Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

>>Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice?<<

As I wrote earlier, the Souther Linear Arm was designed to work well with a wide range of phono cartridges, including the low-mass, very high compliance ADC XLM series -- which were designed for for 0.5g tracking force. During the final couple of years of refinement of the Souther design, I did listen to a variety of Souther prototypes and then final production on a Luxman PD444 turntable while a variety of pivoted tonearms were simultaneously mounted on the turntable. A/B comparison with the same model cartdrge was routine, made easy by the two-arms-to-one-source switchbox built into the underside of the Luxman. No, this doesn't qualify as "recent." Pivoted tonearms in rotation were Grace 707, Transcriptors Vestigal, SME 3009, Mayware Formula IV, Infinity Black Widow, and occasionally we had access to a friend's Dynavector 501. A variety of other tonearms passed through our hands for shorter-term audition, including the Signet XK50 and some pretty good Japanese S-arms sourced from dead direct-drive turntables as well as relative exotica like the KMAL.

The striking thing about linear tracking vs. the pivoted arms was the absence in straight line tracking of a subtle "fuzz" that couldn't be tuned out of any of the pivoted set-ups. We certainly tried, painstakingly aligning every tonearm. But in comparison to the Souther linear tracker, pivoted arms that sounded incisive in transient detail outside comparison were made to sound comparatively compromised by subtle blurring of transient clarity. The linear tracker snapped everything into sonic focus that you didn't realize was available until you heard it. Other comparative differences varied by tonearm, though the Souther did consistently also present the 3D soundspace more vividly than did pivoted arms, and to our ears it sounded tonally the most neutral, consistently.

My primary long-term comparative testing of the Souther vs. pvoted tonearms relied on a handful of cartridges, primarily ADC XLM II, Shure V15 III and IV, Denon DL103D, Supex 900, Grace F9R, Adcom CrossCoil. We particularly ran ADC XLM's into the ground in an attempt to show that linear tracking in the Souther would be too stressful to that cartridge's delicate cantilever and suspension. They generally fared worse in the pivoted tonearms. Over two years we couldn't find any evidence of the Souther arm wearing out the XLM sooner than a pivoted tonearm, though the test wasn't scientifically rigorous.

My experience using Souther production tonearms over the next ten or twelve years bore this out. That tonearm is at least one instance of mechanically-coupled passive linear tracking imposing no penalty on cartridge life despite the only lateral motive force being that imposed by the spinning spiral groove, with the cartridge stylus, cantilever and suspension being the means of transmission.

Phil

Dear Lewm, as far as I know, Atmasphere should be very knowledgeable about the Triplanar.
I had the Triplanar III for 2 years on my turntable.
As far as memory goes, it was needle into ball-bearing (similar to Technics EPA - but back then with less refined bearings compared to the older japanese tonearm).
As most of us discuss tiny differences in sound, we should assume, that the better bearing with less friction will - should ... - have some sonic influence to the better. It certainly has on blue paper and in theory.
If we do not try to strive for the technically best component in every construction component, we should not claim that something is "the best" or "can't be bettered" ( I am not quoting anybody here, but just use the omnipresent high-end hype...).
If there is a better - in the sense of the technical use and benefit - component to be incorporated into a given design, there is no reason not to use it - no reason aside from money......

02-25-10: Dertonarm
We need to eliminate the progression from the stylus.
This can be done, but will be really expensive, as it can not deal with linear progression, but need to be in short-time-loop with the real groove-spacing of the LP on the platter...Once this is done, the full theoretical advantage of the linear tonearm will be obtained.

What still will be an issue after that problem is eliminated, remains the less than perfect stiffness and hardness of the bearing.

Technically, there are several readily-available solutions used in other industries that make these tracking/error/stiffness concerns a non-issue. Atmasphere has discussed them before in other threads. Surprisingly, he suggested the same components that I had decided on, myself.

The real work is in the control system for the mechanisms.

Mepearson, I forgot to put a smiley face (;-))at the end of my sentence saying you gave up too early. I did realize that you wanted to try out what you said top notch pivot arms. That IS indeed open minded. In fact, I have plans to install another arm (Triplanar, most likely) with hopefully same cartridge in near future to just expand my horizons- so to speak.

Thanks to 213cobra for better describing sound quality reproduced by linear arm. "....snapped everything into sonic focus that you didn't realize was available until you heard it." " ..also present the 3D soundspace more vividly". What I would like to add further s that organic quality of acoustic space it portrays to make the whole stage as one- one instrument space clearly overlapping each other to make one whole stage, and more sound air propulsing out as a live instrument would. You can 'peak or hear' in the middle of the tone 'thickness' to hear what texture is in between- if it makes any sense. I guess I described it earlier as 'completeness - tone, texture, air lower and higher harmonics - of notes'. It is still hard to describe until you hear it, but may be I described it succinctly enough? Not that pivotal arms don't do this, they do, sure, but linear arm does convincingly more.

Pivotal arms just looks great, they are in vogue and are just more impressive to possess. Wish list- Triplanar, Graham Phantom, Davinci Grandezza, SME V

>>Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice?<<

Yes, we did as follows:
Basically in the same system, except the TTs, Scheu Das Laufwerk I with Cartridge Man Conductor II(w/Isolator) and Acoustic Solid Wood Ref with Ortofon AS-212. The cartridge used was an Air-Tight PC-1. Music: classical, jazz, vocals and other instrumental. We played all records once in Acoustic Solid/Ortofon combo(alias: AA combo) and then removed PC-1 and mounted it on Cartridge Man arm on Scheu/Cartridge Man(alias: Scheu combo), and played all the passages again.

In short, the same PC-1 sounded rather different on both setups. Scheu combo, whatever we fine-tuned, would deliver a more relaxed feel as a whole, laid back, a little bit more spacious, violin sounding stunningly "airy" and "real", not thin-sounding, etc.

With AA combo, the soundstage was a tad different, imaging became more solid(a positive term, here), bass tighter and more extended with more weight(but not booming), less laid back, as a whole rather transparent but not that "stunningly airy". Playing pipe organ, AA combo could deliver, what we call, real bass authority!

We did tried another cart, Dynavector Te Kaitora II. A very airy cart and extended at the top but could be a bit thin-sounding, rather "light-weighted" presentations, without much bass authority, extremely relaxed mid-range,...overall sonic results were not as satisifactory as the above, though.

We found the same cart could sound differently with the pivoted and air-bearing linear arms we used. Some of us thought AA combo was closer to recordings without less character of its own. However, some of us preferred Scheu combo which could just sound better to their tastes.

Dan