2. analog
  3. 188503-3976

Questions Regarding Installing a Wheaton Triplanar On A SOTA Cosmos

As luck would have it I recently acquired a Wheaton Triplanar VII U2, and am waiting on it being shipped. So at this point I am trying to decide what the most favorable table to mount it on, and what arm gets replaced. I have a SOTA Cosmos Eclipse with a SME V on it, and that would be my preferred place to install it. The only thing is this Triplanar has the arm cable extending out the back of the arm pillar instead of routed out the bottom of it. I have to assume the cable is going to have to be routed on top of the arm board and then over the edge into the body of the Cosmos. Not wild about that but do not see any other options other than drilling a 1/4 hole and routing the cable through it. Anyone have any experiences to share if they have installed it on a SOTA table?

My second alternative is to put the arm on my Scheu in place of a Dynavector DV505 I have. That is certainly a straightforward option, with no issues to be solved. However, I have never been fond of the SME V on the SOTA, so this would be my first choice. 

neonknight
pindac's avatar
pindac
2,864 posts
 

If one is willing to continuous wore a TA, the Bayonets inserted plastic cylinder housing the signal path pins id removable, which will shave weight further.

The interference fit design I am familiar with, which is designed to be used for the replacement of a SME Type Removable Head Shell, has enabled a little more weight to be removed in conjunction with the plastic cylinder. 

The Screw Clamp is redundant and removed, the wall of the part for the clamping of the Headshell is a lesser gauge as it is a better metal for the role of being less substance. 

lewm
13,026 posts
 

And of course if you really must have very low effective mass, there is always the ADC LFA2, 6g total.

https://www.vinylengine.com/library/adc/lmf-2.shtml

Three of my favorite cartridges have very high compliance, the Ortofon MC2000, which vexes the OP, the Acutex 320 series (LPM and M versions, with a compliance of 42), and the B&O MMC1. The latter two are easier to satisfy than the MC2000, since they are intrinsically light weight; whereas the MC2000 weighs 11g all by itself  In practice, I have successfully used tonearms in the low range of "medium" effective mass with all of these.  I'd try a suspect pairing before going on to turn a tonearm with interchangeable headshells into a fixed headshell type.  In a pinch, that CF headshell you have unearthed or an old super light weight aluminum headshell, e.g., SME, would be worth a try.

mountz's avatar
mountz
132 posts
 

I have tri-planar on my clear audio innovations woody and love the synergy.  I have the 9.8 inch arm and have another that I want to mount a mono cart on down the road.  You may want to investigate this combination as I see these come up for sale a few times a year, pm me if you would like to discuss.

pindac's avatar
pindac
2,864 posts
 

With Drone Technology developing at the rate it is, Maybe ??? the Tonearm as it is known today, has a new tech to be utilised, that will transform the way the Cart' is to be enabled to track the LP Groove.

Watch this Space.

neonknight OP
392 posts
 

I do like the Triplanar arm. For an arm that has so much adjustability I don’t see how to adjust the cue lever bar. This one wants to drift a bit on set down and pick up. From searches on the net this seems to be an issue others have had. With the only fixes seem kind of janky. Wish there was a way to level that rod.

More to discover