Looking for a great arm that is low maintenence

Chang,everyone is entitled to their opinion,and I'm not going to come off as the Arm Police(re the 1.5t vs 2.2).If they like it ,fine with me.My friend went from the 1.5t to the 2.2 and we felt the 2.2 was significantly more revealing.Just our opinions.Best luck!

.
Sirspeedy,
Thanks for the Excellent post and very level headed advice for Nrchy. Was your Tri-Planar a model 7 or a previous version? My understanding from those (whose ears I trust) that have heard both, is that the current model 7 is dramatically better than the older Tri-Planar's
.
I currently own (love) the Graham 2.2 with Ceramic armwands (3) and heard the Tri-Planar 7 in my system for during a long weekend. I have never had the SME IV or V in my system (so I am useless there). When I did my research while making the Graham 2.2 buying decision, the SME's were taken off my short list towards the end based on friend’s comments that had owned or heard them extensively.
.
In my system, the Tri-Planar 7 was clearly more dynamic with more detail and better attacks than the Graham 2.2 along with stronger and more focused bass. I still prefer the Graham to the Tri-Planar 7. The Tri-Planar was a little bit too edgy for my taste, but other people clearly preferred the Tri-Planar (my room is still a bit on the bright side and that might account for my preference for the Graham 2.2).
.
Having said all of the above, I would easily prefer a Schroder Reference to either the Graham 2.2 or the Tri-Planar. If my room’s handling of sound was better (and will be someday) , I could easily see myself preferring the Tri-Planar to the Graham 2.2. I do think that the Schroder Reference might be the arm that ends one’s lifelong chase for tonearm Heaven.
.
I have a two-armed table and I imagine that I will keep my Graham 2.2 after I get a Schroder Reference.
.
There are lot’s of options for you here Nate, but your short list is looking pretty good.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

Nate,

Get any Schroder and mount any cartridge to it. Get the Triplanar VII and use a silver wire ZYX and there will be no edge. Either option is killer, IMO. Geez, I know that others will disagree. If we could somehow get together soon you could hear what I'm talking about. Honestly though, we are talking about very subtle differences and without another arm to A/B directly in your system you'll never be aware that you may have made a slightly lesser choice. You're not going to be unhappy with any of the ones you are considering.

Larry,really great to hear from ya!I didn't know you had a two arm table/set-up.Keeping the 2.2,and comparing it to your future(I do wish you'd do it already)Schroeder will,obviously interest me,greatly!

The Triplanar I had was a few years ago,so not the latest.I have seen the newer one,and my problems with it don't seem to be solved.These are ergonomic,and will still play a part in maximizing performance.I "HATE" the fact that there is not a counterweight screw in type setting(the 2.2 has extremely tightly toleranced counterweighted settings,as you know),and mine don't move over time!After all the hard work I've recently done,and getting a really good digital stylus force guage,I don't like the "hunt and seek", "push/twist and pull" way of moving the counterweight on the TRI.I have found a BIG difference in my cartridge performance,when experimenting with various settings ranging in 1/100 of a gram increments.Finding the exact spot is a breeze with the 2.2,as you know.The TRI took me forever.If anyone thinks that this level of accuracy is no big deal,they're deluding themselves,on a high performance system.

I mean I'm sure I could have dialed it in as precisely with my TRI,but I could have flown down to you,had a listening session,and come back already,with the time that would have been spent fotzing around with that.The NEW ownership really does not care,as I've(very respectfully) asked him about this.

While I'm at it,the "Side Screw" that tightens vta may be acceptable(you tighten it by your finger),but there is no way it can have the solid integrity of the "Ring Clamp" full base circumference tightness of the 2.2.Aside from the fact that my my finger lift fluid leaked out,in a few months,and the antiskate "fishing line" thread has a "spring" action,that will change as it dries out, it was fine.Oh,I forgot,and there is NO excuse for this,especially as the new ownership told me it was no big deal(ha!),the VTA dial at the top of the arm,the one with the "cute" little numerical markings,has a good deal of play,and cannot be repeatable,if you want to use the numbers.Why bother having the numbers.This is ok,if you want to dial by memory,but the 2.2 "smokes" it,in every way.I sure hope the new one is better,but I doubt it.So, how could I ever have gotten that ("Tin Man" rattle trap)to perform like a fully maxed out,and worth every cent of it's "Bently Build and Finish",beautifully designed 2.2?
As the new guy(replacing the wonderful Herb Papier)could care less.He's selling quite a few of them,and does not seem to care about actual feedback,from customers.
Could you imagine Bob Graham,or Frank Schroeder not addressing such concerns.I don't think so!

Also,Larry--In all honesty, when any of us,especially me,talks to previous experience with any product,really it is NOT accurate.The reason for this is that I myself,having been so demanding,has learned some finer details of set up that may have colored my decisions regarding my newer,later preferences.If we go back to previous observations,of earlier products(even your arm shoot out),they may very well not be accurate.Just some fuel for thought,though this does let me off the hook,re: the TRIPLANAR!NA!

Well,now that I've had my little rant,have a great weekend!!

Larry, Just out of curiousity, could that be the tracking force you put on the cartidge that makes the difference in terms of dynamics and detail? Every arm geometry and tracking force might be different based on the angle of force pushing downward.