Thoughts and Observations on Tonearm Design
Analog vinyl is my favorite mode
of sound reproduction. I liken it to an oil painting while a digital CD can be compared to a newspaper photo: the dots
are very precise, but they can't "flow" like the brushstrokes on an oil painting. Hence, analog vinyl has, I think,
a warmer sound. Others must agree, accounting for the increased sales of vinyl gear in recent years. Vinyl refuses to die.
Many years ago I bought a Thorens TD-124 and a high quality tonearm to go with it. They served me well for decades.
Then, about six years ago, the tonearm wiring came apart and couldn't be repaired. Buying a new tonearm seemed to be
the only solution. Never having looked for tonearms, I had no idea what to expect. Needless to say, I was shocked by the high
prices and puzzled because a tonearm appeared to be a basic, straight-forward, simple instrument that should sell at a reasonable
price. Why did all the arms look so complex? Were all those parts and pieces really necessary? Did they contribute to better
performance? I found no answers.
Further investigation convinced me that designing and building
a tonearm was, indeed, possible. I had never done this before but, as an industrial designer, I had spent a career designing
or re-designing products I had little or no familiarity with or, in the case of a new invention, that no one had even seen.
The first question was always the same: what is the desired end result? For a tonearm, the desired end result would allow
the cartridge to move horizontally (swivel) and vertically (fulcrum) through the record with the least possible friction.
Other things such as adjustable tracking force, adjustable azimuth, and VTA were necessary, but these were features, not functions.
What was it going to look like? I had no idea and, at this point, I really didn't care. What mattered was fulfilling
So I started work on a prototype.
Tonearm Design, Page 2 Next