Schroeder Reference Arm

Darn, this thread has taken off, and I plainly don’t have time to involve myself in the finer points of things analog.

I did want to take a moment to clarify a couple points of fact, as well as to comment about the Tri-Planar, which seems to be coming off as the red headed step child, even though this is unintended by the various posters. We have a tendency to try to read too much into each other’s written word, and sometimes this serves neither us, nor the product being discussed.

Our play session on Saturday night at this year’s ‘Fest (suite 1130 as always) is only now shaping up. Typically, Saturday evening sessions never start up before 8:30pm. We can never close the doors at 6pm on the dot, and the round-trip to dinner easily consumes two to two and a half hours.

Playing with two tonearms in this context is all that can reasonably be expected. In a short session like this (2-3 hours), the mind blurs, and we’ll no doubt want to try some different combinations. Frank typically brings some tasty cartridges to the show, so my guess is that there will be perhaps 2 or 3 setups on each arm.

As many have already commented, there will be no losers. Anyone who walks into this with an impression of a shootout, is sorely misguided.

Also, as far as involving Tri-Planar, Tri-Mai typically hosts some sort of event on Saturdays, so for this reason as well, we likely won’t bring a Tri-Planar into the mix. Don’t read anything beyond that into this.

As I work on the Stelvio II architecture, I’m wringing more and more out of the Tri-Planar along with every other arm. One of the key areas of improvement in the Stelvio II lies in the arm mounting architecture. I’m moving away from the pivoting armboard architecture, as I’ve wrung everything I can out of it. There will still be dual arm capability, btw.

Every arm I’ve experimented with on this new arm mounting architecture has benefited from it. Now, it just so happens that one of the Tri-Planar’s “weak” area lies in the upper mid/lower treble zone, where things can get the slightest bit bright. I hate writing this, because it is very, very slight. Keep in mind that I think enough of this arm to consider it (along with the Schroeder and Talea) as a reference. Still however, this upper mid/lower treble zone is *exactly* where most of the improvements in the new mounting architecture lie.

The other strength in this new architecture (I didn’t think this was possible) lies in the solidity and authority in the bottom end.

I didn’t intend this to be a sales brochure, but rather an attempt to bring a bit of fairness into the conversation about the Tri-Planar. Some of the observations about the arm seem to be a case of shooting the messenger. Where have we seen that before?

For the record, the room is shaping up as follows:

Galibier Stelvio II / Dyna XV1s or Artisan Cadenza (aka Benz LP S-class)
Atma-Sphere MP-1 Preamp
Atma-Sphere M-60 Amplifiers
Green Mountain Audio Speakers (new model, yet to be named)
Cables – either Audio Magic, Discovery, or Marigo

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

dear Thom,Frank and Joel: I know that in that night there will be not a shoout, there are not the best conditions/enviroment to do it but any way will be really interesting not only to hear it but to meet you and these great tonearm designers and of course all Agoner's.

Even that is not a shooout maybe you could take some ideas about if you can think could help to the whole purpose of that night:

- that both tonearms have the same kind of wire from cartridge pin connectors to phono stage. This sole factor IMHO preclude fair comparisons especially when attend so many " customer experts ". Frank and Joel could agree in which one for both.

- that both tonearm designers choose and agree in six-seven LP's tracks to make the listening test. Of course that after we heard that test will be a " free " listening/tracks/recordings time.

Anyway, looks like a great fun to come and a learning audio exercise. Good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Doug, I am thinking that I sounded snotty when I was preaching about scientific method. I apologize.

Does anyone know how the kuzma 4p or the Kuzma 313 tonearms fit in the ladder of superior tonearms? Here in Australia the Kuzma tonearms are well represented so there a few of us have them. Unfortunately the tonearms that you guys speak of have no distributor here.

Would love any feedback on your experience on the Kuzma arms.

Lew,

I always enjoy our discussions. Being challenged forces me to think more clearly and I need that. (If you knew Paul you'd appreciate how practiced I am at having my thinking challenged, successfully!) Your gracious apology is accepted, though certainly not expected or required.

I'm sure you appreciate that we're not going to subject ourselves to n=1,000 samples of crap just to statistically verify the crap we heard from n=1. Even reviewers don't do that and we're music lovers, not reviewers, even if one of us has a weakness for babbling on forums.

Completely agree that variables between systems and the ultimately subjective nature of music listening limit the extent to which scientific method can be applied when evaluating audio equipment. Subject to those limits however, as I think you agree, one can usefully apply a few basic scientific approaches. I suppose that's all I was trying to suggest.


Raul,

Interesting suggestion regarding tonearm wire. Whether the two designers will adopt it might depend on whether either of them offers their arm with different wire as an option. I imagine Joel and Frank each plan to demonstrate a tonearm that's actually available! If they don't offer the same wire to customers and if having different wire confuses the assessment of other performance characteristics during this (non) shootout, then so be it. :-)

Of course if they do offer the same wire your suggestion makes a great sense.