Tonearms with no anti-skate adjustment


I am in recent possession of a Grace 704 uni-pivot tonearm, which has no anti-skate adjustment. This is not optimal IMO, but should I really be worried?
jdjohn
Anti-skate is very important. I would stay away from cheap tobearms which omit this feature. 
And what of expensive tonearms that omit anti-skate like the Schick. Are those better?

I owned a 714 and it worked best with low compliance cartridges, for me. The 704, 727 and 747 mated best with the F9e, etc. IMHO. So I did not see it anywhere; I was an owner. All of the repeated info on the effective mass of the arm seems to originate here:

http://www.fl-electronic.de/analog/tonarme.html

The internet seems to merely echo unsubstantiated claims until they are no longer questioned.

But for a moment, let’s give that low effective mass number credence. I’m with Mr. Lederman. Your Shure V15 V , or other light tracking, high compliance cartridge, may not show signs of overt mistracking in an arm sans anti-skating, but the wear characteristic on the stylus will be uneven. I believe this also implies that groove wear will also be uneven as vinyl is softer than diamond. Audio is a thousand different religions. Pick yours.

I was very proud about myself when I got 90 microns ''pure'' from

my combo Sumiko 800 + Ortofon MC 30. But then I have read

Van den Hul's warning not to use too much anti-skate needed for

such values. Too much anti-skate was worse according to him

then no-skate at all. By all his carts one get anti-skate values for

 his sample.

The other problem is that this ''force'' also depends from record

radius. So, obviously, the same anti-skate for the whole record

is also problematic. I ever owned the only tonearm with ''variable''

anti-skate  : Sony 237 with an ingenious ''curved'' lever with

different anti-skate related to record radius. In addition there

was provision for stylus shape. I give up anti-skate not because

I don't believe the theory but because there is no way to do this

correct.

Cleeds,
Stringreen has made no mistake.
Unipivots are generally designed to be as stable as that configuration permits. This means that ”lowering the tail end” increases downforce not decreases it as you have suggested.