Schroeder Reference Arm

Lewm, thanks. This was consistent with what I overheard at breakfast the next day.

You can find reports on the thread about the RMAF 2010. I was sitting in the back row, or rather, standing. All seats in front of me were occupied, and there were people also standing along both sides of the small-ish room. Speakers were Daedalus. Amps were Atma-sphere M60s. It was impossible, really, to compare the two tonearms (Schroeder Ref vs Talea), because two different phono stages AND two different cartridges were used. The Schroeder was playing into a new Artemis LCR phono stage and thence into the linestage of an Atma-sphere MP1. The Talea was playing into the Atma-sphere phono section. I believe that a Dynavector DV1S was riding in the Talea, and that a Sussuro (by SoundSmith) was riding in the Schroeder, but I could be wrong about the Talea. From where I sat, I very slightly preferred the Schroeder circuit (cartridge, tonearm, phono stage) because it was a bit more dynamic and "wet", which suits my own taste. OTOH, I could not fault the Talea in any way, and it certainly is a thing of beauty and precision. I did not care for any of the musical selections (which tended to the esoteric), so that did not help. Eventually, that is what drove me out of the room. Others who were in a better position to hear nuances either agreed or disagreed with my assessment, but as I implied above, I think it was more a comparison of cartridges and phono stages than of tonearms. Anyway, it was fun to see so much vinyl power in one room (Lederman, Schroeder, Durand, Mackris, etc, etc), all nice guys.

How I wish I had not forgotten to attend this comparison.

Please someone tell us your impressions.

Hi guys,
Sorry for the long pauses between replies. THANKS to Mike, I'll be at the RMAF from Thursday around noon, so I'm sure there'll be enough time to get reasonably close to what can be achieved under show conditions.
I favor a two cart session, the A90 first, then whatever favorite Joel and myself pull out of our hats.
And we're all in the same league when it comes to cartridge evaluations :-)
Thom, no problem about the incorrect quote. What's important is that every little detail makes a difference(as long as your system can resolve it). Whether a particular difference means anything to you(is worth tons of money) is another question...

Cheers,

Frank

Thanks Mike for your offer to bring your A90 for Frank! Very nice of you.

I'm happy to settle on the A90 for this session, so I'll bring mine. If we indeed do a first set up before switching to the A90, I'll use Thom's VX-1S.

Cheers,
Joel

Thom, you are welcome.

i'd like to say i don't consider myself in league with Frank or Joel in judgement of cartridge performance. i also want to point out that i have not spoken to Joel about the use of the A90 for this process and cannot say that he will agree. i in no way speak for him and wanted to clarify that in case any inference might have been taken. his A90 is not yet fully broken in last i spoke to him.

i simply offer my A90 if it helps.

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

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 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

Frank,

i'll arrive Thursday evening; hopefully that is early enough to do what you need to do. if necessary, i'd consider shipping it to you a few weeks prior. whatever we need to do in the interests of the proper process.

Hi Mike,
Thanks for the very generous offer. Before I start asking around, I might take you up on your offer. But I'll then need a couple of hours max. to familiarize myself with this particular sample(so that the setup/adjustment doesn't take too long). Will you be at the RMAF from day one, so I get to play with it in advance?

I'd still stick with the suggestion to focus on the cartridges chosen by Joel and me(based on our personal preference), with (it appears)different carts to be listened to first, then one switch to i.e the A90.

Thom's the MOC, let's hear what he has to say.

Best,

Frank

Hi Thom,
The idea was to remove the screw that holds the cartridge mounting plate, slide a tight fitting plastic or rubber washer up to the screw head and replace.
Frank understood,
Thank you both
Tawa.

Mike, save me seat in the back and I'll buy a round. :-)

as an owner of 2 Ortofon A90's and having mounted them on 4 different arms so far with great success including the Talea and Triplaner here's one vote for the A90 as the common choice of cartridge.

i would volunteer to bring one of mine broken in (both around 150 hours so far) for Frank if he cannot find another to use. i know that Joel already owns an A90 as he has had his in my room.

and yes; i'm hoping my offering might get me a seat in the back corner to quietly observe the proceedings.

