Schroeder vs. Triplanar VII Sonic Differences

In looking at your interesting letters, I just couldn't resist jumping in with a plug for the Phantom (what else?) The arms you're discussing - worthy contenders, both - are quite different in design approach from the path we've chosen with the Phantom. And the sonics will be quite different, too - and, if I may be so bold, we believe it to be highly accurate and less system-dependent to get the best out of it.
One other area we need to touch on is delivery: it's no secret that, sometimes, the demand exceeds our supply. At those times, and this is only when we're waiting for OUR suppliers (machine shops, etc) to get their act together and deliver on-time, we have to tell customers it will take an extra month or two. Believe me, I hate that, as we would like to process orders and ship within 1-2 weeks maximum; and I promise you, we're doing all we can to correct our own supply chain, but still maintain the aerospace level of quality that I demand. We're approaching that now, with new vendors and even improved quality from our earlier high standards. With an in-house production capacity of around 15 arms per week (all hand-made, mind you) this should even take care of the upcoming Impulse Buyers!
Please pardon the obvious commercial message here, but I think it's important to let the Discussion Groups know what we're doing to make our products - and our service - even better.
Happy Spring! - Bob Graham

Tbg,

You mentioned that in your evaluations a Schroeder (likely the Dps model) was better and more dynamic than an earlier Triplanar. Do you remember which model Triplanar?

Dougdeacon,

To put Tbg's comments in perspective, can you shed any additional light as to how older Triplanars compare to the Mark VII version?

Rwd,
At the time, the Galibier Quattro and the Quattro Supreme represented Thom's two offerings. As can be assumed by the name, the Supreme was top dog.

When purchasing the Quattro, I did upgrade to the Aluminum/Teflon Composite platter. But that could have been done anytime after the sale.

Recently, because Thom quite actively supports his existing customer base, he and I have been discussing the conversion of my platter to the new Stelvio, which incorporates graphite "Tunable Platter Interface".

I never compared the Quattro and the Supreme. As I understood at the time, differences were very subtle.

As an aside, I just have to share my plight. I’m having withdrawal pains. One of my CAT monoblocks is in the “hospital” and the HT room is NO substitute for the audio room. So I’m spending far too much time on this confounded PC, rather than critically listening…..sigh….!

Mike

Aoliviero,

I haven't heard any TriPlanar except the VII. You already know my take on it vs. all the current Schroeders.

Not to try to create a bad vibe,but the Triplanar does have some important warts,that the mfgr has NOT,to my knowledge corrected.Since so many of us are so critical about the most minute detail of analog,I have to mention two of them,and would be a bit surprised if(unless they have been corrected)owner/defenders got uptight.
Firstly,the VTA "dial" on top,has too much play.It is useless in terms of "sighting" in a numerical setting,and being able to "for sure",go back to it by sight.Sure it can,and should be set by "ear",but after having an arm that is supremely accurate here,after owning the Triplanar,the accuracy and repeatability can easily be appreciated,and is more than easily dismissed!
Secondly,since it has become almost painfully obvious,how incredibly small amounts of downforce(1/100's of a gm)can affect sound quality,in a really good rig,the Triplanar's "hunt and seek" twisting/pushing of the counterweight is,let's say "not fun".Especially if you want to zero in on specific downforce weights.Once again,when you have had an arm that does this much more accurately,and easily,it becomes "more" of a big deal.There are arms of similar performance,and maybe a bit better,that offer these features.
None of this is of earth shattering importance if one doesn't mind fotzing around,in some cases for an afternoon!Obviously,the Triplanar is a wonderful arm,or it would not be so popular.I DID like mine.ALOT!!
Also,my Graham 2.2 is FAR from perfect,though it dispenses with the problems I just mentioned (the criticality of that darn fluid is not a "fun thing",if you want to go all the way,with performance)and the cartridge choices can be somewhat limited,which I'm not wild about.Yet,it is a HECK of alot better than many 'scribing here can/will know.I have no axe to grind,regarding any of the great arms,we all love to talk about,and am not going to "go off" about anything,like the past,but fair is fair!
Truthfully,I believe any of our favorite arms,discussed in these threads,will have their own specific idiosyncracy(hope I spelled that OK),but we DO lean,a bit too much to the "chosen few".That's perfectly OK with me,btw.I love to ponder them all!!

Best!