"S" shaped tonearm ?


what is the reason a company ,such as denon for instance to put an "S" shaped tonearm on there table. ive had both straight and S . and while not high end , i currently have the denon dp500m table . ive heard nor seen an advantage to either, though my experience is very much amature audiophile.
jrw40
wow, you guys have covered alot of ground. though very intresting reading. i think johnnyb53 probably has it right.thanks to eveyone for there input.
Audiofeil is spot on. Probably unpopular, but he, or the engineers are right. The S-Form was done lots of years ago but today there is no advantage anymore. the most solid construction is straight.
Can you hear the difference between a S-Arm and a straight one? Probably ...
Dear Thomasheisig: " +++++ the most solid construction is straight. " +++++



So what, that is only one of more than 30 different parameters that affect the tonearm performance and is the equilibrium of all those parameters what makes a difference in a quality tonearm performance.



" +++++ but today there is no advantage anymore " +++++



Sorry but IMHO this kind of statement ( with all my respect ) only reveal non know-how on the subject.



Regards and enjoy the music.

Raul.
Hi Raul, both we know that nothing is final. there are always different point of views, for good designs and average ones.
But some of these "S" Arms have their "Birth" only from Design reasons. It is true, that there are more parameters which are important, but which have the priority?
I wonder, why nobody designed a "S" shaped Air Line Arm... Could be the next big adventure....

But some of these "S" Arms have their "Birth" only from Design reasons.
Or marketing reasons. For the last 20 years, a new arm wouldn't be taken seriously unless it has a straight shaft and integrated headshell. But back in the '60s and '70s when high end turntables descended from professional radio gear, it wasn't considered a serious tonearm (and therefore wouldn't find a market) unless it had a detachable universal headshell. And on a 9" arm, that meant the wand had to curve.

One could say that--*all things being equal*--a straight arm with integrated shell has an advantage. But "all things" are seldom equal. The Rega RB300 is a highly regarded tonearm, especially for the money. Its strongest point is probably its straight, tapered tonearm shaft with integrated headshell. But it has other vulnerabilities such as unadjustable VTA, a VTF spring that's prone to resonate according to some users, and iffy azimuth.

Compare it to an old-school S-shaped tonearm such as a Technics EPA-100, and the Technics has advantages in lower bearing friction, a double gimbal design that maintains azimuth alignment better, a titanium wand that cheats conventional rigidity-to-weight expectations, and perhaps most wonderful of all, dial-in damping to accommodate a wider range of effective mass/compliance ratios.

Economy of scale comes into play, too. That's one reason an RB300 can be considered so good at $400. But if a company found the market potential to scale up to make 3 times as many per year, they could afford to make a better tonearm from better materials, closer tolerances, and more features at the same price.

Is the RB300 a better arm *simply* because it has a straight arm and integrated shell? In this case, probably no. Would an EPA-100 be better with a straight wand with integrated shell? Probably. Enough to tell the difference? Who knows?

Then there's the issue that "different" isn't always "better." At a given price point, a straight arm might have better imaging and leading edge transients; another design might have deeper bass or richer timbres. If you're only listening for imaging and treble, you'd conclude that the straight arm is "better." But someone else listening for the body of the tone might prefer a different tonearm for sounding more timbrally accurate.