Having owned various terminator arms and wands from the very earliest days (the first having the angle for tracking the other way up) I think there are still some improvement opportunities for the wand. Principally by reducing the wand component count having the bridge and wand CNCed from a single piece of 3mm sheet. Also the pivot screws being loose might not help with signal headroom.
Once set up I found it very faff free and always excellent sounding.
If you do end up making your own wand please feel free to speak to me?
I got one of the versions with the moving pivot (as opposed to moving headshell or longer mounting slots). Fiddly, but I think better for precise geometry, so I wasn’t planning to change it.
I think it is a super gold.
Yes pump was a bit noisy but there are loads of almost silent air pumps for fish tanks now.
I think Rick is going to house it outside and run tube through the wall.
I think that the Decca’s are meant to work well in unipivots, maybe because of the very different compliance between horizontal and vertical? Would that be the same for the Terminator?
My Super Gold now lives in a modified Mayware MkIV on Rock II. Quite why they’re suited to unipivots i don’t know but they do seem to sound better in them. A mate has one in Morch which sounds very good.
I was thinking of the cartridge and its compliance, arms have effective mass don’t they? But you’re right that linear trackers should be more different h Vs v than unipivots. But aren’t unipivots more different than gimbal arms?
I hear this a lot, but I don’t really know what it means. I don’t see how a specific cartridge can create more energy, just a different profile of resonances
I was thinking that a unipivot normally has a mass close to the pivot that is low, to maintain stability. This would increase the vertical but not the horizontal effective mass. I think.
