Schroeder arms: order of merit?

Another arm German afficionados have favorably compared to the Schroeder is the Scheu Tacco, which is considerably cheaper. See scheu-analog.de, there is an English version and contact, too.

As a DPS owner I have had the pleasure of email exchanges with Frank S. He described a DPS as 98% a Reference. The DPS does not have any fine VTA adjustment capability but this can be remedied with the effective Teres VTA adjustment device. The model one has been replaced by the DPS.

Lapaix,
.
I have a Graham 2.2 currently, but was fortunate enough to hear the Model 2, DPS and Reference, and Tri-Planar 7 along with my 2.2 on my table during one long weekend a few months ago with a group of friends.
.
We did extensive comparisons using the same LP’s.
.
The Model 2 was clearly better than my Graham 2.2;
.
The DPS was significantly better than the Model 2;
.
The Reference was clearly was superior to the Model 2.
.
I really liked the Tri-Planar 7 (which I understand from those that have heard both the older Tri-Planar's and Wheaton's, the model 7 is dramatically better than the older versions).
.
The Tri-Planar was fast, phenomenal in bringing out detail, soundstage and bass. The Tri-Planar 7 was close to the Schroder in certain areas such as dynamics and attack, but I clearly preferred the Schroder Reference to the Tri-Planar. In fact, I would even prefer the Schroder 2 Personally, I would prefer the Schroder 1 over Tri-Planar. It just was more musical and emotive. The whole Schroder line is just magical.
.
As an aside, I had the Basis Vector and preferred the Graham 2.2 over the Vector.
.
I know that the Reference was quite expensive, but I would think it terms of stretching for the Reference. My feeling is that one could be done with tonearms for life with the Reference and it might be cheaper in the long run. The DPS was not that far off the mark of the Reference and it would be a good second option. I believe that the Model 1 is available on special order.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

Excellent summary by Cello.

The Reference has a lower noise floor than any arm I've heard. Instrumental timbres, overtones, decays and hall information are amazingly good. The TriPlanar comes close, but doesn't quite match it. The DPS is a hair behind that and the Model Two somewhat farther back, though still very, very good.

Personally I place the TriPlanar VII just below the Reference and above the DPS, but it's definitely a matter of taste and system synergy. Cello's listening room tends to emphasize the TriPlanar's relative strengths (transient speed). In a lively environment many people would find it a bit too fast, almost edgy.

My room is more damped, so the TriPlanar's greater transient speed does not get emphasized into edginess.

Another caveat is cartridge synergy. The top Schroeder is capable of getting the best out of more cartridges than the TriPlanar. A ZYX works well on either arm, but a Shelter 901 on a TriPlanar sounds edgy and rather hifi. Yet on a Schroeder Ref it sings like a god.

Disclaimer: I'm the owner of the TriPlanar VII we used in that extensive comparison, so owner bias may influence my ears. OTOH, we bought the TriPlanar after hearing the Schroeder Ref. While we recognized the Ref's incomparable musicality, the TriPlanar's superb VTA adjustability was very important for our sonic priorities.

Doug pretty much hits the nail on the head with his description.

My take on Graham tonearms (extensive experience with both the 2.2 ceramic & the Robin), is that they are an expression of a different musical sensibility than either the Triplanar or the Schroeder.

Bob Graham is a great fellow and extremely competent engineer. The Robin embodies quite a large percentage of the performance of the 2.2 and Bob is to be congratulated for this. It's really quite an achievement. The arm gets unfairly dissed because of it's pedestrian appearance. Bob decided to put the engineering where it counted - in the sonics and not appearances. I think he made the right choices.

I had my Galibier deck reviewed by Art Dudley with a Graham Robin. The idea was to give him several points of reference from which to evaluate my turntable. Unfortunately (other than my brief visit where I fit a Schroeder to the deck for an evening's listening), the review period ended before I could deliver either a Rega or a Naim armboard to him. That's a whole 'nuther story however.

I've not experienced the Phantom, but I would expect more of the same from Bob, only better. Neither the 2.2 or the Robin suit my listening biases, but they may suit yours.I'd call them more of an audiophile's tonearm. They do everything right in terms of tracking the groove and they're incredibly easy to adjust. They don't however float my boat the way that either the Triplanar or the Schroeders do. Obviously, your mileage (and system) may vary.

Disclaimer: I may be slightly biased, because I sell both Schroeders and Triplanars, but I do so for a reason ... I believe in them.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier