VPI 2nd Pivot for 3D

IMO this second pivot is a tweek. As with all tweeks, some combos will benefit while others not.  I bought two kits but used only one between two arms. One arm is steel, the other 3D.  The carts are Ortofon Cadneza Red on the steel arm in which I much prefer the second pivot.  The 3D arm has an Ortofon Cadenza Black in which I prefer the uni pivot only.  My take away is that some stylus geometries benefit while others don't.  I don't feel I own a flawed design.  😊

gshepardbuster:, From what I’ve read in this thread, the 2nd pivot is a (big) improvement on an initially flawed design. Where one may view this as a tweek, ( IMO, a tweek = an improvement that did not alter the original design concept) I view the 2nd pivot as an afterthought that by happenstance altered the initial design made better by way of more thoughtful consideration. To prove this, if all of the buyers of the 2nd pivot that (did alter the original design), have positive experiences, I can only assume the initial design to be flawed or at least had significant areas of improvement?

By definition, a tweek is an enhancement to a particular design or concept. The 2nd pivot is a change to the initial design, that changes the subset of the unipivot to a dual pivot.

"I have a couple of questions that I would think be of concern to all VPI owners: @billstevenson, You may be positioned as our best form of information on these questions?

(1) The factory off-set setting of S2P distance by 2mm on my Classic 3....is this difference on any of their other TTs? The Prime? Why is it a good thing? If it isn’t, why are we experiencing it?
(2) Is there a good reason why a designer of TTs and tonearms won’t reveal their preferred cartridge geometry method? "

 I wanted to avoid this can of worms.  I don't know if I can help clarify or just add to the confusion.  My Prime has a S2P of 261.5mm actual, vs. the specified 258mm.  I had a protractor constructed for the actual S2P to address the issue.  Matt at VPI offered to fix mine if I returned it, but in my mind as long as the actual S2P is accounted for it shouldn't matter.  Not everyone will agree with my decision, but it seems to work just fine.  I will offer conjecture that the reason why any manufacturer would not want to reveal a preferred cartridge geometry would vary depending on their priorities and overall philosophy.  Why limit applicability of their product?  How critical is the geometry issue in practical terms?  Records are imperfect anyway.  Get everything dialed in for side A only to discover that things are skewed for side B (this happens all too often).

@billstevenson. Thank you for your honest response! It is what seems like a flower in a field of weeds.

I for one want to purchase a product that I feel, after reading for years is a solid product, I can have confidence in it’s accuracy of manufacture.

"How critical is the geometry issue in practical terms"? Wow! I would think, coming from you, it would be critical? As I said previously, I want the product I paid thousands of $ for to be accurate. The inaccuracy should come only from the end user.

"I wanted to avoid this can of worms". (A can of worms.. people, did you think you’d have to deal with a "can of worms" after laying out $$$???) Let’s try to define this...

(1) Why is this an issue to start with from an American TT manufacturer that has 40 years of history?
(2) ..on my question about revealing cartridge geometry... "Why limit applicability of their product?"

Lets start with #(2). How does having the tonearm geometry of a brand new TT/arm limit the applicability of said product? If it does, is it not on the manufacturer to let their potential customer/s in on this thought prior to purchase?

"Mat at VPI offered to fix mine if I returned it...".

This implies that Bill Stevenson addressed this issue with Mat, (as a concern).

I never received this option when I spoke with Mat. If I did, I'd gladly take him up on it.