New Schroeder linear tonearm, any thoughts?

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? :-)

Halcro, If your Phantom pivots on a red herring, that may be the problem. Especially after a few years, I am sure the sound stinks.

Halcro. You are right, it's not necessarily a deal breaker. That said there is really no doubt in my mind that fewer connections are better, but often there are reasons it is not practical. It's usually not a night and day difference in most cases, and it can be swamped by other factors.

For the sake of argument, if integrated amps were built to the same standard as separates, and used outboard, separate power supplies for each section, then they could be better. There are a few reasons (at least) no one builds integrated's that way. First, they would have to charge an enormous amount of money for them. Second it is rare that any one manufacture is skilled enough to get the most out of every different section (phono stage, dac, line stage, amplifier). Therefore something in the design will be less than optimal. And third, allot of audiophiles like to have the flexibility to try different things without replacing the entire system.