Has anyone had experience with the Schroeder Arm
In a high res setup has anyone been able to compare this arm to the top pivoting competition.I think that the fact that the pivot is magnetic as opposedto a bearing like a unipivot(needing damping) should on paper be less resonant and maybe sound better.I currently own,and,am happy with a Graham 2.2,but the idea of a true frictionless bearing (all bearings have some degree of friction)really could make a real difference in a good setup.I'm not interested at the moment in straight line trackers with air bearings (although I love some of them)due to the hassle of external pumps and tubing runs.
95 responses Add your response
Hi everyone, Sorry, I was/am busy setting up/demoing turntables at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I'm going to be on my way again shortly, so you'll have to wait sometime longer for a CLD related response. Raul, please send me a message with the serial# of the arm once you've received it. I can then tell you it's effective mass,length and give you an idea for the range of carts it will work best with. Have fun, Frank |
Hello Raul, Sorry to say this, but unless you give me the serial# I won't be able to tell you the eff. mass of that particular arm. Since this arm was likely sold through an importer/dealer I wouldn't know who the customer is(nor do I care). I assure you that, even if I knew, I would not disclose the identity(and why should I?). As for the eff. mass of my arms: The Reference can be ordered with armwands ranging from 5 - 50(!)gr. eff. mass. So there are many different ones around that certainly won't suit just any cart you care to mount. And who is "we", as in "we do these tests without influence"? Make shure that gentleman sends the instructions along, too... Cartridge recommendations simply refer to proper matching of the physical parameters, not the sonic properties. Waiting for your reply, best regards, Frank |
Hello 4yamx, Hmmm, my impressions on CLD materials.... First of all we'd have to look at the application: plinth, platter, armboard, tonearm wand, etc.. I guess you were refering to the use of CLD in armboards. Conventional("rigidly" coupled) tonarms depend upon the dissipation of energy (fed into their structure by the cartridge tracking the grooves) in the arm's structure itself and, to a greater or lesser degree, in the armboard(or plinth) they're mounted on. The use of a CLD armboard should help dissipating those vibrations more evenly, and when the right materials are chosen, more quickly, too. Every structure(tonearm) will exhibit different resonance characteristics, therefore armboard A might be better suited to accomodate arm A' while armboard B will be better suited to arm B' . To further complicate things, the resonance makeup of arm A', or B', and C'... will differ depending upon the cart used. By tightening cartridge screws like a maniac you only emphasize this phenomenon. I use a CLD armwand for the No.2 arm(3layers), which helps to control armwand resonances, CLD effectivly cuts the peaks in the resonance spectrum(same for arm boards, etc..). If you intend to build a CLD armboard, try to match the mechanical impedance of the arm's contact surface/material and use a "chaoticly" structured material as the second layer. Certain types of woods are, for all intents and purposes just that: Randomly distributed hard/strong fibres imbedded in a softer compound with a large "lossy" interface area within the material itself. MDF out to be a perfect material for this application, but it isn't: the individual fibres are too short. Hope that helped a bit... Cheers, Frank |
Yeah, armboards, but plinths, too. Been reading quite a bit on the subject relative to suspended and non-suspended tables, visa via a plinth. For an armboard, I was thinking of giving a wood veneer, brass, Corian, brass (or possibly an Isodamp-type material), wood veneer (opposite grain direction) sandwich a go. |
The effective mass for frictionless suspended tonearm are different than friction tonearms (unipivot or gimball tonearm). The armtube for frictionless tonearm is much heavier so it can absorb stylus energy. This energy then dissipated by the string, silicone viscousity, or magnetic field. Medium and low compliance cartridges are better match for suspended tonearm like Well Tempered. If you can find how Mr. Well Tempered calculated effective mass then substitute magnetic flux for viscousity. It's basically a Bernoulli equation for energy conservation. The reason that string supported tonearm are more musical than ball bearing tonearm because string reasonates like guitar or violin string. We don't find many musical instruments made of ball bearings. At the Rocky Mountain Audio Quest, I tried to get Mr. Well Tempered to visit the Teres 360 and Shroder tonearm so he can kick himself for not including magnetic damping with his viscous damping tonearm patent. It took over 20 years for Frank to get a patent on it. Of course, magnetic is a little harder to see than liquid even though electrons flow like water. |
