I wish I could find the original post, but wonder if it’s been deleted for some reason. Anyway, even if the numbers are similar I was being very silly 
1 Like
why do Naim call it ARO2 then? If it wasn’t aligned design wise Naim would be guilty of misrepresenting it. No one can say how the 1 and 2 compare sonically because they can’t be mounted on the same turntable. A pity!
From what I can make of this, Naim permitted Clearaudio to use aspects the ARO design to remodel a completely new tonearm.
It was designed and built entirely by Clearaudio, with no input at all from Naim, Roy George or Guy Lamotte (who designed the ‘original’ ARO that so many users love).
PS: Richard Dane’s post below shows that I got some of that wrong!
I think the design is certainly similar in many respects and in principle (Otherwise why call it the ARO2), but there are differences - in particular the ARO2 loses the ability to easily remove and interchange arm assemblies - instead the entire arm, bearing and armboard are interchangeable. AFAIK there are no interchangeable parts between the original ARO and the ARO2*.
*there’s a possibility that the original counterweights may also fit the ARO2, although the parts are not the same.
2 Likes
Peter reckoned it was around 1350.
1 Like
Not entirely, the Solstice as a whole was a team effort - a collaboration between Naim (Roy as principle project head) and Clearaudio. That way both sides could bring their ideas to the table and create something very special as a consequence. For example, the suspension system has Roy’s hallmarks all over it, whereas the magnetic bearing is definitely something offered from the Clearaudio side.
3 Likes
Interesting that Clearaudio wouldn’t have capitalised on the cooperation and released a subsequent independent version for installation in other decks, but I guess there was/is an agreement precluding this or they decided it wasn’t commercially viable….
3 Likes
It’s a great shame, as the (original) ARO is streets ahead of any other tonearm that I have ever heard. Maybe, just maybe, it will come back again some time (but I’m not holding my breath!).
1 Like
That is the most likely, IMO.
I don’t think that the ARO2 (with its hugely overweight body) is of any great interest to anyone - it can only be used in a Solstice, and that is part of the package for (no doubt) satisfied buyers of that TT.
A return to the spec of the originalARO would be quite another thing - to quote M. Ali, floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee.
But we are told that this will not be possible.
1 Like
Designing and building an ARO ‘Mk3’, is clearly possible. BUT… would not likely be a viable, commercial proposition - for Naim Audio.
Thats the crunch… 
This circles back to my original post…… there seems to be a renewed interest,
Maybe it would be worth taking a renewed commercial view now?
just putting it out there……
The new SUPATRAC Blackbird seems to be gaining plaudits and is supposed to have some of the sound qualities of the (original) ARO, although I can’t confirm as I’ve never heard a S’Trac. This new solution to how a unipivot tone arm works is inspired, well I think so anyway, but not the prettiest arm on the market. IIRC, from the thread on another forum, Peter Swain now has one for evaluation as they are fully LINN LP12 compatible. From Roy Gregory’s review…
“I mentioned the 4Point and the Alphasons advisedly: they are in many ways the cream of the existing crop, irrespective of price. The Blackbird is very comfortable in that company… Where does it fit in the great pantheon of predecessors? You can point to arms like the Well-Tempered and the 4Point – and the Blackbird certainly embodies aspects of both, sonically and mechanically – but the arm that it most resembles to me, is the original ARO. It has the same sense of life and energy, the same easy range of musical expression and clarity. I haven’t done a side-by-side comparison and can’t remember the last time I heard an ARO that wasn’t on an LP12, but I suspect the Supatrac Blackbird betters the venerable Naim in every respect. But what makes me equate it to the ARO isn’t that they sound alike. Despite some shared characteristics, they sound very different to each other. What reminds me of the ARO is the way that the Blackbird stands against embedded orthodoxy.”
Well worth a look…
9 Likes
So just go back to the design of the ARO ‘Mk1’.
2 Likes
That must be one of the ugliest things that I have ever seen - extraordinarily cheap and nasty looking, no way is that a ‘new ARO’!
There’s something sticking up, looking a bit like a shoelace.
3 Likes
No, I can confirm the original C/w will not fit the ARO2.
KR,
Peter
The obvious closest arm to the Aro is the Tiger Paw Javelin, which, aside from the headshell and the inbuilt arm lift, looks remarkably like the original Aro. Very, very few of these were made. It is said that these outperform the original Aro. Here’s a photograph of one I found elsewhere on this forum - the photograph was originally posted by @VTA.
7 Likes
I must agree, that it one ugly tone arm.
Although we all strive to get the best sound that we can out of our Hi-Fi, there is also the aesthetics influence as well.
DG…
I have never heard it said, but I imagine that Naim may well have consulted intellectual property lawyers over the Tiger Paw Javelin.
It’s so obviously an ARO clone or copy that Naim could have brought legal action for copyright infringement, passing off and breach of patent and/or trademark legislation.