Has anyone had experience with the Schroeder Arm


In a high res setup has anyone been able to compare this arm to the top pivoting competition.I think that the fact that the pivot is magnetic as opposedto a bearing like a unipivot(needing damping) should on paper be less resonant and maybe sound better.I currently own,and,am happy with a Graham 2.2,but the idea of a true frictionless bearing (all bearings have some degree of friction)really could make a real difference in a good setup.I'm not interested at the moment in straight line trackers with air bearings (although I love some of them)due to the hassle of external pumps and tubing runs.
sirspeedy
HAD ONE GOT A GRAHAM IT BLEW IT AWAY..I KNOW THR PHANTOM IS EVEN BETTER GET A PHANTOM THIS ARM WILL BURY THE SCHROEDER.AS THE GRAHAM 2.2 IS JUST AS GOOD...
Hello Ebm,

Statements like
"HAD ONE GOT A GRAHAM IT BLEW IT AWAY"
don't help the reader in any way.

Having lived with the Graham 2.2 (Benz Ruby 2, Denon DL103R), I can state that it is a very fine tonearm. Subjectively however, when moving to a Schroeder Reference, a degree of tension melts away. You come to realize that you were clenching your teeth when listening to the 2.2.

Now, music is all about tension and release, but it's not this sort of which I speak. Rather than labor over this topic here, the reader is invited to check the following link if you're interested:


a rant on musical ease and realistic presentations
.

Having said all of this, I'd be happy to demonstrate and sell any of you a Galibier Quattro with the arm of your choice, but if you ask me, that choice should be a Schroeder, with the Triplanar following closely.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
Thom,
Assuming either is coupled with your table, how would you describe the difference in both sound and use of the Tri-Planar vs. the DPS?
Thanks for contributing here, it is appreciated! Cheers,
Spencer
Hello Ebm,
The information content of your post is diametrically opposed to your use of caps. Maybe for the benefit of everyone here, you´d care to elaborate under which conditions(table, cart, etc.) you performed your comparison. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Graham Phantom is an improvement over the 2.2, otherwise, why would Bob Graham go through the hassle of introducing a new top of the line model. But the Phantom is so new that I am rather cautious regarding bold statements such as yours when you couldn´t have had a lot of time to gain experience with it(as in: using it with different carts and decks).

Curious,

Frank Schröder