Schroeder Reference Arm

Rccc,

For clarity, I don't think its helpful to consider resonances in a tonearm in this context. Stray energies leaking from a cartridge can cause problems whether the arm resonates or not. Intra-arm resonances would indeed be a problem, but lets manage one disaster at a time.

The primary deleterious sonic effects of energies leaking from a cartridge occur when those energies are reflected back into the cartridge, causing it to generate spurious, time-delayed or phase-shifted echoes. It's the sonic equivalent of glare reflected off a windshield, with a similar cause.

I wish I could offer a broadly useful method to determine, measure or quantify, but all I can say is that we hear and identify those time-shifted echoes. We've heard enough arm/cartridge combinations to recognize them when they occur, and also to recognize when something else occurs that sounds like them but isn't. My partner's remarkable ears, science expertise and ever-questioning mind often play a role. Consider two cases:

#1
Before a recent cartridge trial Paul specifically predicted it would have these issues. He said so based certain design elements, which he expected would make such behaviors inevitable.

He was right, though the sub-cycle echoes were much worse than even he expected. Paul left the room after a few minutes in pain. (Our audio buddies would recognize the behavior. He has a vanishingly low pain threshhold for time-domain distortions. Problems that take me hours to identify give him a splitting headache in mere minutes.) I struggled with the cartridge for 2-3 sides but the longer I listened the more obviously annoying it got.

This $8K cartridge actually sounded excellent in every other respect, yet those reflected energies were clearly audible and - thanks to a uniquely misguided design - untameable by any tonearm. Prediction sadly confirmed.

#2
In a more recent trial a much humbler cartridge started off okay, but I began noticing anomalies after half a side or so. There was a trail of diminishing echoes off the back end of every note (not soundspace echoes, artificial ones). I commented to Paul that it sounded *somewhat* like the echoes from that $8K disaster, though not nearly so bad. That was the limit of my diagnosis.

Paul listened for a few seconds and said, "I hear what you're hearing but they aren't mechanical echoes. It's probably electrical. This doesn't sound quite like a moving coil nor a moving magnet. How does this cartridge generate a signal?"

I was impressed, not for the first time. Anyone else would have been stunned speechless... Quite unprompted, Paul had correctly deduced that this was neither an MM nor an MC. It was a MI!

He knew nothing about this cartridge. He'd never looked at it. He didn't know what brand it was. Yet after hearing it for a few moments from the dinner table, a room away from the system, he identified its electro-magnetic functioning as something unusual. Measure that! ;-)

I read from the pamphlet about how this cartridge worked. Paul nodded and confirmed his suspicion that we were hearing hysteresis effects. Then he explained hysteresis. ;-)

Now if I could just bottle the ability to hear and identify hysteresis coming from a magnets the size of a pinhead ...

***

Regarding measurement and quantification, my sense is that arms, cartridges and setups present too many variables. Energy leakages from a cartridge vary with the tonearm its mounted on, the screws, nuts and washers, the tightening of the screws, etc. Once the energy gets into the tonearm, each arm varies in its ability to dissipate that energy rather than reflect it back into the cartridge. Further, each of these behaviors is a frequency dependent function. It seems to me that the applicability of any measurable "leakage factor" to a different setup would be questionable.

All fairly useless, but it's what I've got,
Doug

What you heard, IME, is the best feature of Frank's tonearms (aside from their gorgeous looks perhaps). All Schroeders are excellent at damping stray energies escaping from a cartridge. The higher up the model line you go the better they get in this respect (and others). This gives them the ability to tame cartridges that can sound shrill or clinical on other arms.

The most striking example I've heard was with a Shelter 901. That cartridge had great macro-dynamic punch but it also leaked tons of energy into a tonearm. Most arms can't handle that so the 901 often sounded edgy, over-excited or disjointed. In my own experience it behaved that way on a Basis Vector, Graham 2.2, Origin Live Silver and TriPlanar. Mounting it on a Schroeder Ref provided a mind-altering experience. The sound settled down to a calm, integrated wholeness that let the music sing. It was shocking to hear how much a well damped arm could tame a basically unbalanced cartridge.

If you use a better damped cartridge, that particular Shroeder advantage may be less significant than other parameters. For example, a TriPlanar is certainly less well damped but it provides more accurate setup and greater stability. That can make it a more effective platform for well behaved cartidges. It's all about component matching, as usual.

Of course we'd all prefer an arm that offers the best of everything! I've used one arm that betters a TriPlanar's setup accuracy and stability while also handily beating a Schroeder Ref for damping of stray energies. It's altogether more holistic, dynamic and accurate than either of these fine arms. Pricing is similar to a Ref, lead time is perhaps a bit shorter.

The JMW is a decent mid-market arm, but comparing it to top tier arms that cost 2-3X its price isn't quite fair.

BTW, a turntable rarely has much impact on how a tonearm performs. Aside from obvious errors like mounting a very heavy arm or a linear tracker on a lightly sprung table and screwing up the suspension, arm/table interactions are fairly insignificant. Almost any arm would perform close to its best on an HRX, or on my Teres, or on a host of other good, stable tables. OTOH, arm/cartridge interactions are vital, as you just heard. That's the interaction one must consider when selecting a tonearm.

