Schroeder arms: order of merit?

Just curious guys, I just read this whole stream of posts and wonder what extremes everyone went through to get these various arms set up and working their best.

The Graham in particular, I have owned three, is an excellent arm. Having switched to the Walker with linear track arm I don't miss any of them, but personally I got better performance from a Graham than several other great arms, including the AirTangent 10B and Triplanar.

First of all, if you are able to adjust the VTA on the Graham, your not hearing it correctly. The set screw MUST be tightened to get imaging correct. The arm will not adjust if the set screw is tight.

So, set VTA and tighten the screw.

If the factory washers under the head shell screws are present, REMOVE THEM. In fact, best to buy Allen head (non magnetic) screws and use a torque wrench to set the inch pounds correctly (Rega makes a great one), or again, you have not heard it's dynamic ability. While you’re at it, remove the finger lift off the Graham head shell. It resonates and tempts the user to set down the cartridge by hand rather than using the lift device.

Also, the alignment gauge for the Graham is not correct (in my opinion). The cart align is closer to correct for it and close to the formula used by Breuer Dynamic (CH) who's products I brought into the country some years ago (a great guy and a great tonearm for the time).

The Graham uses elastic materials in several places which tend to move with time. They store energy and after a set up is complete and listening begins in earnest, the settings can change ruining the end result.

I've seen the track force on a Graham 2.2 change 300ths of a gram in less than 10 minutes. This also effects VTL and azimuth as it is a unipivot.

This arm can be a pain in the ass to get perfect, but when it is, its an excellent performer. How does it compare to the Schroder Reference? I haven’t a clue, never heard one in a situation where I could make a valid assessment.

More grist for the mill.

Thomasheisig I think you completely got the wrong end of the stick. If Thom Mackris's (or anyone else) intended to hype his product he could easily register in several other user ids and then use them to write rave reviews and recommend his product in response to every "what should I buy?" question.

I read Thom's posts with the same interest (and absence of BS filters) as those of Raul Iruegas', Jean Nantais' and Doug Deacon's. All share a passion for really good audio reproduction and have invested substantial amounts of time and money in pursuit of their goals and as such they have considerable experience to share.

You may have noticed that the growth of the usenet has allowed extreme audio hobbyists to find one another and develop an alternative, direct distribution channel. This gives us all access to equipment that is designed and built without the constraints of penny-pinching accountants or industrial engineers who insist on design for ease of assembly.

Having met Thom I know that he is refreshingly objective and honest when discussing an audio products' strengths and limitations. His approach is that of an enthusiast not a salesman.

Of course if you prefer to place your trust in the glossy magazines and the payola of display advertising that's your call. Btw, have you ever seen a product or brand that advertises regularly in a magazine get a bad review? I haven't.

I think it's to their credit that the 'boutique' manufacturers don't waste their resources on the lottery of audio reviewers, instead relying on personal auditions and referrals.

Albert,of the three 2.2's in my audio circle,ONE has had the problem of "slight" off adjustments,over a reasonable amount of time.Not 10 minutes,and it is possible that the owner's floppy,home made dustcover,could be the culprit.Maybe there was a flaw in some arms,that has been corrected.I've never heard of this,in the arms of more recent vintage.You make a great point,as to the VTA set screw.The set screw in the Triplanar,I thought(when I owned that arm)was much worse,in terms of audibility between tight vs non tightened.

The Graham manual,as of now,does mention the use vs non use of the washers,though they give the end user the option,mentioning that without the washers,you can scratch up the top,a bit.I guess it's a matter of owner decision.I like your little finger lift advice.I had mine off on the Triplanar,some years ago,but have left mine on the 2.2.Hmmm!Maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of it.Thanks.

NOW GET BACK TO WORK ON REPORTING YOUR FINDINGS ON THE DARN TUBED CROSSOVER,FOR THE MEGALINES!!I'm really fascinated with that speaker!!

Albert,
I have a bit more patience than Sirspeedy (since I no longer live in the N.Y / N. J. area) and can wait a bit longer for your comments.
Have fun !
.
Sirspeedy,
Do let us know when and if you take the finger lift off of your 2.2 and if you can perceive any sonic difference.

Rgds,
Larry
.

Yo!(well I do live in the tri-state NY area),might as well sound like a "New Yawka".I now realize why I decided to leave the little finger lift on the 2.2,when I set that arm up.

It WAS because,as you know Larry,and you probably forgot,Albert(and I don't blame you,since you have the FABS Walker),there is a small gap of about 2 inches that the arm travels,from arm rest to the cue bar(where one has to manually set it down).If the arm should slip,in that gap,Sayonara to the cantilever,possibly!I am a bit paranoid about that,so I'll probably keep my lift in place.Best of luck to all!