Schroder sq and the new talea

Dan_ed, I agree with you. An improvement ( an improvement in the mere sense of the word ... sonically spoken..) is indeed (or should be...) apparent and clearly noticeable within a mere few minutes.
With tonearms anyway (even if there are souls out there believing that tonearms need hundreds of hours of break-in).
I for one do still believe (sounds better then "I know"...) that tonearm and cartridge ( if its an LOMC then add the matching SUT to the list ) do form ONE integrative mechanical spring/mass-system and none can be "judged" ( if at all ) - not in absolute terms nor in subjective - without the other.
However - the original idea to perform this comparison with the A90 was a GOOD idea, as this cartridge does offer a really good match (mechanical-wise) to either of the two tonearms in question.
For any future task like this - folks, RMAF 2011 is only a few weeks away...;-) .... - it shouldn't be too hard to arrange arrival in time for all contenders and a fixed set up with a TT giving space for two tonearms ( adjusted for the same geometry ?) accompanied by a preamp with two phono-inputs ( a switch...).
That would further eliminate the "equal-volume-question".
I am sure that Ortofon would be willing to provide two closely matched ( electrical-mechanical ) A90 for the next shoot-out.
But that shoot-out RMAF 2011 will be between the Talea MK2.2 vs Schroeder SQ Reference 3.1.
And I will certainly not wanna miss that show down.....

DT, That was exactly the situation in the Dobbins room, where one could listen to his "The Beat" direct-drive turntable with two Reed tonearms mounted. Both were connected to the same Allnic phono stage, etc. Speakers were MBL. The cartridges in use were the Verity Puritas and the A90. One could compare the two cartridges easily in that milieu, but there was still room for argument about proper VTA, VTF, etc. There always will be. And personal taste, listener bias, what your friend just told you, etc, will always affect one's idea of the outcome. But you know that already.

With all of this talk of a "repeat" for 2011, I need to comment that the Tri-Planar has been wronglly perceived as the red-headed step-child in all of this discussion - much as I have tried through all of this to emphasize otherwise.

The Tri-Planar is (to my ears), every bit as valid a reference component as anything I've heard from Frank's body of work.

Much as I tried to paint this otherwise, the Tri-Planar has all but been ignored in these discussions.

Another obvious contender is the DaVinci. Considering the lack of "finality" of any of these comparisons, I would argue in favor of adding a different arm in the mix - IF we do another tonearm event next year.

As far as the comparisons in Steve Dobbins' room are concerned, I heard several critiques of how much real information could be taken away from that demonstration. Sound familiar?

All of these comparisons are inherrently flawed. Perhaps Dan_ed, Palasr or someone else can comment, as: (1) I didn't witness any of this, and (2) it's not my place to comment.

The takeaway from all of this, is that these are show conditions, with varying samples, and only a general sense of what this gear sounds like can be ascertained.

So ... what's the point of all of this? I think the biggest takeaway is that we can build relationships with fellow audiophiles which can better serve us as in the future.

If, for example Dre_J, Lewm, and David Shreve come away with similar observations from an event they've all attended, then they form a small circle, whereupon future observations have a reference point and validity to them.

When Peter and I started Redpoint in 2001, there was an uncanny consistency in our descriptions of our design prototypes, as well as how those changes either served or detracted from faithfulness to musical reproduction.

This was across a 900 mile distance, with us running considerably different systems. This drove our development in a consistent direction - albeit with the huge attendant shipping expenses resulting from our physical separation.

So, the way I look at this, the key takeaway is what we learn about each other, rather than what we learn about specific pieces of gear under adverse conditions.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Lewm, sure - there are always the usual ( suspects...;-) ...) by-effects ( audio buddies, individual matrix, taste, mood, financial situation, latest internet-hype etc. ) but we can still try to eliminate as many variables as possible to enable an almost fair comparison.
There are enough micro-details which can hardly all be tuned in, but - willingly or by lack of attention - ignoring aspects which can easily fixed is another matter.
I respect any effort where - like in the Dobbins demo you mentioned - one tries to give fair and as objective as possible periphery conditions to a comparison.
This is something every demo should strive for.

Thom wasn't that your opening presentation. I expected as much before going. To me the benifit was seeing all the talent and great gear in one room. Thanks for hosting.

Brad