Quincke tube adjustment

[emgcr]

My understanding is that Ginn, when founding Expert in 1930, was forced to revert to the goose-neck tonearm (with Quincke tube) as EMG held the (new) patents for the swan-neck equivalent. The latter instinctively seems to be a much more sensible design and I quite agree with the comments in relation to how sound waves (in a small diameter tube) seem to be able to negotiate right-angle bends (with additional interruptions) without any problem in the goose-neck system---against all intuitive logic ! However, when comparing the sound reproduction of the EMG Mk X (goose-neck) and EMG Mk Xa, b, Oversize (swan-neck) I have been unable to discern any difference. I have always kept these thoughts firmly in mind to promote humility and realise that they point to the fact that I know very little about sound engineering !

[IainW]

I must confess to just using the Quincke tube as a useful method of attaching a counterbalance arm.

The knurled ring is thread so that it screws onto the Quincke plug and I turned up a fitted washer so that the counterbalance arm rests in the horizontal position when in use. The rod itself slots into a hole drilled through the lower part of the knurled ring.

[emgcr]

More counterweight solutions :

[emgcr]

However, when comparing the sound reproduction of the EMG Mk X (goose-neck) and EMG Mk Xa, b, Oversize (swan-neck) I have been unable to discern any difference.

I perhaps ought to add that these comparisons were made utilising only one Oversize horn transferred onto the various base units. Additionally, it should be borne in mind that the Mk X and Xa have 2" shorter internal conduits when compared to those used in the Xb and Xb Oversize models. Once again, I could not detect any difference in sound output. Presumably EMG thought to increase the length as a logical development when introducing the larger horns ? Maybe younger ears would have been able to hear a difference but friends of all ages have also confirmed these thoughts and results.