Another vote for the TriPlanar. As Nsgarch said, today's top cartridges respond to very precise adjustments in every parameter. Few arms can match the TriPlanar in its ability to optimize every aspect of setup. The better and more resolving the system, the more this will matter.
Gregadd is right that VTA-on-the-fly can compromise rigidity, but of course every tonearm is a bundle of compromises. The question for each of us is, "Which of the available compromises will have the fewest and smallest sonic negatives for me?"
The TriPlanar's potential lack of rigidity does not translate into any significant loss of dynamics or bass as far as I can tell. Its microdynamics and speed are better than any other arm we've heard. Before we chose the TriPlanar we demoed the Basis Vector, Graham 2.2, all three Schroeders and the SME V.
The SME V lacks easy, repeatable height adjustment. Since this adjustment varies with each record it must be set by listening. Having to cue the arm up and down while trying to find the right setting wouldn't work for me. Nor would I want an arm where I couldn't instantly return to a height known to be good for a particular LP. YMMV of course. If you don't easily hear the differences that VTA/SRA make, this won't matter much to you.
The SME V also lacks azimuth adjustment. This would be another non-starter for me. Cartridges are never perfect. Fine tuning azimuth for a cartridge is essential for achieving good stereo separation.
IIRC, the SME also lacks any real ability to adjust cartridge alignment angle. Again, cartridges aren't always perfect. Headshell holes instead of slots confer no sonic advantage, but they do make aligning an imperfect cartridge difficult or impossible.
The suggestion that an SME V might be more synergistic with an SME table sounds plausible, but what exactly does that mean? The only thing an armboard and plinth can do for a tonearm is provide a pathway for draining resonances. If the arm's design is such that few resonances reach the mounting plate, then this pathway is of little use. Perhaps the SME's one-piece armtube needs such a pathway. But the TriPlanar's armtube is thrice-decoupled from the mounting plate. Once by the azimuth yoke, once by the bearing tube yoke and once by the VTA tower. Resonances from the arm simply won't reach the armboard, so what "synergy" is there?
I'm not sure why Raul thinks a VTA mechanism needs a remote control to be useful. Mine works just fine, and I don't have to stop listening to music to use it! :-)
Thomasheisig's suggestion of the DaVinci was intriguing. I've never seen one, but the photos look very interesting.
Gregadd is right that VTA-on-the-fly can compromise rigidity, but of course every tonearm is a bundle of compromises. The question for each of us is, "Which of the available compromises will have the fewest and smallest sonic negatives for me?"
The TriPlanar's potential lack of rigidity does not translate into any significant loss of dynamics or bass as far as I can tell. Its microdynamics and speed are better than any other arm we've heard. Before we chose the TriPlanar we demoed the Basis Vector, Graham 2.2, all three Schroeders and the SME V.
The SME V lacks easy, repeatable height adjustment. Since this adjustment varies with each record it must be set by listening. Having to cue the arm up and down while trying to find the right setting wouldn't work for me. Nor would I want an arm where I couldn't instantly return to a height known to be good for a particular LP. YMMV of course. If you don't easily hear the differences that VTA/SRA make, this won't matter much to you.
The SME V also lacks azimuth adjustment. This would be another non-starter for me. Cartridges are never perfect. Fine tuning azimuth for a cartridge is essential for achieving good stereo separation.
IIRC, the SME also lacks any real ability to adjust cartridge alignment angle. Again, cartridges aren't always perfect. Headshell holes instead of slots confer no sonic advantage, but they do make aligning an imperfect cartridge difficult or impossible.
The suggestion that an SME V might be more synergistic with an SME table sounds plausible, but what exactly does that mean? The only thing an armboard and plinth can do for a tonearm is provide a pathway for draining resonances. If the arm's design is such that few resonances reach the mounting plate, then this pathway is of little use. Perhaps the SME's one-piece armtube needs such a pathway. But the TriPlanar's armtube is thrice-decoupled from the mounting plate. Once by the azimuth yoke, once by the bearing tube yoke and once by the VTA tower. Resonances from the arm simply won't reach the armboard, so what "synergy" is there?
I'm not sure why Raul thinks a VTA mechanism needs a remote control to be useful. Mine works just fine, and I don't have to stop listening to music to use it! :-)
Thomasheisig's suggestion of the DaVinci was intriguing. I've never seen one, but the photos look very interesting.