Schroeder vs. Triplanar VII Sonic Differences


All,

I have read a lot of threads regarding the "superiortiy" of these tonearms in the right combinations of tables and catridges. However, there doesn't seem to be a lot said about the soncic characteristics of each brand and the differences between them. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about their strengths and weaknesses, sonci characteristics, applicability to various types of music (rock, pop, classical, large scale, small scale, etc).

Will a Schroeder deliver dynamics, punch, bass suited to Rock music? Will a Triplanar deliver natural, timbral accuracy? Are both these arms suited to the same music?

Thanks in advance,

Andrew
aoliviero
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!
Sirspeedy,

With regard to your first point, Triplanar has now released a Version 2 of the Triplanar VII that has a vernier like gauge on the headsheel/VTA assembly that allows dialing in a specific setting much better.

I wish I could attach a picture but would be happy to send it to you.

With regard to your second point, it does take some fiddling back and forth to get VTF just right. However, I don't think the Schroeder is any better in this regard.

Doug,

You have made the opinions you received on earlier versions through your private e-mail. I asked for the benefit of the others who were did not get your input. It may be on a previous answer to one of the many threads on the subject. In summary, you have received lot's of input noting that the VII vedrsion is much nbetter than previous versions. Therefore, Tbg's comment may be a little outdated.
Sirspeedy,

Although I don't think this is an issue (see below), the one disadvantage in adjusting VTF on a Schroeder is that minor changes in azimuth may arise since they are controlled by the same mechanism. This isn't the case with the Triplanar since VTF and Azimuth are controlled by separate mechanical mechanisms.

I'm not sure how much of an issue this is. Ultimately the excellent sonic signature of the Schroeder arm will likely greatly outweigh a minor shortcoming like this. I have nothing but awe about the Schroeder. There are adjustment pro's and con's with any arm. Some are certainly better than others in this regard. The Graham just to name one seems like a great arm in terms of adjustment.

Everyone has a diffiernt level of patience to dial an arm in perfectly. Thoms' comments made earlier speak to this perfectly. I for one am willing to take the "trouble" to ultimately achieve top performance.

I suspect that an arm's basic sonic signature will shine through and overide the end result despite being slightly off optimum settings.