Hello Nghiep, First of all, Mr. Well Tempered's name is Bill Firebaugh. Secondly, you're off on a number of your assessments. The eff. mass of ,say, gimballed vs. suspended arms doesn't differ as implied in your post. It is the application of damping that alters Q and Fres. In the case of the Well Tempered Arm A LOT of damping is applied to allow for proper operation(=minimal displacement of the arm assembly as a result of groove drag). Since the Well Tempered Arm employs such a large amount of damping it has to be taken into account when calculating the expected Fres. The string has NOTHING to do with a more "musical" sound of suspended arms. It allows for the construction of a chatter free bearing and next bto zero friction(+ zero stiction). It doesn't resonate in either of the arms. It didn't take me 20 years to get a patent on my arm. In fact it only took the usual 2 years. And while I've been making string suspended tomearms since 1978, only when I turned it into a full time occupation I decided to protect my intellectual property(a very costly affair, I might add) Besides that, anyone with an understanding of physics will realize that there are distict differences in the design of the two arms: application of antiskating force, distribution of mass, bearing rigidity vs. damping, versatilty. The last point brings me to another misconception. It is the eff. mass, not the bearing principle that determines the suitability of any arm for use with high compliance carts. I have customers running VERY high compl. carts(35cu+) and neither they nor I experienced any phenomenae that would indicate a mismatch. "Electrons flow like water"? That's a nice school book analogy but doesn't reflect reality. All the best, Frank |
Frank, Did you make tonearms with magnetic damping since 1978? If your current tonearm was in the market 20 years ago, there would not be any gimbal nor unipivot tonearm designs. I also found that the gap between the magnets can be changed to compensate for the magnetic field strength in order to obtain the desired damping effects. The skating torque can also be independently adjustable regardless of the magnetic field strength. I guessed you already know those. I also noted that tonearm builders like music instrument makers. They both bring music to live. |
Thomas, I really hate to have to call you on this but you know you haven't had a Schroeder arm in your system. If you recall what you heard was a Schroeder No.1 (not Reference) with a Miyabi on my Debut in a totally unknown system at a show in a hotel. But even then you commented you thought it was much better than the Graham 2.0. I also feel it was vastly better than my Graham 2.0 which I used for years on that TT. On my current TT I have used the No.2 and Reference but not a Graham so you didn't hear any direct comparison in my system either. In all fairness to Frank Schroeder I don't think you should report on a direct comparison I don't think you have made. Sorry, but fair is fair. |
Hello Nghiep, I take the first part of your post as a compliment, but have to say that other types of tonearm bearing designs had not vanished. Just consider the Well Tempered Arm which many find similar to my arms. When it entered the market in 1986(iIrc), it enjoyed a brief period of recognition/success and then was reduced to a niche product in this (already) niche market before coming back lately. Some arms appeal to some, others to others(quite a Jogi Bear comment... ;-). Personally I love the coexistence as much as the competition as long as it serves the quest for better music reproduction. Regarding the second part: Mmmh, as an owner you should have the manual that goes with the arm(explaining all the features -damping, antiskating..). But even if you´re part of the DIY community and discovered all of the above, I´d say: welcome to the club! Cheerio, Frank |
For those who may feel they can add a meaningful reply,how do you think the SCHROEDER REF could stack up against a really good air bearing design like the AIR TANGENT or the KUZMA AIRLINE.I was at a friend's house last week who has an AIR TANGENT/Titan combo and the open and airy sound just blew me away.We the left to go over to another friend with,also,outstanding equipment and the sound,although very detailed and open,just could not match the previous set up in the relaxed and bloomy way my friend,Sid's, set upstruck me.I know I'm leaving myself open to the fact that the rooms and equipment were not identical,but I have enough intimate knowledge of and EXPERIENCE with both set ups (friend"B"has,like me, a Graham 2.2)to feel that the lack of bearing friction must play some role(and,yes,I have my fluid level exactly where it should be).I have concluded(just my opinion)that the lack of any bearing friction(straight line trackers with air bearing or an arm like the seemingly unique SCHROEDER)must have a significant impact on a high rez(and,I'm sorry,but,it doesn't even have to be all that full range for those of you who are so insistent on that)set up. |
Frank, I am using your Reference Arm on a Garrard 501 with a Decca Jubilee cartridge. In carefully adjusting everything yesterday, I once again found how critical the dampening is at least with this cartridge. If I put too little dampening on the system begins to motorboat. Just more than that, however, is quite open and effortless which is lost if you add further dampening. As you suggested, the Decca and Reference work well together. |
Hello, I live in Spain. I would like open other question, because I can read some opinions from Frank. AT least... I tried to buy Reference arm some months ago... I sent several mails to England and China...Nobody can reply correctly me and finally I did must choose other toneram.. The questions is what is the dealer role in this "internet" world. They won about 30-40% from the bill (In Reference Arm a lot of money) and they dont have any service in my case neither toneaerm set up, nothing... |
