Used Morch DP-6 or modified Origin Live Silver?

Very interesting. Let me ask a few questions further, if you will.

By all accounts, the heavier counterweight on the OL Silver and other Rega-based arms is accepted as a worthwhile mod. So much so that one sees, "worth its weight in gold" and other such comments in testimonials. Given such wide acclaim, why, in your opinion, did OL not incorporate this feature or something similar into the design of the Encounter and Illustrious? For the price, these arms SHOULD be more than a degree or two better that the Silver. Would seem to have been a no-brainer based on the sales records of that mod alone. Suppose it is a blind adherence to one's own design? Wouldn't be the first time that has happened!

If, in your estimation after comparing, the Encounter outperforms the Silver, what then? Of course, it would depend on the degree. Just a wee better would give the nod to the Silver as having more value. But, if it is more than that, do you try to tweak the tweaks for the Silver to make it match, apply tweaks to the Encounter to make IT even better, or both? :-)

There are not a lot of independent reviews to be found on the Encounter and Illustrious at this point. One of the most glowing reviews was done by Stereo Times and Hi-Fi News . Some have criticized the reviewers as "being in bed with OL", but I haven't a clue. Anyway, even these thumbs up reviews cite play in the bearings with the arms, same as noticed in the Silver. I know there is a trade of between fluidity and stiffness with a gimbal arm but play seems unacceptable. Does your HiFi mod, in part, address this "looseness" in any manner. If so, would not the same type of mod prove beneficial to the more expensive, "better" arms. I guess I am wondering if there is possibly more hype than design in these arms.

With respect to the Encounter/Illustrious comparison. A visual inspection reveals that they are very similar, indeed. A different plate used as a arm pillar/tonearm rest support, one silver the other black, "gold" accents on the Illustrious. You mention that the Illustrious has upgraded wiring. The website for OL claims not cost pared in materials for the arm tube and bearing with respect to the Illustrious. Yet, they look the basically the same. Since it is somewhat hard to find information on these arms, other then the OL site itself, do you have the skinny on these two? Are the arms tubes, bearings of a different composition, etc.? I have asked these questions of some internet dealers and found the responses somewhat vague.

Oh, one more thing, and anyone please jump in here. OL arms up to the Silver have been seen as a true VALUE in the sense of performance/cost ratio. If the law of diminishing returns has set in with the Encounter and Illustrious, does this mark a change in philiospohy of OL to focus more on profit, or is it more likely a failed attempt to improve design? I am not saying this is the case, but if Tom's suppositions prove true, it would call into question the value statement.

David, I think those are some good questions. Here are some answers.

First the counterweight. Mark Baker feels that the offset counterweight(Heavyweight) is not all it's cracked-up to be, and in some ways he's correct. While it solves some things, it causes other problems. The first thing is, that it places the bulk of the mass down lower near the plane of the record, which is where it should be, and that improves tracking and cartridge damping. That is a plus, and why people like it.

With the traditional "donut style" counterweight, there is no change that occurs when the arm is moved up and down by warps, during play. This is because as the arm moves vertically, the top of the counterweight tilts rearward, and the bottom tilts forward in equal amounts, thus keeping all forces equalized during the attitude changes of the arm tube.

Conversely, the offset counterweight(Heavyweight) has the arm tube going through a hole that is not centered, and thus as the arm changes attitude vertically, the lower part of the counterweight(below the arm tube) moves more than the upper part(above the arm tube). This causes changes in the tracking force during warp riding. That's not so good.

So you have some good and some bad with each design. I think that my tests have shown me that when tracking warped records are not the main goal, but just better performance with a normal record is the goal, then I like the Heavyweight better for sound. And I don't know that the Heavyweight is really any heavier in mass than the original counterweight. It may be a little, but nothing much more. It is primarily the positioning of the majority of the mass in the counterweight below the arm, that is the difference. I think that the "Heavyweight" name is more of just a marketing name, than a description of the mass of it.

The hanging counterweight addresses these issues and also a few more. The hanging counterweight puts all the mass below the arm, and all of it at exactly the right spot, at the height of the record surface. This is ideal for the location of the mass, and you can't get any better than that. Second, the mass always remains equal and "stationary" in counterbalancing force, no matter what the vertical attitude of the arm is. This is because the hanging counterweight is like a "plumb bob" and stays "plumb" under the arm tube. It is hung by a line, so that the force is applied at the same point under all circumstances, no changes in tracking force, and it remains "plumb" under the arm. It also decouples the large mass from being right on the arm tube, and this sounds alot better to my ears, than having the big heavy mass bolted right to the arm tube. The only "hitch" is that the line wants to move around on the end-stub when you move the arm around for cueing. In order to stop this, I added a rubber O-ring on the end-stub shaft, in the correct spot for the tracking force, to keep the line located and not shifing position. This worked great. It didn't sound quite as good with the O-ring on there, but it wasn't much difference, and made it alot easier to live with.

