Schroeder Reference Arm

Darn, this thread has taken off, and I plainly don’t have time to involve myself in the finer points of things analog.

I did want to take a moment to clarify a couple points of fact, as well as to comment about the Tri-Planar, which seems to be coming off as the red headed step child, even though this is unintended by the various posters. We have a tendency to try to read too much into each other’s written word, and sometimes this serves neither us, nor the product being discussed.

Our play session on Saturday night at this year’s ‘Fest (suite 1130 as always) is only now shaping up. Typically, Saturday evening sessions never start up before 8:30pm. We can never close the doors at 6pm on the dot, and the round-trip to dinner easily consumes two to two and a half hours.

Playing with two tonearms in this context is all that can reasonably be expected. In a short session like this (2-3 hours), the mind blurs, and we’ll no doubt want to try some different combinations. Frank typically brings some tasty cartridges to the show, so my guess is that there will be perhaps 2 or 3 setups on each arm.

As many have already commented, there will be no losers. Anyone who walks into this with an impression of a shootout, is sorely misguided.

Also, as far as involving Tri-Planar, Tri-Mai typically hosts some sort of event on Saturdays, so for this reason as well, we likely won’t bring a Tri-Planar into the mix. Don’t read anything beyond that into this.

As I work on the Stelvio II architecture, I’m wringing more and more out of the Tri-Planar along with every other arm. One of the key areas of improvement in the Stelvio II lies in the arm mounting architecture. I’m moving away from the pivoting armboard architecture, as I’ve wrung everything I can out of it. There will still be dual arm capability, btw.

Every arm I’ve experimented with on this new arm mounting architecture has benefited from it. Now, it just so happens that one of the Tri-Planar’s “weak” area lies in the upper mid/lower treble zone, where things can get the slightest bit bright. I hate writing this, because it is very, very slight. Keep in mind that I think enough of this arm to consider it (along with the Schroeder and Talea) as a reference. Still however, this upper mid/lower treble zone is *exactly* where most of the improvements in the new mounting architecture lie.

The other strength in this new architecture (I didn’t think this was possible) lies in the solidity and authority in the bottom end.

I didn’t intend this to be a sales brochure, but rather an attempt to bring a bit of fairness into the conversation about the Tri-Planar. Some of the observations about the arm seem to be a case of shooting the messenger. Where have we seen that before?

For the record, the room is shaping up as follows:

Galibier Stelvio II / Dyna XV1s or Artisan Cadenza (aka Benz LP S-class)
Atma-Sphere MP-1 Preamp
Atma-Sphere M-60 Amplifiers
Green Mountain Audio Speakers (new model, yet to be named)
Cables – either Audio Magic, Discovery, or Marigo

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

All,

I am humbled to be able to represent 3 of the finest tonearms on the planet, manufactured by 3 of the nicest fellows I know – Frank Schroeder, Joel Durand, and Tri Mai.

That a few of my customers are switching to the Talea, should be taken for what it is – moving from one outstanding tonearm to another. Few audiophiles have the resources to own all three tonearms at the same time, and so (being a fickle lot that we are), we practice serial monogamy.

BTW, Frank, Joel, and I are finalizing plans for a fun, after-hours session on Saturday evening at this year’s Audiofest – playing with both tonearms. The next generation Stelvio (to be unveiled at the 'Fest) will retain dual arm capability, so we’ll have a great platform for our session.

I’m not a multi-tonearm sort of fellow, but my experiences with the Myajima mono cartridge convinced me that a second arm has its place.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

After e-mailing Frank, and then talking with Joel, I’ve come to the conclusion that we're not going to agree on a single cartridge for both arms, and frankly (pun intended) I think this is how it should be.

I would argue to let each designer "dance with the one who brung you" (as in choosing their own cartridge). If there's time (which I doubt), we can do a reverso swap, for a total of 4 setups.

If you think about it, 4 setups in 3 hours means a total time of 45 minutes per cartridge, including mounting and setup. That's not a whole lot of time. With the Stelvio II being in dual arm mode, once the two arms were set up, all we'd be doing would be plugging and unplugging arm cables, and perhaps changing cartridge loading.

Note that Joel and Frank have just begun their dialog, so I may be wrong about this, but I have proposed to them that they each pick a cartridge they like, and be done with trying to do the impossible, which is to attempt a controlled experiment.

Read this forum long enough (especially Raul's posts), and you'll find magical synergies in certain arm/cartridge combinations.