Hello! Sorry to hear that you didn´t get a response from England. Was it GTAudio(www.gtaudio.com) you´ve contacted? Now, China is a different story. I don´t have a distributor in China, so who was it you tried to get in touch with? Besides all of that, it would have been quite easy to get in touch with the spanish distributor, Cosmos Hifi. The role of distributors/dealers is quite clear. Not everyone has the experience/knowledge to set up a turntable. Those with a love for music but ten left thumbs ought to leave it to their dealer to get the best out of their system(fewer and fewer dealers around who are willing and capable of that...). They should also assist the customer in choosing the best component/system, something I´m often asked for. This is not only time consuming but it also makes it very difficult to maintain a neutral position. But there´s more to cover with those 30-40%. While I don´t advertise, distributors and dealers do , - if they feel the need for it. Why, you might ask, when everyone seems to be on the net nowadays, asking for unbiased advice....and lots of people willing to give that advice, unbiased or not(knowledgeable or not). There are still countless audiophiles around who much rather talk to someone on the phone or in person instead of conversing with an internet moniker. Distributors and sometimes dealers demo at shows to attract and educate the customer. This is VERY costly, yet more often then not, distributors tell me "it wasn´t worth it, again". It can be rather frustrating to spend thousands of dollars/pounds/euros, schlepping around amps and speakers designed for forklifts, not humans, only to witness too many people sticking their head into the room and turning around in less than 10 seconds(which is how long it took them to collect the color broschures). Yet, when being asked about the sound in that room, one of the standard answers would be: "My system at home is sooo much better and it cost me this much less..." Fortunately there are many who don´t fall into that category and it is some of them who might not need distributors/dealers. A majority(rendering dist./dealers useless) it is not. Feel free to get in touch with me directly, if only for advice. But realise that there are limits as to how much time I can divert to this part of my occupation before others aspects(like the sheer making of the product) start to suffer. All the best, Frank |
I agree with Frank. It costs a fair bit to distribute and advertise. Like frank, I'm surprised if you didn't get a reply from GT Audio.I bought my Schroeder Model 2 from Graham Tricker at GT Audio in the UK. I have known Graham for over 10 years and spent many pounds/euros/dollars with him. I would be very surprised if Graham did not answer your calls or emails. I have often called him late at night (he stay up for his US customers) and at the weekends. He always answers his emails (gt.audio@tesco.net). In the UK, he will usually travel to your home to set up your arm, cart or speakers (he is the UK Avantgarde distributor). Give Graham a call. Be prepared to wait for your Schroeder arm (I waited 5 months), but it is well worth it. |
Hello Ebm, Statements like "HAD ONE GOT A GRAHAM IT BLEW IT AWAY"don't help the reader in any way. Having lived with the Graham 2.2 (Benz Ruby 2, Denon DL103R), I can state that it is a very fine tonearm. Subjectively however, when moving to a Schroeder Reference, a degree of tension melts away. You come to realize that you were clenching your teeth when listening to the 2.2. Now, music is all about tension and release, but it's not this sort of which I speak. Rather than labor over this topic here, the reader is invited to check the following link if you're interested: a rant on musical ease and realistic presentations. Having said all of this, I'd be happy to demonstrate and sell any of you a Galibier Quattro with the arm of your choice, but if you ask me, that choice should be a Schroeder, with the Triplanar following closely. Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
Hello Ebm, The information content of your post is diametrically opposed to your use of caps. Maybe for the benefit of everyone here, you´d care to elaborate under which conditions(table, cart, etc.) you performed your comparison. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Graham Phantom is an improvement over the 2.2, otherwise, why would Bob Graham go through the hassle of introducing a new top of the line model. But the Phantom is so new that I am rather cautious regarding bold statements such as yours when you couldn´t have had a lot of time to gain experience with it(as in: using it with different carts and decks). Curious, Frank Schröder |
Ebm, Like Thom I find your statement of questionable value. Along with lacking in useful detail it also goes against the informed opinions of many others on this list. I have owned and spent considerable time with both the 2.2 and the Schroder Reference in my own system. In addition have heard the 2.2 and the Reference in well controlled comparisons. The universal response by myself and every person present at either comparison strongly favored the Reference. So sweeping statements like "BLEW IT AWAY" without any supporting details do not have a lot of credibility. I acknowledge that given your tastes and system context that the Graham may be preferred. But given the experience of myself and many others it seems more likely that the conditions surrounding your comparison were flawed. Please favor us with some details. |
