Schroeder arms: order of merit?

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!

Gosh, I'm not quite sure where to start ... let's consolidate:

1. To Gmorris:

I'd love to know how you can consider my comments in my original post June
24th on to be "patronizing if not condescending" (as you stated on 06-30).
From that June 24th post:

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.

It is because of my confidence in Bob's capabilities, coupled with what I
know to be a different approach to reproduction (and therefore his ability
to realize this aesthetic at a higher level in the Phantom) that has me not
rushing out to hear the Phantom. In due time, I will get to hear it, but I
have so much on my plate at the moment, that it is nowhere near the top of
my list.

Will I play with a Phantom at some time? Absolutely! We all have to play
triage with our time, however. I have a new platter and armboard to
develop, and it's the peak of the bicycling and climbing season here in
Colorado.

It is exactly because I know that Bob has a vision and knows how to manifest
it into reality that makes me less than anxious to carve time I don't have
in order to try one. If a vineyard produces excellent Merlot, but you don't
like Merlot, would you rush out to buy 5 cases? I think not. Could the
wine be so good that you become converted to Merlot? Possibly.

2. To Speedy:

I think we're in complete agreement. My comments about tubes and cartridges
was intended to say that a good design (an amplifier, or a turntable/tonearm
combo) should not depend on high quality tubes and cartridges in order to
convey the musical truth.

I absolutely agree with you that these designs benefit greatly from choice
tubes and cartridges. The comment was directed at designs which throw
boutique components at a problem instead of implementing solid engineering
practices.

In the realm of weird, good tubes, I've been wrestling with a line stage
design which uses the 71a tube - a directly heated triode. My buddies are
using an even more esoteric tube for their version of this line stage - a
Telefunken RS-241. Still, I go back and forth with the circuit - plugging
in garden variety 6SN7's, 12B4A's and 1626's, because if it sounds bad with
these tubes, I know I'm doing something wrong. The final design (if I ever
finish) will most definitely use special tubes.

Again ... I should really consider carrying the Graham or at least sourcing
it for my customers. I have no right to dictate (and it's not my intention)
this fine a degree of taste to anyone.

3. To Albertporter:

You are absolutely correct about the alignment system. Conceptually it is
brilliant and well implemented. I think that it affords the type of fellow
who does not pay great attention to setup, the opportunity to get much
closer than they normally would.

The problem with the alignment jig arises from the fact that it depends on
precisely dialing in the pivot to spindle distance by plugging the hole in
the headshell into a plastic extension that is fit over the record spindle.

This would work perfectly with a fixed bearing tonearm. With the unipivot,
there is inherent rocking, and you cannot get this pivot to spindle distance
setting "nuts on". When I used this technique and then verified it with my
protractor, the overhang was off by a bit over a millimeter.

My advice to people is to experiment for themselves and see what works.

If you get a chance, you should come up to the Rocky Mountain Audiofest
http://www.audiofest.net/ at the end of September. Allocate a
few extra days and catch the changing season in the high country. It's a
truly spectacular time of year. You'll get to hear a Walker in the Red Rock
Audio room. Lloyd will be there and have set it up. I'd love to meet you.

4. To Cello (Larry):

I'm an ex New Yorker. After some 15 years in Colorado, does it still show
(cheek bulging from tongue - likely in conjunction with size 9.5 foot firmly
planted in mouth).

5. To Thomasheisig:

Two things that may not be apparent is that for many small manufacturers and
distributors - audio is not their primary business. If it were, we'd all be
on welfare. Truth be told, I have no good reason to promote Schroeder
tonearms because we all as resellers can get very few on an annual basis.
My 2005 annual allotment almost sold out. It is more in my best interest to
carry as many brands and sell the product which requires the least support
and makes me the most money. From this perspective, I am acting against my
own best interest by not selling the Graham.

As far as taking risks and submitting my products for review, I have done
this. While my 'table received "only " a Class B rating from Stereophile, I
expected nothing more from a reviewer who still maintains that the Linn
Sondek is the single machine that cures all of the world's ills. Truth be
told, the only reason I submitted to the review was to lend an air of
"reality" to my small company - that it really exists. I knew all too well
that without being an advertiser that I would not a rating consistent with
the sound I know I'm producing.

If you are interested, you can read the review here:
http://stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1004listening/ and my
manufacturer's reply here: http://www.galibierdesign.com/rants_03.html.

6. To Flyingred:

Thanks for the encouragement. I ain't such a bad guy when you get to meet
me.

Yes, the new Internet model allows crazy guys with more passion than common
sense to build and sell gear having entry point into an industry that did
not exist 10 years ago. We all win with this new model.

I think that forums like this provide a 2-way feedback loop (sometimes
feedback can be good) by blurring the line between manufacturer and
consumer. I have an extensive rant about this on my blog
(http://www.galibierdesign.com/blog.html#20050601) if you're interested. I won't bore you more with it here.

In forums like this, we all learn valuable lessons from each other as well
as making new friends who share our passion.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier