Goldmund Studio - still relevant today?

Harold, You obviously misinterprete tonykay's comment. As you

deed with my complaint about my cart which you borrowed and

destroyd with your ''perfect linear tracker''. You refused any

responsibility for the damage you made in my case as you refuse

any responsibility for your comments on TT's about which you

know nothing. You are a kind of second hand Raul as far as I

am concerned. The other members will discovere this sooner or

later but anyway for sure.

Nandric, The Audiomeca tables evolved through the J4 to the Romance, then  Belladonna, which I believe was the last. It had the most sophisticated suspension design I've seen.  Can't remember where I saw it, but this will give an inkling:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0208/

I too had an LP12 in the mid '80s, but eventually replaced it with a Goldmund. I was a set-up person for Linn and liked the table, but it ran about 1% fast and I was addicted to the presentation.  Getting used to "correct" speed was a revelation, but I did not use the Goldmund linear arm because it seemed too high maintenance. 

In an ultimate sense, any belt drive suspended table where the platter/arm move independently of the motor, is compromised. Looking at the diverse opinions here, it seems no different than other vintage equipment requiring set-up skill and some ingenuity.

Regards,

Dear Fleib, I am not a technical guy able to judge about Lurne's

theories. But as a real scientist he published his design philosohpy

available for anyone for possible comments. BTW there were more

''donnas'' which I could not afford and this certainly apply for his

''Belladonna'' . But he is a very nice person with whom I exchanged

some emails. I asked for a separate armbase for his AudiomecaJ1

but he was not able to find one despite his convinction that he

must have those ''somehwere''. Back then he was working on his

''Belladonna''.