Schroeder arms: order of merit?

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

Well, there will be various opinions about it, I compared it to a Graham 2.0 ( with a Miyabi ) and for me it was different, but not better.
Anyway, there is a endless thread in vinyl asylum, probably you will find there some info:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/370936.html

SORRY!I feel pretty confident that anyone who does not have his/her "boat floated" by the 2.2's performance(not having anything to do with the excellence of the other arms,mentioned here)has definitely NOT had enough "Extensive" experience(coming from having spent your own money on one,so you're stuck with it,until you get it right)with the incredible degree of voicing options,that the "pain in the ass,but a blessing in disguise" damping fluid offers!!This along with the fabulous,and incredibly accurate,and repeatable other parameters offered in dialing it up.I can't buy into an arm(though I'm speculating,ONLY)that "voices", partly,to having the tightness of the cartridge mounting screws "variable".Why would I NOT want them tightly set in place,for maximum rigidity,and the elimination of potential resonances,over time?

Also,sorry Larry.You know I love you,but,I bet at the time of the 2.2 comparisons with the Schroeder(and you know I love that arm,so PLEASE don't anyone kill me,for a few ADMITTED speculations)you didn't really have the full feel of the Graham's "voicing" potential!Why do I feel that you or Doug will say otherwise!!

I know this comes off a bit "over the top",but I'm still learning the capabilities of the 2.2, to this date,and I love ALL the other arms mentioned.Well maybe the Robin isn't pricey enough!Just kidding!!

Now we've stirred the pot!Let's see what comes of it!Heh,heh,heh!!!

.
Sirspeedy,
.
I am a big fan of the Graham 2.2 and spent a good deal of time working on the damping fluid after reading your and 4yanx posts (and prior to hearing 3 Schroder Arms in my system) on the value and how to find the ideal damping fluid. Getting the damping fluid correct, made a huge improvement in the sonics (I completely agree with you).
.
I think Mr. Graham's designs are excellent and he is a good guy (and that is important to me). I love the phenomenal ease of adjustability of his arms. Adjusting the VTA on the fly is a dream. I was even more impressed with the design of his Phantom, but I did not have the benefit of hearing it in my own system and can’t give any valid feedback of how it sounded.
.
I still have the Graham 2.2 in my system and get great sound/music out of it. The fact that I liked what any of the Schroder Arms did for my system considerably better as compared to the 2.2, does not lower my opinion of the 2.2.
.
There was a room full of 8 people that were 100 percent in accord with the fact that they preferred all 3 of the Schroder Arms : the Model 2, DPS and Reference over the Graham 2.2. It was not even a bit of a debate. Does that make the 2.2 a mediocre arm ? Hardly, I think it is a terrific arm and a good value. I just think the Schroder Reference is an amazing tonearm. Will I get a Schroder at some point ? Yes, as soon as I can and it will be a Reference.
.
When you have had a Schroder in your system (perhaps even with a UNIverse) and been able to compare them side by side at the same time, listening to the same LP's, I think you might stop being so cynical and will sing a different tune. At this point, you are just twisting at Windmills (but you seem to enjoy it so).
.
Warmest Regards,
Larry
.

Hello sirspeedy,
The Graham 2.2 is an excellent arm, no doubt. Like all other top flight tonearms, it requires meticulous care in setup and I can tell that you have spent alot of time squeezing the last bit of performance out of it. But, other people put up just as much of an effort, so I'd be careful to dismiss their findings based on the assumption that you were the only guy in class to do his homework.
Now to a technical question. Why would you not want to have your cartridge screws tightly set(as in "one step before stripping the screw head") to eliminate resonance? Because tightening down those screws doesn't eliminate resonances(well, unless you have a flimsy headshell and a cartridge with a rigid, flat top surface body). What you do is create a "quicker" path for the vibratios coming from the cartridge to travel down the headshell/armwand/brearing assembly. Those vibrations have to "die out"(be dissipated) without exciting any resonances in the tonearms structure and/or being "bounced back" to the cartridge. If the arm features a high sound propagation speed and high rigidity headshell/armwand, keeping the cartridge screws quite tight seems the logical thing to do and sometimes is. The spectrum of vibrations fed into the armwand does vary from cartridge to cartridge though and often the energy transfer(both in terms of level and frequency content) can be influenced(I dare not say "controlled")by varying the coupling between the cart and the headshell.
In the case of the DPS and Reference arms, it is not the cartridge screws that are to be played with but the screw that holds/couples the headshell plate to the armwand. The brass sleeve inside the wooden headshell section(normally not visible) is slightly less "tall" than the headshell itself and allows the screw head to continually compress the wood until it hits the sleeve, which is the point when you've reached just as tight a coupling as with conventional arms. So instead of 15-20° from barely grabbing to "tight as a tax officers you know what", you have about half a turn of the screw to play with.
Please remember also that my arms do not depend/rely on the dissipation of energy in the arms mounting board. Here, maximum sound propagation is not as important as maximum and even damping to prevent vibrations being reflected back to the cart. And while there can be too much bearing damping, there is no such thing as an overly nonresonant tonearm structure(unless you prefer a certain "lively" arm sound).
If you'd criticize this adjustment option as a "voicing" tool, then VTA adjustment, silicon fluid damping or the choice of mounting board material fall into the same category.
I realize your remark was meant more as a tease, but thought this issue might be of general interest, hence my reply.

Greetings to all of you,

Frank