New Schroeder linear tonearm, any thoughts?

Looking at the photos, I assume that at the distal end of the arm wand there is a bearing of some kind (I have read elsewhere that it is not a string-type bearing) that must have lowest possible friction. How then does the mechanism in the base "know" that the tonearm is pivoting across the surface of the LP? Is there any sort of linkage between the two mechanisms, or does the moving pivot just move independently of the arm wand pivot? If the latter, then it would seem one must re-set the pivoting base each time. And what happens if one wishes to start listening at some cut in the middle of the LP? (Thus I think I have got it wrong; there has to be a link of some kind between the two pivots or maybe the rear of the arm wand is fixed such that the stylus movement must control the whole operation.)

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.

Leicachamp, Ideally, neither the Schroeder nor the Thales have any tracking error, so the answer is "no". However, life is seldom ideal, so the real answer is "who knows?"

Johnny, It seems that the trick of the Schroeder is to look simple enough so that anyone can build it, but if it works as I think it does, its internal workings are as intricate as a Patek Philipe watch and cannot be cheaply mimicked. (Of course, I chose a bad metaphor, because any $25 Swatch can perform as well as any PP watch, when it comes to keeping time. But the babes will treat you better if you are wearing a Patek Philipe.) Anyway, my real point is that it is likely not possible to make a cheap version of the Schroeder, because of the need for highest quality bearings and metallurgy.

Dear Iso, It is interesting to learn of your and Schroeder's former occupations. I can add another tonearm inventor to the watchmaker list: Herb Papier, creator of the Triplanar. I was a friend of Herb's in his later years, right up to and beyond the point where he sold the Triplanar business. He built every Triplanar in his basement, on a workbench that resembled what you would see in the shop of a watchmaker. As Herb got older and somewhat disabled, he farmed out some of the mass production (ha-ha) of tonearm parts to various trusted shops, but there were certain things Herb would not entrust to anyone else, including the setting of the bearings.

Stringreen, An experienced listener does not need "bat ears" or even "normal" hearing to detect subtle differences among audio components. Will said experienced listener always know why one thing sounds better than another? Will he or she always be able to pick out the most expensive and exotic over the cheap and mundane? Was Bismarck a herring? No, to all 3.

However, to dismiss the pursuit of audio Nirvana as if it were the province only of the aurally exceptional is a bit anti-intellectual and tends to kill the argument.

Jfrech,
I was thinking about the Schroeder arm (and working up a desire for one, if only I could afford it). I would imagine that setting the P2S distance for this tonearm is VERY critical to get the most out of it. Otherwise, you have a tonearm that is "never right". Is that your experience?

Thanks for the photos, but I would really like to see a video of the arm in action, showing how the pivot point moves. Is there anything on YouTube?

The first video is a very good demonstration of the mechanism of the Schroeder. I had not previously realized that it's pivot swings in full view. I thought the working bearings were underneath, somehow. Fascinating and ingenious, because it's so obvious and simple.

Could not help notice the Abolare linestage, using two 12AU7s, my least favorite audio tube, and for only $32,500!!! I have never heard a 12AU7 I could love, and no linestage imaginable should cost that much. Sheesh. But I do like Rockport speakers and The Beat turntable.

Yes, I want one.
I wonder whether Frank Schroeder can create a base that would allow other tonearms to operate in the same manner. The problem would be that nearly every commercial tonearm has an offset headshell. The only production arm I know about that does not have an offset headshell is one of those Nottinghams. There are also a few with adjustable headshell offset angle. Still, if he could produce a base for $1500 or less, he would sell quite a few of them.

Sorry to be such a blabbermouth on this subject. I saw a full photo of the LT on the Xactaudio website. It seems I was correct in the first place; there is a large cylindrical base, not seen in the videos, within which must reside the bearing for pivoting the pivot point. I hope that would not delimit the use of the tonearm on a wide variety of turntables (e.g., my SP10 Mk3 or my L07D). Probably it would not fit on the L07D, at first glance.

Thank you, Frank. Unfortunately for my bank account, you've removed one reason for not buying an LT. Congratulations to you for the inherent rightness and simplicity of your idea. You might suggest to Xactaudio that they should explain the presence of that cylinder supporting your tonearm in the photos. (Maybe they did; sometimes I am a sloppy reader.)

I am wondering how the effective mass can be so low as "14 to 21 gm", which was stated somewhere above. If you think of it, the stylus/cantilever is swinging the whole enchilada all the way back to the stationary pivot that bears the rotating pivot apparatus. Thus the effective mass would be the additive of the masses of the swing arm, the base and pivot assembly at the tonearm proper, the counter-wt, and the arm tube/headshell. But perhaps that is not the proper way to think of it, or perhaps the LT components are made of extremely light weight materials.

The error in my thinking: Yes, the effective mass is high in the horizontal plane, because of all the paraphernalia necessary for the LT function, but it is only affected by the masses of the arm tube, headshell, (cartridge), and counter-wt, in the vertical plane. Many tonearms are similar in that characteristic.

Is it absolutely level?

So, since you may be listening, Frank, I have often heard knowledgeable people argue about the value or lack of value of having high mass in the horizontal plane. For those who do not like the classical linear tracking tonearms, their very high mass in the horizontal plane is given as one of the problems with such a design. For those who do like them, the same rationale is posited. Further, for the Dynavector tonearms, which also have a higher effective mass in the horizontal plane vs the vertical one, this property is given by Dynavector as an intentional design goal, said to contribute to superior bass performance. What do you think?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. We rarely benefit from such expert input. With regard to how LPs trigger lateral excitation, I can only think of off-centered ones. Nearly all are imperfect in that regard, to one degree or another.

Henry, It's a perfectionist trade-off. 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. Makes sense. Mr. Schroeder made a fair assumption that 99% of those who purchase his tonearm will be using an LOMC cartridge. There's no accounting for nut cases like us, who use MMs and MIs just as much, if not more. On the other hand, I tend to fall in love with one cartridge (regardless of type) and use it for long periods of time, so the slight disadvantage of not having interchangeable headshells is no big deal to me.

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.

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.

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.