New Schroeder linear tonearm, any thoughts?

Lew,

With a removable headshell, you cannot have an uninterrupted connection between the cartridge and the phono stage. My experience suggests that the audible difference is far greater with LOMC cartridges than with higher output MM and MI cartridges.

You can't argue with 'theory'...that's for sure.
I've had many tonearms with uninterrupted connection between cartridge and phonostage....and still have one with the Copperhead running uninterupted balanced XLRs.
With MMs, MIs and LOMCs........no listeners to my system have ever been able to tell if they were hearing the Copperhead, the DaVinci, the Phantom II (with many connections)......or all my other 5 tonearms with interchangeable headshells?
Theory only gets you so far......look at valves and SS, sealed and ported speakers, belt-drive and DD turntables...?
I trust my ears...

Halcro, are you saying you can't hear the difference between your tonearms using the same cartridge on them? Or are you saying that you do not think the differences you hear are related to tonearm wiring?

I think the only way to answer the question of whether tonearm wiring should have as few connections as possible, is to test it both ways on the same tonearm with the same type of wire. I have not done this personally, but I'm sure someone has. Is there anyone on this forum that has tested this themselves?

Henry, I have had one experience with the same tonearm: it came with a fixed headshell but female RCA outputs. I listened to it for several months, and then I bypassed the RCAs with hard wire so to create a straight path to the phono stage. With a Koetsu Urushi I could hear a benefit related to getting rid of the RCA connection. I do agree that with a typical MM or MI, I hear no real benefit running them in my Triplanar or Reed (both straight shots from cartridge to phono stage) vs in my Dynavector (interchangeable headshell/DIN plug in signal path). Anyway, whether there is a REAL difference or not, audiophilia nervosa infects us all and motivates these decisions.

Thanks for the reply Mr Schroeder. I definitely agree that test records set the anti skate too high, but still feel your method seems a bit too low, as you suggest less anti skate than what would be required to keep the stylus stationary in a non modulated groove. What I was suggesting would be somewhere mid way between your suggestion and a torture record test????

Sorry to change the topic. But your new LT arm is just so cool, it got me thinking about it not requiring anti skate, then.....

another way of putting it.

Mr Schroeder's method gives slightly less anti skate for the minimum situation

test record gives the exact amount for the max situation

my method gives exact amount for slightly more than the min situation

????? still don't get your suggestion Mr Schroeder, why have less anti skate required for the minimum situation. have the arm move very slowly to the outside of the record when in between lead out grooves gives slightly more anti skate than what's required for the absolute min situation. does this not seem more logical.