Schroeder arms: order of merit?

Doug pretty much hits the nail on the head with his description.

My take on Graham tonearms (extensive experience with both the 2.2 ceramic & the Robin), is that they are an expression of a different musical sensibility than either the Triplanar or the Schroeder.

Bob Graham is a great fellow and extremely competent engineer. The Robin embodies quite a large percentage of the performance of the 2.2 and Bob is to be congratulated for this. It's really quite an achievement. The arm gets unfairly dissed because of it's pedestrian appearance. Bob decided to put the engineering where it counted - in the sonics and not appearances. I think he made the right choices.

I had my Galibier deck reviewed by Art Dudley with a Graham Robin. The idea was to give him several points of reference from which to evaluate my turntable. Unfortunately (other than my brief visit where I fit a Schroeder to the deck for an evening's listening), the review period ended before I could deliver either a Rega or a Naim armboard to him. That's a whole 'nuther story however.

I've not experienced the Phantom, but I would expect more of the same from Bob, only better. Neither the 2.2 or the Robin suit my listening biases, but they may suit yours.I'd call them more of an audiophile's tonearm. They do everything right in terms of tracking the groove and they're incredibly easy to adjust. They don't however float my boat the way that either the Triplanar or the Schroeders do. Obviously, your mileage (and system) may vary.

Disclaimer: I may be slightly biased, because I sell both Schroeders and Triplanars, but I do so for a reason ... I believe in them.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Floating your Speedy Boat ... Hi Speedy,

I could have been a bit more clear in my description of my year long experience with the 2.2. My take on Bob and his tonearms is that:

(1) Bob Graham is a very gifted engineer
(2) He has an aesthetic vision and knows how to reach his goal
(3) His aesthetic sense does not quite match my sensibilities
(4) He is a great guy

Perhaps I should be selling his arms too, because I in no way want to dictate my taste upon others.

To give you a bit of background, my musical tastes go all over the map - from small chamber music, 20th Century String Quartets, Bluegrass / Newgrass (and their spin-offs), Caribbean Jazz, 60's West Coast Rock (The Airplane and the Dead), and more ...

My system is oriented around single ended triodes and horns, although I'm not by any means married to this architecture ... I'm married to music, and find that the sound of good products tends to converge around a central point - irrespective of their design architecture. I think for example that my turntables share many of the virtues of the great rim drive 'tables of the past.

I emphasize replacing every capacitor in the signal path of my electronics with iron (transformers), as I've found the sound to be more pure, direct, and immediate. I do not however favor a false or etched sound, as I'm certain no one in this discussion does. The sound of an interstage transformer (a good one) to my ears, and everyone in my listening group strips away layers of murk in comparison to even Audionote sliver capacitors, while at the same time affording excellent isolation between amplification stages. Enough of the geek stuff ...

Last year, I brought my turntable fitted with a Graham 2.2 and Denon DL 103R over to a friend's house. I tend to not travel with expensive cartridges. I think a good turntable with a good arm, does not need a top flight cartridge to strut its stuff - as long as the cartridge matches the arm, of course. In the same way, I consider a vacuum tube circuit that depends on rare, expensive tubes to sound good be an unacceptable design. The circuit should sound good with run of the mill JJ Teslas, Sovteks, etc. Of course it will sound better with rare, fine tubes, but it should not depend on them.

This fellow had sold his Graham 2.2 because it sounded too lean 'n mean for his tastes in the context of his system balance. As an aside, he (Grant Gassman on my owners' page) owns a Dynavector XV-1 - an incredible cartridge which could tempt me away from a ZYX. The Graham 2.2 on my rig in his system actually had more "muscle" than Grant's rig and he commented that he would never have sold his 2.2 had it sounded like this.

My 'table has something to do with this, but that's a whole 'nuther story. The point of the above diatribe, that I've lived with a 2.2 and have a good idea about how to set it up, and impressed a former owner of the arm - a highly discriminating individual.

The 2.2 is an expression of a fine man who's vision is not quite in sync. with my musical aesthetic. It's an arm which I can envision many people being extremely happy with. I'd love to hear the Phantom, and from comments I've heard, it is a continuing improvement of the breed. One hates to predispose oneself to supposition and prognostication, but my guess is that I'll walk away from the experience with continued respect for Bob's designs while still not considering it to be quite my cup of tea. But then again ... I could be wrong.

Yes ... the Robin is underpriced for the sonic goods it delivers - Art Dudley's opinion notwithstanding.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Gosh, I'm not quite sure where to start ... let's consolidate:

1. To Gmorris:

I'd love to know how you can consider my comments in my original post June
24th on to be "patronizing if not condescending" (as you stated on 06-30).
From that June 24th post:

My take on Graham tonearms (extensive experience with both the 2.2 ceramic
& the Robin), is that they are an expression of a different musical
sensibility than either the Triplanar or the Schroeder.

Bob Graham is a great fellow and extremely competent engineer. The Robin
embodies quite a large percentage of the performance of the 2.2 and Bob is
to be congratulated for this. It's really quite an achievement. The arm gets
unfairly dissed because of it's pedestrian appearance. Bob decided to put
the engineering where it counted - in the sonics and not appearances. I
think he made the right choices.

It is because of my confidence in Bob's capabilities, coupled with what I
know to be a different approach to reproduction (and therefore his ability
to realize this aesthetic at a higher level in the Phantom) that has me not
rushing out to hear the Phantom. In due time, I will get to hear it, but I
have so much on my plate at the moment, that it is nowhere near the top of
my list.

Will I play with a Phantom at some time? Absolutely! We all have to play
triage with our time, however. I have a new platter and armboard to
develop, and it's the peak of the bicycling and climbing season here in
Colorado.

It is exactly because I know that Bob has a vision and knows how to manifest
it into reality that makes me less than anxious to carve time I don't have
in order to try one. If a vineyard produces excellent Merlot, but you don't
like Merlot, would you rush out to buy 5 cases? I think not. Could the
wine be so good that you become converted to Merlot? Possibly.

2. To Speedy:

I think we're in complete agreement. My comments about tubes and cartridges
was intended to say that a good design (an amplifier, or a turntable/tonearm
combo) should not depend on high quality tubes and cartridges in order to
convey the musical truth.

I absolutely agree with you that these designs benefit greatly from choice
tubes and cartridges. The comment was directed at designs which throw
boutique components at a problem instead of implementing solid engineering
practices.

In the realm of weird, good tubes, I've been wrestling with a line stage
design which uses the 71a tube - a directly heated triode. My buddies are
using an even more esoteric tube for their version of this line stage - a
Telefunken RS-241. Still, I go back and forth with the circuit - plugging
in garden variety 6SN7's, 12B4A's and 1626's, because if it sounds bad with
these tubes, I know I'm doing something wrong. The final design (if I ever
finish) will most definitely use special tubes.

Again ... I should really consider carrying the Graham or at least sourcing
it for my customers. I have no right to dictate (and it's not my intention)
this fine a degree of taste to anyone.

3. To Albertporter:

You are absolutely correct about the alignment system. Conceptually it is
brilliant and well implemented. I think that it affords the type of fellow
who does not pay great attention to setup, the opportunity to get much
closer than they normally would.

The problem with the alignment jig arises from the fact that it depends on
precisely dialing in the pivot to spindle distance by plugging the hole in
the headshell into a plastic extension that is fit over the record spindle.

This would work perfectly with a fixed bearing tonearm. With the unipivot,
there is inherent rocking, and you cannot get this pivot to spindle distance
setting "nuts on". When I used this technique and then verified it with my
protractor, the overhang was off by a bit over a millimeter.

My advice to people is to experiment for themselves and see what works.

If you get a chance, you should come up to the Rocky Mountain Audiofest
http://www.audiofest.net/ at the end of September. Allocate a
few extra days and catch the changing season in the high country. It's a
truly spectacular time of year. You'll get to hear a Walker in the Red Rock
Audio room. Lloyd will be there and have set it up. I'd love to meet you.

4. To Cello (Larry):

I'm an ex New Yorker. After some 15 years in Colorado, does it still show
(cheek bulging from tongue - likely in conjunction with size 9.5 foot firmly
planted in mouth).

5. To Thomasheisig:

Two things that may not be apparent is that for many small manufacturers and
distributors - audio is not their primary business. If it were, we'd all be
on welfare. Truth be told, I have no good reason to promote Schroeder
tonearms because we all as resellers can get very few on an annual basis.
My 2005 annual allotment almost sold out. It is more in my best interest to
carry as many brands and sell the product which requires the least support
and makes me the most money. From this perspective, I am acting against my
own best interest by not selling the Graham.

As far as taking risks and submitting my products for review, I have done
this. While my 'table received "only " a Class B rating from Stereophile, I
expected nothing more from a reviewer who still maintains that the Linn
Sondek is the single machine that cures all of the world's ills. Truth be
told, the only reason I submitted to the review was to lend an air of
"reality" to my small company - that it really exists. I knew all too well
that without being an advertiser that I would not a rating consistent with
the sound I know I'm producing.

If you are interested, you can read the review here:
http://stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1004listening/ and my
manufacturer's reply here: http://www.galibierdesign.com/rants_03.html.

6. To Flyingred:

Thanks for the encouragement. I ain't such a bad guy when you get to meet
me.

Yes, the new Internet model allows crazy guys with more passion than common
sense to build and sell gear having entry point into an industry that did
not exist 10 years ago. We all win with this new model.

I think that forums like this provide a 2-way feedback loop (sometimes
feedback can be good) by blurring the line between manufacturer and
consumer. I have an extensive rant about this on my blog
(http://www.galibierdesign.com/blog.html#20050601) if you're interested. I won't bore you more with it here.

In forums like this, we all learn valuable lessons from each other as well
as making new friends who share our passion.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier