Multiple arms, multiple cartridges and geometry?

Dear Raul,
Why not align all tonearm designs at 225-227mm?
THE REASON
It ain't a pretty sight huh??.....and most arms should sound their best at their Manufacturers recommended specifications?
But apart from all that......I would then not be able to use cartridges with fixed headshells such as the FR-7f and the Technics EPC100Mk3?

Regards
H

Good questions Mapman and Peter......
In one way I agree with both of you. There really are too many choices BEFORE I even choose a record to play?!

On the other hand......for 30 years.....I listened to one turntable with one arm and one cartridge (although that cartridge might change every 2-3 years?).
And yes....it was very enjoyable.
But each time a new cartridge was inserted.....a different perspective was given to all my cherished records. Sometimes....this different perspective seemed a step backwards....or at least....gave less satisfaction?
Only when a new cartridge gave a keener insight into the listening experience.....did it stay for the course.
But the sheer fact that every cartridge DID sound differently should have raised some important questions.......is there a 'correct' sound to a cartridge?......ie-the ABSOLUTE sound?
The answer of course...as we all know....is NO.
That is why we all have different systems with different sounds....and I won't venture into the preferences for valves vs solid state, belt-drive vs DD, MCs vs MM, planars vs horns vs dynamic vs sealed vs ported??

If every cartridge offers a different perspective....and every arm and turntable likewise......aren't there some benefits to being able to instantly sample those perspectives on a daily basis?

And that's precisely what I do!
Sometimes I'm entranced with the sound of a particular cartridge on a particular arm I'm using....and will listen to records for day after day until suddenly.........I will hear something on a track that triggers a desire for a 'different' perspective?
This may entail the 'radical' shift to my other turntable with a totally different arm and cartridge 'type'?

Most audiophiles don't use 'tone-controls' or equalisers and need to change a component or cable to effect a change in sound to their set-up?
Imagine being able to do that every hour of the day...every day of the week?

Yes...my choices are now vast compared to most audiophiles....but the increase in my knowledge and listening experiences allows for a greater appreciation of the variations and diversities which make up this intriguing hobby?
Anyway....that's my story and I'm sticking to it?! :-)

Cheers
Henry

Henry, this reminds me of an experience with the Cello Pallette equaliser, where in the hands on a record producer it was a very good tool for poorly mixed records and did give more insight and enjoyment from the music.
I would have thought that if you find the optimum arm for each cartridge, then just switch those combinations - much less stress and dare I say it a move towards minimalism.

Dear Henry, So far as I can overlook our members only Thuchan and Raul will really understand your effort. The rest of us can only repeat after Hawking ('History of time'): 'to many variables'.

Regards,

Addition. With so many variables one can forget about the
constants. Why do you assume 'constant records' while the distance between the modulated inner groove and the spindle is variable? What is the sense of '0' point at an position on the record with no modulated grooves? I thought that
the different tonearm geometries are about those 'o' points. Ie we are supposed to have the choice among them. That is to say where on the record we want them.
My idea is to have Stivenson and Bearwald and then select
one of them by each LP depending from the mentioned distance.

Regards,