At the expense of some EGG on EBM's face,and the person who originally started this thread,I'd like to chime in once again.EBM is a personal friend of mine who IS playing(an unappreciated)practical jokes.Ebm is wasting the time of all well meaning responders to this thread.I know this because he has been harping at me for the last month or two to sell my 2.2 and buy a Phantom.Why?I'm not kidding here:because "It must be great since it replaces the 2.2".I am the person who set up EBM's 2.2(which he loved until he saw the new AD copy for the Phantom).He as well as so many non thinking PHILES(although not the ones who seem to have responded to this thread)is totally ad and review driven.The mainstream press love guys like this.The Phantom looks like a superb arm.I already know the 2.2 IS.I own a transfiguration temper v as does EBM (I installed his).This cart has an effective mass of 7.5 gr.A great match for the 2.2When I look at Graham's own NIGhtingale Cartridge I see a mass of14.5 grahams.When I look at the new Phantom I see a design that looks to have more armtube mass than my 2.2 which will undoubtedly mate better with a wider range of heavier cartridges.This new halfway (compared to the Shroeder)magnaglide feature seems to be beneficial for those cartridges with a higher mass than mine.Obviously if the cartridge weighs more you don't want any twisting or you can stress the cantilever.This feature gives up the sideweight feature(that I happen to like with my particular cartridge).I'm kind of thinking that you can equate the sideweight slight movement to the suspension of a car shifting to adjust to bumps in the road>The 2.2 weight system shifting to imperfections in the groove.If you stabilize the arm and increase the tube mass it's like a plow through a road.I just have my own way of looking at this.I'm not necessarily right,but the 2.2 is So tuneable and reallyTRACES a groove that I can't get excited about the Phantom(at present).I have explained this to EBM but he is SO advertising driven that he decided to waste Your time (I appologize for him)by trying to goad me into randomly getting a new product just to justify his lust to spend spend spend.Don't get me started on the endless procession of pucks,cones,and power cords that have made their way into his rig.I like the Shroeder because of the uniqueness of the bearing design.To my way of thinking it will come closest to an air bearing,which is probably the most effective,but, a pain in the tush to deal with which is why I rule it out for myself.I'd love to see a review of the Shroeder in either TAS or Stereophile,but I'm not holding my breath since both of those mags are now almost always accomodating of their best advertisors.The best days are behind both of them anyway.I did own a Wheaton but was not happy with it.The vta adjustment was not precise(too much play in the scale)and the cuing fluid leaked out in a few months.SLOPPY!The GRaham 2.2 is a FABULOUS arm.It may be bettered by the new Phantom,but,If I'm going to go through the PAIN of dialing in a new arm I'd currently get more excited about the frictionless design of a Shroeder REF.AS for EBM please don'twaste the time of people who take these discussions seriously.Enjoy your retirement(you lucky dog)and go rent some new"B" movies to be enjoyed with your favorite fried Chinese foods you force on me every time I'm on a diet.Who cares?It's all a big joke to you!! |
Sirspeedy, Thanks for having the nerve to fess up for your pal's attitude. I've been in your shoes, usually at the poker table. Sometimes we truly deserve the "I'm With Stupid" T-shirt. I'm a little surprised at your comments re: the Wheaton. Which version was it. Do you think the current model suffers from the issues you describe? Cheers, Spencer |
I have owned many tonearms including the Wheaton when the Mod Squad sold it as well as six straightline trackers. The Schroeder Reference on my Garrard 501 gives the greatest dynamics and plausible sense of being at the recording even that I have ever heard. I use the Decca Jubilee cartridge which responds well to the magnetic dampening control. |
On my Tri-Planar there IS play in the threads of the VTA tower. This is easy to overcome however. Once you've decided where on the scale you want to be, always approach that setting by moving the arm UP to it. This way gravity and the resistance of the grease in the threads are both working to ensure precision. If you move the arm DOWN to some setting then the grease in the threads can prevent it from being truely as low as the scale indicates. It also requires a simple mod to cue straight. Takes only a minute so no big deal, though why Tri-Mai hasn't fixed this is a mystery. Paul recently said he wouldn't trade our TriPlanar for a Schroeder Ref even in a straight swap. That's a pretty strong statement, since the Ref is the best sounding arm we've heard. It had a lot to do with our new ZYX UNIverse, which seems to be a perfect companion for the TriPlanar. |
The Wheaton that I had was from about 4 years ago.I know that there is a newer model out.I spoke with the new owner of Wheaton at HE2004 and while I was trying to compliment his product I,at the same time told him of my concerns about the play in the vta scale as well as the fact that dialing in an EXACT tracking force required a "HUNT AND SEARCH" approach (with the non-exacting)way of sliding the counterweight as opposed to the EXACT threaded rotation of the GRAHAM.Tiny increments in downforce make all the diff. in a high res set up.His response to me was that he felt his counterweight system was good enough.I also noticed there was still play in the top vta scale so I politely wished him good luck and went my merry way.The Wheaton arm,as current,is,I'm sure,wonderful--just not my cup of tea.AS for EBM he won't get mad that I outed him but may come back with some stupid comment.LOOK OUT! |
I spoke with the new owner of Wheaton at HE2004 and while I was trying to compliment his product I,at the same time told him of my concerns about the play in the vta scale as well as the fact that dialing in an EXACT tracking force required a "HUNT AND SEARCH" approach (with the non-exacting)way of sliding the counterweight as opposed to the EXACT threaded rotation of the GRAHAM.Tiny increments in downforce make all the diff. in a high res set up.His response to me was that he felt his counterweight system was good enough.Sirspeedy, I recently contacted him with exactly the same concern (lack of fine control of VTF). I even offered an easily-implemented fix/upgrade that would provide the needed control. I got a similar response, polite but noncommital. :-( OTOH it's not at all difficult to devise your own fine VTF control. We set our C/W for the top end of the likely range for the cartridge. If we want to reduce VTF then one or more O-rings slipped over the end stub reduce downforce by .01-.02g each. Pretty simple and very quick. When someone makes the perfect arm I guess we'll all buy one. Until then we each have to choose our favorite set of compromises. If the Schroeder Ref had tool-less VTA adjustability with a scale for repeatability, there'd be one mounted on my table today. |
Doug,I think I made it clear in my posts that I thought the WHEATON was a fine arm.However easy it is to fine tune out certain design imperfections and dial into a specific parameter(many analog front end stuff have these quirks),these manufacturers are charging megabucks(the Wheaton,I believe is 3900.sheckles).It is not too much for us audiobuffs to expect a higher degree of machining if you are going to pay the REDICULOUS prices the High End stuff seems to command.Why put a marker scale and arrow on top of the arm,to mark the vta if it is not really that accurate.Please don't get me wrong,and I don't want to agitate Wheaton owners,of which I was a happy one until my 2.2 came along.I mean even the cuing was not accurate on my arm.Couple that with the locking pillar being a home depot looking nut,the cuing fluid draining out after a short time and my friend having a 2.2 that I set up & realized how much more precise it was to dial into very tight parameters more quickly and easily I decided I could get better results with my current arm.I think I made the right choice,but,I'm not ruling out the fact that if I worked with the manufacturer and held onto the arm longer(I did have it over 2 years)I could have gotten better results.Unfortunately,and sadly,Herb Papier passed away(a SUPER nice guy)and the company sold around this time. |
I forgot to mention,there IS a PERFECT arm out there,but it is also REDICULOUS dollars.Fortunately I have been lucky enough to hear it on many occassions and through numerous other component upgrades,so,I THINK I know it's sonic signature quite well.It is the AIR-TANGENT arm.An unbelieveable non-sounding arm!However,it requires a bit of TLC to get right.My friend owns one(as well as the greatest vinyl collection imagineable)I mean you could buy Bermuda with the money he could get for his record collection(all,and I mean ALL the DECCAS,MERCS,EMI'setc).I hate him his stuff sounds so great.The one thing he did to get the most out of his GEM of an arm is to dump the pump that came with it,and,are you ready for this,bought a used compressor from a local dentist's office.He keeps this pump(which looks like,and is as big as a motor boat engine)in a closet in one of his 3 record rooms.I guess this does make this an imperfect arm,but,believe me,if you ever get a chance to hear a really good system with an air bearing design like this one you will immediately hear the difference.A cushiony soundstage with incredible detail and space between instruments.Most importantly,the lack of any bearing friction allows musical instruments to really bloom with the kind of timbre and harmonic glow that when heard makes one realize how much of a compromise pivot arms are. |
No argument that arms at these price points should not suffer obvious compromises. Obviously we agree about the ones the TriPlanar has. We decided to deal with them and so far that's working out well. You decided to change to the 2.2, which we've heard and used and don't like at all. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just chose the set of compromises that works best for us (not being ready to mortgage the house for an Air Tangent!) Speaking of top linear trackers, have you heard the Kuzma Air Line? That's been sort of my dream arm since I saw the first reviews. |
