Goldmund Studio - still relevant today?

The Studio is "relevant", but I personally was never impressed with it. The Studietto was a real dog, IMO. These are just my private (now not so private) opinions. The T3F is a derivative of the Rabco tonearm, better quality construction, perhaps. It is thus to be judged. But lots of other people like this stuff.

Dear Mark,
Don´t waste your money and time. Life is short. Here´s my story.
Back in 1990 I owned brand new Studio but not with the linear arm. The DD motor by JVC is excellent BUT the problem is the flimsy floating suspension.
It just floats causing technical problems and just smears sound, unfortunately. It´s not near as sophisticated as ORACLE´s hanging suspension. That´s why I witched my Studio to used DELPHI MKII and got much better sounding turntable.
And T3F is a clumsy dinosaur from the stone age, certain modern linear arms are certainly worth trying if you prefer linear trackers (I personally do).

BUT if you do like it for some other reasons, maybe for aesthetics I would suggest to get rid of the suspension altogether because it´is the root of all evil. If you are a DIY man give it a try. Think of its 25 kg mass of lead-acrylics body with a superb vintage Japanese DD motor. That´s really something else, isn´t it.
I should had tried to remove the suspension but I had not skills and patience to do. Young and foolish I was and lost a minor fortune eventually. Those were the days.

If you don´t care for tweaking an ancient TT it doesn´t make sense going back to the 90´s... Anyway, good luck for your search.

Regards

Is the Studio/T3F still relevant for the used price they command? It depends on your point of view. Is a 301 or a 124 still relevant? Certainly wouldn't buy an original example of one of those expecting it to be plug-n-play.

The Studio has the beefiest springs I've seen. They came set-up for use with the T3F and some alternate springs were supplied. Still, a weak point of the design and problematic with most replacement arms. Sorbothane pucks were often used for spring replacements on both the Studio and Studietto which used the same springs.

The stock studio/T3F dramatically outperformed the Delphi (w/any arm) at that time. It was no contest really. The T3F might be outperformed by a more modern design, but I think if you heard a properly set-up Goldmund Reference from that same time, the arm would sound pretty good. The Studio is no Reference, but with a little TLC, can more than hold its own.
Regards,

Harold,
I don't doubt your tale of two tables, but I don't share your experience. Maybe it was learn as you go, but if you put the effort into the Studio as the Delphi, you might be singing a different song. At least that's my experience and I'm not alone with that opinion. Virtually EVERYBODY back then recognized the jump in performance going to a Studio.

You could say it's an unfair comparison with the price difference, but the Oracle was at its best with a SME V and that is/was a pricey arm. I set-up or tuned Delphi with mostly the SME V, and arms like the Syrinx PU3. Yes, I got them to bounce straight and stop on a dime after three bounces. The Delphi MK II is a beautiful table and it sounds quite good if set-up properly.

Even though it's not your experience, IMO the Studio has greater potential. Admittedly, the suspension should be defeated and you need a later version of the arm or a replacement. I never cared for the Groove Isolator, but I guess that to, is a matter of opinion.

I think this sums up relative quality:
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Tables.html

Regards,