VPI 2nd Pivot for 3D

billstevenson09-08-2017 12:01am

... it is becoming obvious that you are ignorant of the scientific method. What I offered were several indirect proofs that unipivot arms perform well ... You claim to know what you are doing, but this belies that claim ... Your "proof" is not science. It is worthless.

... are you advocating the elimination of free choice in our musical enjoyment?...   It is becoming clear that you are on a one man quest for something that a) is not practical and cannot be obtained ... and it would not be viable even if achievable because as audiophiles we are all a bunch of free spirits who happily want to go our own way, make our own choices ...

This is very well stated, Bill, but I'm sorry to say it won't enlighten Raul. He insists on his own version of "facts" that are exclusive to him; anyone's assertion that is in conflict with his "facts" is dismissed with a wave of his hand.

Let's return to the topic of this thread: The OP got great results by adding a second pivot to his VPI 3D arm. He wrote:

discovering my old records anew

Making a system change that yields this kind of result is not an uncommon audiophile experience. Indeed, it is part of what keeps many of us so involved in this hobby. But Raul cannot accept the OP's premise, because he thinks this type of arm is inherently flawed and not on his list of approved technologies. Raul has other favored technologies, and other technologies he dismisses as inherently inferior.

And ... here's the oddest thing about this thread. I share Raul's distaste for unipivot arms. But because Raul thinks I dislike unipivots for the wrong reason, he seeks to engage in endless debate with the intent of establishing his superior expertise.

I dislike unipivots as a matter of preference. Raul dislikes them as a matter of religion, and has stated here that we should not engage our preferences. It is futile to argue with someone who harbors such fervor in their convictions, so it's easiest to simply ignore Raul and his taunts, the worst of which are thankfully deleted by the moderators.

I dislike unipivots as a matter of preference. Raul dislikes them as a matter of religion.

I dislike parallel trackers. Not as a matter of preference (although the Air Tangent had serious problems) but more for their aesthetic demands (although the Bergmann ones seem to bring B&O design sensibilities to these questions) 🤗

I have no problems with unipivots per se and have owned a few....
The original Hadcock GH-228 was an under-appreciated arm which afforded me many years of excellent sound.
The Grace G940 was cheaply designed and even more cheaply made and was not as good as the Hadcock whilst the Graham Phantom II is simply a pretender of an arm IMO.....
The Continuum Cobra and Copperhead designs (albeit with secondary stabilising sapphire swashplates) are likely the very best tonearm designs I have heard.
The raison d'être for the unipivot design theory is the virtual elimination of 'friction' at the pivot point....and that is something to be taken seriously......

What I really dislike in this hobby.....are ’generalisations’ and ’absolutes’ as most experienced and astute audiophiles know these to be ghoulish....or maybe goulash 🤡

I can't help wonder why there is so much discussion on this.  Raul thinks the single pivot is flawed because it is unstable (wiggle)...the 2nd pivot stabilizes the arm and thus corrects the issue.  It me it sounds better with the 2nd pivot than without.  Done.

With respect to the OP's experience with the VPI dual pivot modification, in case anyone missed it, I agree with him, have two VPI arms that are used interchangeably on my Prime and both have the dual pivot modification.  It definitely is a worthwhile modification for anyone who owns a VPI unipivot arm.  FWIW, one of my arms is a 3D and the other is metal.  Based on my limited experience with two arms, I am of the opinion that this mod benefits all VPI unipivots.

halcro

I dislike parallel trackers. Not as a matter of preference (although the Air Tangent had serious problems) but more for their aesthetic demands ...

@halcro that's what I mean by preference. Judging by aesthetics is very much a subjective preference. I don't find that objectionable at all.

I've never been a big fan of parallel trackers, either, although some have been better than others. In most cases, I think the cure is worse than the disease.