I don't think it's "blind adherence" to an approach on Mark Baker's part, as much as it was a decision to keep the arm forces equal in all ways, during all types of playing conditions. But for my system, I would personally change to the Heavyweight for my own preferences. That is, if I weren't using my hanging counterweight.

Now about the comparison. If the Silver doesn't win out in the comparison, I'll be a little disappointed, but like you point out, it is still a great value for the money. I don't think that I'll try to tweak it out any further, because of that. What I'll do, is to try the hanging counterweight on the Encounter and see what that does for it. If I can get the Encounter to do even better with that counterweight, then maybe I'll try that combination on my table. I can't afford an Illustrious right now.

But I really am optimistic that the "Silver Bullet" will win out.

I don't have the "skinny" on the materials differences between the OL arms. I don't think anyone does. I think that information is proprietary to OL. I don't doubt their word that improved materials were used. However, I do think that since basically the same design, shapes, and concepts are uses in both the Encounter and Illustrious, that they will have a strong "family resemblance", with the Illustrious benefitting from some better resonance characteristics of the materials used, and probably better care taken in the adjustments of the critical bearing clearances. It wouldn't suprise me to find that there is not really a hell of alot of difference in the sounds of these 2 arms. I'd call the Illustrious a "refined" Encounter.

Regarding the amount of pre-adjusted bearing "play" or "looseness" in the OL arms, it is only in the bearing that controls the pivoting of the arm, and not in the ones that are actually on the axle with the arm. I was also concerned about this when I first got the arm, but when I heard it, I was no longer concerned. Apparently, there is something about it that makes it work right. However, my HiFi mod will act to keep this bearing centered well, like the balance pole does for a tightrope walker. I can only say that OL is obviously capable of properly adjusting bearing clearances, so they must feel that making the play in this one bearing has a beneficial effect on the sound. I think it is a little odd, but it does work. They tell you about it in the literature, and specify that you shouldn't attempt to tighten it up.

Regarding you last question about the value, and diminishing returns aspect, I think that the Encounter and Illustrious have the criteria to be better than the standard Silver arm, in some key areas. I am sure that they are. What, exactly, the differences in the Encounter and Illustrious arms are, is somewhat vague, but there has to be an improvement in the Illustrious, and I'll bet that it is primarily in the wiring and the tighter hand-adjusted clearances on the axle bearings.

The only reason that any of this is even called into question, is really because of the existence of my HiFi mod. Without that, there would be no talk about whether they are better arms than the Silver. They clearly are better in stock form. Now there is something that can be added to the Silver that has the function of increasing the abilities of that arm in a similar manner to what the benefits of the higher models have. And it is possible, but not proven yet, that the HiFi mod may in fact have some added benefits that can make it into head-to-head competition with these higher model arms. And with the hanging counterweight, it may make the comparisons even more interesting. I think that the discussion, really, is not whether the better OL arms are great arms, which they clearly are, but whether the low cost HiFi mod can be a better cost value to achieve much or all of the same ends as buying a more expensive arm. I really think that is going to turn out to be the case. No knock on the OL arms, but more of an accolade to a cheap effective mod. Sometimes these things happen.

Just for information purposes, the OL dealer that is supplying me with this Encounter arm, has spoken with Mark Baker about my HiFi mod. He said Mark said it "was a very good idea". Of course, Mark Baker is the chief designer for the OL tonearms. That made me feel pretty good.

Tom, mucho obligoto for your most considered and detailed reply. Look forward to hearing your impressions and how the hanging counterweight "shakes out", as it were! :-)

Well, I just received the package from OL. Very interesting. There is an Aurora turntable, and Encounter Tonearm, and another very interesting little item. It is a new version of the Silver, called the Silver II. And guess what? It has a factory-made version of the HiFi mod on it. You heard right. A factory version of the HiFi mod on the new Silver II tonearm.

They have replaced the end-cap nuts of the bearing axle with some larger weights that are obviously intended to add to the lateral mass component of the tonearm.

Of course, I'm not sure what to think about this, as I think imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However, I am not involved at all in this new addition to the Silver tonearm. I can say that the weights are significantly smaller than the ones I use.

I guess that I'll put this to the test along with the other stuff. Kinda took some of the fun out of it. I'm going to talk this over with the guys that want me to evaluate these things.

Tom, I hope that you sent a certified letter to yourself with a drawing of the HiFi mods. Could be grounds for litigation.... ;-)