Lew,

Please continue to bother. Many bumblebees do fly, just not those particular bumblebees!

The SG was not one of those two examples, obviously, though FWIW Paul actually did predict its specific sonic character before we heard it at RMAF 2008. It met those predictions fully. Even I could could hear it. ;-)

You'll be further thrilled to learn that our new "worst ever $8K cartridge" does not have a name beginning with a "K". ;-)

I may try to cobble together some list of cartridges with our sense of how much energy they leak. Fairly bogus and certainly IME only, but maybe useful to identify the most difficult to tame.

Heh. Mr. Weiss had no problem believing every word Paul and I spoke when we offered positive analytics in his room during RMAF 2008. No snide remarks then!

Today, in an ill-judged defense of his commercial positions, he disparages components he's never heard and ears he once admired.

Is it any wonder he lost the rights to one of the world's finest turntables? Will he long retain the rights to one of the world's finest tonearms?

Save us from empty compliments and emptier insults.

To address his only points of genuine content, we've heard Schroeder arms, every model currently available, in many rooms and systems and with many different cartridges before and since our Soundsmith visit. Frank's arms do indeed handle "leaked" energies (or whatever term one prefers) better than most other arms in their respective price classes. I could list a dozen arms, including my own TriPlanar, that the comparably priced Schroeder outplays in this respect.

And yes, the Talea does it even better. Don't believe or disbelieve. Listen.

Frank,
No reason for hard feelings between you and us, and happily there are none.

For clarity, please note that there is no conflict between attempting to "(pseudo-)objectivly assign qualities or the lack thereof to certain design features" and "personal/listening impressions". Nor should preference be given to one over the other, since both are required for real progress. The former is what scientists call a hypothesis. The latter is empirical evidence, which scientists use to test a hypothesis. Both are valuable provided one remains concious of the differences and relationships between them.

One problem with many audiophiles, it seems to me, is that we often perform each of these without proper regard for its counterpart. We accept hypotheses without testing. We hear something and try to emulate it without understanding. Many of us make both mistakes at the same time. This is not a formula for success, and asserting one or the other lowers that light:heat ratio.

The scientific method involves two stages of action:
1. the formulation of a hypothesis;
2. empirical testing to prove or disprove it.
Taken together, this is called an "experiment". Taken apart, it's called chaos. ;-)

Fortunately for me, Paul is a scientist. When he forms a hypothesis such as the ones I described above, it remains as such until we test it empirically. Conversely, should we hear something new we make an effort to understand how it happened (ie, form a new hypothesis).

It's easy to see how example #1 in my post above followed the scientific method. Paul hypothesized about how a certain cartridge would sound (based on design elements). We tested by listening. In this instance the hypothesis was confirmed.

Example #2 also followed the scientific model. In that case, anomalies heard whilst listening sounded more electrical than mechanical, which let Paul to hypothesize that this cartridge was neither an MM nor an MC. That hypothesis was tested by referring to the manufacturer's spec sheet, and was also confirmed.

Here are two other examples, one proved and one disproved. Prior to RMAF 2008 Paul formed a hypothesis about a certain cartridge and I formed a hypothesis about a certain turntable. Both were based on our "(pseudo-) objective assignments of sonic characteristics to certain design elements". In our targeted listening sessions Paul's hypothesis was proved correct (the cartridge misbehaved as predicted). My hypothesis was proved incorrect (the turntable, Winn's Saskia, did not misbehave as predicted).

I've always imagined that you, Joel and other successful equipment designers do not develop and improve your complex products by random trial and error. It seems likely to me that you also "(pseudo-)objectivly assign qualities or the lack thereof to certain design features", then build a prototype and test your hypothesis empirically. Some ideas work, some don't, but you learn from each experiment and advance by so much.

Cheers,
Doug

Lew,

I always enjoy our discussions. Being challenged forces me to think more clearly and I need that. (If you knew Paul you'd appreciate how practiced I am at having my thinking challenged, successfully!) Your gracious apology is accepted, though certainly not expected or required.

I'm sure you appreciate that we're not going to subject ourselves to n=1,000 samples of crap just to statistically verify the crap we heard from n=1. Even reviewers don't do that and we're music lovers, not reviewers, even if one of us has a weakness for babbling on forums.

Completely agree that variables between systems and the ultimately subjective nature of music listening limit the extent to which scientific method can be applied when evaluating audio equipment. Subject to those limits however, as I think you agree, one can usefully apply a few basic scientific approaches. I suppose that's all I was trying to suggest.


Raul,

Interesting suggestion regarding tonearm wire. Whether the two designers will adopt it might depend on whether either of them offers their arm with different wire as an option. I imagine Joel and Frank each plan to demonstrate a tonearm that's actually available! If they don't offer the same wire to customers and if having different wire confuses the assessment of other performance characteristics during this (non) shootout, then so be it. :-)

Of course if they do offer the same wire your suggestion makes a great sense.

Raul,
I think we understood that but thanks for clarifying.