Schroder sq and the new talea

Though I appreciate the philosophy lesson and agree with Dertonarm that this is a very interesting discussion, I would like to ask a question about these two tonearms.

Forgive my naivete, but how can a unipivot arm with one bearing point maintain azimuth? I've seen magnets used to "stabilize" this rocking motion, but when I move a unipivot over from the armrest to the lead-in groove, the arm wobbles all over the place. Compared to my gimbaled-bearing arm, these seem very unstable. I've heard the Talea sound very good in a friend's system, but I don't understand how azimuth can't be changing constantly. What am I missing?

Atmasphere, I had in mind a short tangential headshell that instead of pivoting vertically to navigate warps, would rise and fall in parallel with the record surface via some sort of servo mechanism, possibly guided by a laser to measure the fluctuating distance between headshell and LP. I wouldn't rule out an air bearing. If the moving mass is kept light and of a design such as Ladegaard/Trans-Fi, the bearing actually works better at lightest feasible pressure. I'm not really trying to push one approach or another. It's more interesting to rank the key variables as a basis for trade-offs in design.

Atmasphere: This is from Wikipedia's description of "The Power of Now" - "he prefers Being as "an open concept," something "it is impossible to form a mental image of" and which "does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity."
It also states "the book avoids intellectual discussion and argument. He tries not merely to present the reader's mind with information, which the mind might find interesting, or might not, which it might agree with, or disagree with".

And it says the author hopes it will "play its part in … the transformation of human consciousness,"

Just from reading this description I can see that this book is a product of modern philosophy - it commits all the same errors. For one, the notion of something beyond reality (as perceived and understood by man's consciousness) with no evidence or argument supporting this notion, which implies that man's mind (reason) is impotent and we should blindly accept this "Being". And what does he mean when he states he wants to "transform consciousness"? Humans are entities of a specific nature - as with all entities the law of identity applies (Aristotle)to us - including our consciousness which operates by specific means (concepts) to understand reality. How is he going to "transform" that?

I consider philosophy to be the most important of subjects - it is the forest whereas the special sciences are the trees. But modern philosophy is in a terrible state. As an antidote, I suggest you read Ayn Rand.

Atmasphere, just briefly (...;-) ...) - your remark

Not withstanding the pun, you have it exactly backwards. Thought is the product of the mind. But you are not your mind. Your mind is simply a tool, albeit one that tries to convince that you that it is you. When you experience this, perhaps it will be easier to understand.

does miss the one specific point in the short latin phrase....
The fact that the ego realize that he/she is actually able to reflect/think leads to the realization of his/her own existence. We have no chicken vs egg situation here were it is to dispute which produces what. Thinking is a process of our self while we are "living" in this sphere. Its not about which is the product of what. One just leads to the self-acknowledgement of the other.

IOW, it is possible to silence the mind with a simple technique, and simply Be.

So when you get that thought can be silenced and that consciousness remains, it is *then* that you experience the human spirit- yourself. This is not possible as long as the mind is not stilled.

Well, we have seen a good many politicians - each side of the Atlantic - the past years who proved themselves "true experts" in the described process to silence any thought ( in themselves...). However - if it lead to any positive results for them or us, then I missed it...... I sometimes stood frozen in absolute amazement, but that wasn't really going hand-in-hand with any positive feeling.

And -

I am simply pointing out that if you can still the mind, the creative powers awaken and are 10 times more powerful. If you are to make a better arm, it seems like this might be useful.

well, if I were to exercise Sumi-e painting, I would agree.
But designing a tonearm for me is an act of engineering. It is a technical tool - and as such it needs the full attention and control in the process of a fully awaken mind. But maybe that "creative power" is the reason why we have such a wide variation in tonearm designs. Maybe a bit more focus and a bit less "creative" would be helpful - is it possible ?
Finally - to anticipate a phrase which will be directed towards me before long in a discussion about tonearm design - , I know that "many roads lead to Rome". But only one road leads direct to the center and to the Forum Romanum....

Dgarretson, Atmasphere started with a brief exploration of how the groove is actually made. Why now following this path all the way - it would directly lead to an extensive and maybe complete blue book.
To design the tonearm which really addresses all issues it is helpful to identify all issues first before musing about what bearing principle, armwand, effective length etc is necessary. The demands of the tracking process do lead to the solution. Once all demands are identified the design will determine itself.
This might not be the "creative approach" of an audiophile designer, but it is the approach of an engineer.
BTW - I have made that "tonearm blue book" for myself and have already sold the complete design. So we will see in physical form my idea of a pivot tonearm ( which addresses all issues of the process known to me ) by autumn next year. Hey - maybe that's just in time for RMAF 2011 .......