and which linear tracking tonearms where they don't detect any cartridge quality performance problem cause by that " stress " we are talking about.

The argument that you posted where you say that over the long run/time we can't aware of that cartridge quality performance degradation due that is at minimum day after day and we can't detect it is no clear argument at all because you have to take in count too the normal cartridge deterioration because of time even in a pivot tonearm.

How I can see all this controversy, some one posted here: ++++ " Theory is mere speculation. " +++++

yes till you prove it and you know this.

The controversy could comes because the theory and common sense tell me that that " stress " exist what that theory can't explain ( because your model is only a part of the whole model neccesary to prove it. ) is how exactly shows it self through the cartridge life: after three months ( in hours. ), after one year, after 3 years, how change the cartridge frequency response due not only because the normal over time cartridge degradation but in specific for that additional " stress ", how change the cartridge crosstalk between channels, how the suspension/cantilever behavior/stylus shape changes due only for that additional " stress ", which is the impact with different cantilever size, with different stylus shape, with different cartridge compliance values, with different LP recording velocities, with different room temperature, etc, etc

IMHO I think you don't have answers ( and I don't asking for. ) and I don't know any one that could have the precise theoretical answers and even if they have ( in theory ) this is only half the " true " because you have to prove it ( the other half ) through a controled experiment/tests in real time. Very complex for say the least!

In the other side those gentleman has an answer ( Dertonarm, it is not only one person but more than that. Are they all wrong? could happen that they speak between each other before they posted?: no Sir I don't even imagine that! ) that they can prove it through its subjective/empirical experienced/knowledge each one has.

So, the " stress " exist: how affect the cartridge quality
performance over time?, who knows!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.