Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?


My answer to this question is yes. Linear tracking arms trace the record exactly the way it was cut. Pivoted arms generally have two null points across the record and they are the only two points the geometry is correct. All other points on the record have a degree of error with pivoted arms. Linear tracking arms don't need anti-skating like pivoted arms do which is another plus for them.

Linear tracking arms take more skill to set up initially, but I feel they reward the owner with superior sound quality. I have owned and used a variety of pivoted arms over the years, but I feel that my ET-2 is superior sounding to all of them. You can set up a pivoted arm incorrectly and it will still play music. Linear tracking arms pretty much force you to have everything correct or else they will not play. Are they worth the fuss? I think so.
mepearson
03-17-10: Syntax
No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use.
Wilson Audio would beg to differ.

Add to that Soundlab, Magneplanar, Krell, Pass Labs, Magico, Gryphon, etc. etc.
Agree and disagree. WW2 surplus gave us hobby audio. The technology (say reel to reel tapes, radar, transistors, lasers, flight simulators) was developed by governments and major corporations. Audiophiles merely adapted the technology to our own uses.
Darkmoebius, sorry to say in this context, that Syntax is right. While I do have respect for the brands you listed, the only "field" where the "better" succeeded for several millenia was ( and today it is beginning to change even here....) military/warfare.
In all other aspects related with demand and supply it was always the cheaper - or more easy to access or operate.
But Audiogon is not the forum for philosophy.
Samujohn, all what you listen - each and everything including the reel-to-reel (invented by AEG) - was developed or its design and research which led to development was requested by military.
Hobby audio was there before WW2 - already alive and kick'in in the roaring twenties.
And yes, - I know the Tact very well and know how tempting it is. But this is not high-fidelity in the sense of the idea or phrase. It is one thing to adapt to room interaction (or better: to try to adapt to it...) but it is a different beast to alter the emitted sound to suit ideas or ideals.
It is a suitable way - no question about that - but it is not high fidelity and it is not an idea I would ever follow.
Dertonarm raises the basic question: What are we trying to accomplish with all this gear and hardware? I am 65, but when I was 17, I worked in a small, sort of "feeder" studio, some miles from Nashville. We normally used 15ips stereo tape
and recorded both music and radio ads. Our monitors were Altec A7's. I have never had a home system as convincing as our master tapes. A times we received 30ips mono ads for Coca Cola which were dubs from Atlanta. Jesus! The dynamics would make you jump! Would that I could do that at home today.
Home reproduction of prerecorded media is an entirely different situation. Digital is great, but CD's are pitiful. (I plan to throw all mine way soon.) I have little interest in listening to a studio mix on my headphones, except to analyze something. I have a modest size room and budget. I have performed some of the music that I listen to. In reproduction in my home, like most of us, I want to simulate some of the excitement of the original performance. Quad speakers,for example, or LS3/5's have a million obvious shortcomings, but manage to do more to convey the "spirt" of the performance that many full range speakers. I will try to formulate; I try to simulate, not replicate. Deliberate distortion is not bad, it is just a tool like any other. Generally I prefer subtractive distortion to additive, but not always. I enjoy my system, but others with bigger rooms and budgets do better. It's a big hobby. It's about the enjoyment of music -and friends.