New Schroeder linear tonearm, any thoughts?

Why would the Phantom fall short with MM cartridges? At first glance, its effective mass would not be wildly different from that of the other three tonearms Halcro mentions. In fact, its effective mass is certainly lower than that of the FR66S, if not also the DaVinci. So the observation cannot be due solely to a mismatch of compliance vs effective mass. What a strange and maddening "hobby" this is. It makes you want to go to work for relaxation.

Ahh! The Phantom is a unipivot; the others in Halcro's stable are not. Perhaps that's the important factor. I could imagine that a low compliance cartridge might be better suited to a unipivot, compared to a high compliance one.

The Phantom is not a true unipivot. It has the Magnaglide stabilizer. I don't have much experience with a MM on a unipivot arm. So I can not confirm, nor deny whether that is a factor. Could be though.

Thanks for the reply, starting to get your point. Analog is all about choosing the right compromise, and that is what makes it fun, rather than just pressing play. I guess this makes your new arm even more attractive not having to deal with this anti skate nonsense. One less comprise to deal with.

The Copperhead is also a Unipivot....although like the Phantom's Magnaglide stabiliser.....it has a balancing 'swashplate' to maintain azimuth.
I had a Hadcock GH-228 for 25 years which was a true unipivot and it sounded wonderful with MMs. It also had uninterrupted wiring from cartridge to phonostage. I've also had a Grace 940G unipivot which worked well with MMs....so the pivoting system of the arm I think...is a red herring?

I'm not sure Sarcher...what you're really saying....

IMO, you can not make any solid conclusions about wiring, without testing it out on the same tonearm. Otherwise the differences you hear, or don't hear, could be caused by the arms themselves. Not the wiring.

If I had uninterrupted wiring on all my arms.....they would beat the ones already with that feature by a margin even greater than they do now?.....or if I added 'connections' to the uninterruptedly wired arms....they would be beaten by a greater margin than they are already? :-)
The fact that for 5 years the Phantom tonearm (with its two extra connections).....has consistently rated amongst the best tonearms in almost every serious audio review...proves the point pretty well I think?

There seems to be a slight hypocrisy to this 'theoretical' argument of 'lesser connections'?
Most high-end audiophiles own separate high-end phonostages which 'plug' into separate preamps which 'plug' into separate amplifiers?
To realise the benefits of this 'uninterrupted' wiring principle.....a fully integrated amplifier with inbuilt phonostage should sound better than the high-end scenario most employ?
To reinforce the argument further.....many listeners (including myself)....are realising the benefits of 'adding' a separate SUT before the phono-stage for LOMCs?
A case where an 'added' connection (at the smallest signal level) can demonstrably sound better than a 'purer' cable?

As I said previously....'theory' is great....but IMO is not a 'deal-breaker' when faced with audible proof of its limitations? :-)