Now, both the Schroeder and Talea bring out the best in a wide range of cartridges, and in this regard, they are very flexible – a Talea won’t sound bad with a cartridge Frank chooses, and the same applies to a Schroeder with a cartridge that Joel chooses.

I think it would be misguided however to try to settle on a single cartridge, because it would enforce the mentality of a shoot-out, and you know how misguided I think such an approach is. We would be lending credibility to such an approach.

This is about having a fun evening, meeting some great individuals, and walking away with the understanding that we have listened to two amazing tonearms which are more alike than they are different. I am honored to be chosen for these festivities, and rest assured, that the Stelvio II will be up to the task.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

None of my customers has reported trying to add another material interface between the cartridge carrier and the headshell on Schroeders. I think this is what you're referring to.

It's a simple thing to try if you're interested. The effects will be dramatic, and my guess is for the worse.

I've made changes as "minor" as replacing metal washers with nylon ones on a Tri-Planar, and the reproduction became blurred and uninvolving.

Ths washers were between the mounting screw head and the top of the headshell and NOT on the underside of the headshell (between cartridge and headshell).

Even with the cartridge still still mating up directly with the bottom of the headshell, the sound fell off dramatically, no matter how firmly I torqued the screws..

Frank has told me that the only disadvantage of the alloy headshell on the Model-2 (vs. the wood DPS & Reference) is that alloy construction makes it more difficult to find the torque sweet spot than with the wood headshell models.

Once you achieve the right torque, there's no difference between the alloy and wood headshells, according to Frank.

If I were going to try anything with a Model-2, I'd expereiment with thin pieces of hardwood, but I'd be prepared to try many different woods before coming to any conclusions.

One problem you'll face, will be in matching the screw length so that it engages with the carrier but does not protrude past the bottom of it - interfering with the cartridge mating to the carrier.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi all,

Thanks to Mike for stepping up (there I go with another pun ).

I defer to Frank, Joel, and Mike on cartridge selection. I completely trust Frank’s, Joel’s, and Mike’s assessment on the A-90.

I’d love to reduce the confusion by going to a single pair of “identical” cartridges that everyone is comfortable with.

I didn’t want to put pressure on Joel and Frank coming to an agreement on one cartridge, but this development will mean more time to listen and adjust in flight.

I also wanted to de-emphasize the nature of any kind of "shootout", and will (on Saturday evening) re-introduce my position on this before we start.

Not having to do a cartridge swap would really open up the possibilities, and we could listen to different phono stages as necessary. Show conditions are brutal, and you never know what will work until you’re there.

Note that Frank and I are arranging some off-hours time in the room, to get to know the system before the Saturday session. I want everyone to have the best opportunity to have a good presentation – in what are always, challenging conditions at best.

This first system exposure (for Frank) may not be on Thursday, as there’s too much system fine tuning to be done before the first day of the show. While Thursday night is possible, it’s not likely however. We'll have time.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Tawa, Frank ...

I frequent another audio list, and whenever one of us chirps up with an idea, the response is always “try it and report back to us”. I was tempted to make this comment in my initial post on the topic, but didn’t want to come off as being too snarky.

On the topic of shims and other interfaces for an aluminum headshell Model-2, I brought up the nylon washer on the Tri-Planar only to emphasize that even in this seemingly “harmless” position (between cartridge screw & top of headshell), the effect is dramatic, and not for the better in this particular instance.

A seemingly innocuous material interface had dramtic effects.

As you wrote (Frank), a washer in this position (between pivot bolt and headshell) would introduce some torque tolerance, but of course will not change the cartridge carrier to under side of headshell interface

Once you introduce something at the interface between the cartridge carrier and the under side of the headshell, I would expect the changes become even more dramatic.

I would definitely suggest your trying these combinations (Tawa). While you may not like anything you try, you’ll gain an appreciation for how tunable an analog front end is.

It’s about the journey and not the destination.

Enjoy the journey!

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Frank,

I wish this forum software allowed you to edit posts. I noticed another point that needed clarification.

Of course, the optimal torque (absolute value) for an aluminum headshell Model-2 will likely be different from the screw torque required for a wood headshell DPs/Reference.

My point was centered on the user without a fine torque wrench, and the end-user's perception/feel that with the aluminum headshell, the right torque (whatever its absolute value) is s more of a go/no-go sort of thing, than with the wooden headshells which compress.

Does this make sense? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Cheers,
Thom