Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Your spiel on the Dynavector arm ties back to another of your recent posts and it reminds me that few manufacturers of any genre really wind up caring about performance, per se, perhaps because there are so many other things to think about when introducing a product to the marketplace and then trying to keep it there at a level of profit that justifies operations.

 The Dynavector arm thread also ties back, I think, to my own observation that many bad ideas are borne of good research, or, in this case, many bad products are borne of good ideas.

 If I recall the Dynavector arm, it was double-articulated, predicated on the good idea that its horizontal mass would exceed its vertical mass.  In fact, any cartridge I heard in that arm sounded like a cartridge in that arm, “superior” design notwithstanding.

 Likewise the Souther arm, which was (of course) snapped up by Clearaudio.  In so far as I can tell, the only good thing about that arm was the idea, as the arm itself was fussy and flawed almost beyond comprehension, at least to the extent that it was expected to serve as a vehicle for a phono cartridge.

 We have spent a good deal of time bitching about tweeters, but I want to be sure we do not overlook the tonearms that make the several nice cartridges out there into noisemakers.

 OTOH, take away the noise and most audiophiles will find the presentation “lifeless”, which just about puts my kvetching into perspective, I think.

 Which leads us back, full circle, to your thought that the inherent, applicable worth of a product not only says little about its chances for success in the marketplace, but excellence, per se, may well prove a prime factor in sinking a given product at its launch.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site