"S" shaped tonearm ?

Audiofeil, if you think a '58 Edsel looks "cool", then you and I have VERY different tastes and senses of aesthetics. 8^)

Dear friends: I respect all opinions including that of persons that has not any knowledge about.

Any one of you can take an Ikeda tonearm/Audiocraft/Micro Seiki/Lustre/Technics/Grace G940/Satin/Mission/MDC800/Dynavector,etc, etc, and test against say: VPI, Triplanar, Basis, Schoroeder, Transrotor, SME, Graham, Kuzma, etc, etc and in the same conditions you will see that the new ones have no any single advantage not only that but that the S/J shaped ones beats the straight ones ( it does not matters what the theory say about. )

There are so many parameters that are inside/influence in the quality performance of a tonearm/cartridge that it is almost impossible to say that the straight tonearms are better because in practice it is not.

Here are some of those parameters: type of bearings, bearing material, bearing tolerances, statical or dynamic balance way, position of the counterweight in reference to the cartridge stylus, counterweight isolotation, counterweight material, effective tonearm mass, tonearm material used, internal tonearm damping, external bearing damping, internal wiring quality, tonearm geometry, lenght of the tonearm, headshell design, headshell wire quality, headshell material, antiskating design, connectors type to the phono interconnect cable, tonearm base design and material used, etc, etc. These are only some of those tonearm parameters and we have to add all the cartridge parameters that are critical on the quality performance.

As any one can see it is very complex and that famous theory does not help here to say ( only for that theory ): this is better, no it can't period.

Now, old vs new. IMHO this is a controversial subject and depends of on what kind of audio items we are talking about because our opinion/experiences could change if we talk about amplifiers than if we talk about tonearms or TTs.
If we take tonearms/TTs I can say that the " old " ones not only are competitive with today gear but some times beat them.
It could be interesting to analyse tonearm/TTs designs like Technics ( EPA 100/501, SP10 MK2-3. ) ) that are great ones. Mi first question about is to ask who is Technics?, well Technics was/is a Panasonic division that belongs to Matushita corporation, could you imagine the research resources that the Technics designers ( yes a designer/research group not a single designer person with limited resources. )group had/have?
Thechnics EPA-100MK2 tonearm was designed/build in 1982 ( 25 years ago, still running and unbeatble!!!!!!), was the first tonearm made of Boron/Titanium material ( still today is the only one and no one use this material, wonder why?. ) that has the lowest bearing friction of any pivoted tonearm in the world, the on the fly VTA and damping adjustment is unique even to today standards, the quality construction is almost unsurpassed for any today tonearm, etc, etc, if in the future any one of you have the opportunity to work with this Technics Gem you could understand everything I'm talking about.
Technics?, take its TT motors, till today the direct drive motor specs are unsurpassed on the SP-10MK3 and Do you know which motor use the famous Micro Seiki TTs? well: Panasonic!!!!!!

It is a sad that these kind of professional people with no limit resources stay away from high end.

Old vs new ?, cartridges: Air Tight, Myabi, XV-1, Allaerts, Magic Diamond, ZYX, Transfiguration, Titan, name it. Well there are at least two " very old " MM ( yes you read well: MM!!! ) cartridges that ovearall beats almost any of today MC cartridges: Audio Technica ATML 180OCC and AKG P8ES Supernova VDHII and at least other ten more that are a challenge to any today MC cartridge design.

Yes IMHO some times the old designs are still a reference standard for today designs, at least on tonearm/TT/cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Well it seems quite simple. You can believe:

1. The guys who design and build the tonearms. They have degrees in mechanical engineering, physics, electrical engineering, and acoustic sciences.

2. The amateur hobbyist with a bunch of toys.

I know where to place my bet.

Note to Pryso, actually IMO the Edsels are some of the homeliest cars Ford ever built but cool is in the eyes of the beholder. I grant you it was a poor example.

I'll leave S and J shaped arms to the folks who buy clocks, rocks, and teleportation tweaks.

I'm done.

Being that my daughter never stops reminding me how old I am getting,I'll have to state that OLD is ALWAYS better!! -:)

Professional designers are also beholden to the prevailing design theories and manufacturing methods currently available. Tonearm manufacture can only tolerate a few design types and remain cost-effective and competitive, so designs that don't fit the business model are rejected before they can even get started.

I've been in audio for 40 years and have watched the high end throw one dogma over for another about every decade or two. I remember when horns ruled in the heydey of JBL, Altec, and Klipsch; and then were repudiated in favor of silk domes. For a long time high end dogma dictated that a horn speaker could not be high end. Oops! Along comes Avante Garde of Germany. There was a time when no self-respecting high end speaker design was ported; now most of them are. Most speakers today have to be bi-wire capable, even if there is no benefit to designs with 1st order crossover. If it lacks the features that are in currently style, it won't sell.

Right now in tonearms it's the straight, one-piece armtube, preferably with integral headshell, with a unipivot bearing. A straight, one-piece arm w/integrated headshell is the cheapest to manufacture and may have advantages in rigidity vs. weight. It's also an absolute bit** for mounting a cartridge. Still, current turntable/tonearm dogma dictates that nothing but a belt-drive with straight arm w/unipivot is going to succeed in the marketplace.

The once-ubiquitous dual-gimbal fulcrum has largely given way to the unipivot design. The unipivot bearing is cheap and simple, but has little to no ability to stabilize or control azimuth. A dual-gimbal design allows free movement in the x and y planes while limiting movement in the z plane to bearing play.

And here's an alternate automobile analogy to the 1958 Edsel. Prevailing leading edge engine design dictates an alloy block, double overhead cams, and 4 valves per cylinder. But then there's the Corvette Z06 with a cast iron 2-valve pushrod engine, which at $70K, can beat or stay even with any supercar up to around $250K. And if that isn't enough to push the envelope, the Steve Saleen S7 $400K supercar has a 2-valve pushrod engine as well, yet puts out 550 to 750 HP. The SR-7 racing version has had much success on the competition circuit (e.g., Sebring, Le Mans).