Hi Thom,
Sorry, I just ran into this thread again and would like to add two things. First:
"Once you achieve the right torque, there's no difference between the alloy and wood headshells, according to Frank."
You must have misunderstood what I meant. There is a difference which stems from the different material interface and varying the torque, aka increasing or decreasing contact pressure is an important factor, but NOT the only one.
Using a, say, Nylon washer between the screw head and the headshell on a No.2 arm will give you a wider torque "range", but the headshell-mounting plate will remain pretty much uncompressible(unlike the wooden headhell-mounting plate contact area).
I've had customer who tried the Cartridge Man Isolator with either Reference or No. 2 arms. Some liked it better, others thought it decreased dynamic range.

Secondly:
I have nothing against using the same cart in both arms, but since you expressed a disliking for Lyra cartridges and I'm not super fond of the old Dyna XV-1s(since it imparts too much of it's own sonic fingerprint, imho) we may be able to agree upon the Ortofon A90, if I can get a sample for the show. If not, I'll be bringing what I like which may be a selection of several carts so I can pick what I feel suits the system in your room best. If Joel does the same, the comparison will be reflecting what each of us likes best.
Hopefully fun for everyone...

Cheers,

Frank

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

Dear Thom,
Sorry for taking the discussion in a slightly different direction,but could not resist.
You mentioned that the point[this concerns the screw that
passes through the slot at the end of the Schroder arms]
of looseness where the sound really harmonises, is on-off
with the no 2, and easier to find the sweet spot with the wooden arms,wood being softer.
Question is ,has any of your customers tried some type of washer maybe plastic or rubber on that screw to delete a metal to metal contact.
Finding the spot can be quite tricky sometimes days, after
any kind of adjustment to cartridge grometry.
Maybe Frank has some thoughts on this all important adjustment.
Thank you all.

Dear Hiho, I have had the Kuzma 4Point and sold it last autumn. It really is well executed and have some strong design points going with it. From it's outlook it may not appeal to all, but in many ways it is a form-follows-function- as well as a true no-nonsense-design. However it is lacking the kind of internet-following and support enjoyed by so many other tonearms today. Guess it is just a bit to little voodoo and hype around this Kuzma product. Too much down-to-earth and down-to-physics. As for it's sound - very relaxed, smooth and with a very wide and expanded soundstage. For my taste just to little "bite" and dynamic slam (but then I miss that all to often ...) and a touch too relaxed in the sonic performance. This may be credited to the damping fluid(s) and is certainly not a feature of its geometry nor technical execution. In summary a tonearm I would strongly consider today if I were looking for a pivot tonearm suitable to most of today's top-flight cartridges.

Thom, your last paragraph hits right on the point. Next to meeting and talking with everyone, I'm hoping to hear some new cartridges for myself in a more relaxed, informal setting. Like the A90, for instance. I'd almost vote to not hear a ZYX, Dynavector, or Lyra. Not that these aren't excellent cartridges, but I've heard them all before. Completely selfish motive on my part. :-)

I'm sure you'll have some outstanding electronics in the mix.

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

Here is a Kuzma 4point review in PDF from Hi-Fi Plus. Excellent pictures. It's an ingenious design with with 2 points for the vertical bearing, another 2 points for horizontal bearing. Fluid damping for both directions. Extremely small contact area (like a unipivot) and very stable (unlike a unipivot) and long armtube (smaller tracking error) with standard mounting distance (easy installation). And pivot point at record level (good for warped records). Pretty neat, I say!

Never heard the sound but would love to hear it.

____

Petng,
I too would love to know more about the Kuzma top pivoted tonearms and how it fits in with Triplanar, Graham, Talea, Schroeder, Reed, SME. I can't even find a good photo of either. The 4-point is the top of the pivoted line, is it not?

Dear Joel: Yes I understand what you mean and about the tonearm voicing.
I along my friend Guillermo are for the last three years in a self tonearm " universal " design an think I understand every single " subject " about.

Anyway I don't want to go " inside " no more in your tonearm design or Frank's one. We can agree overall but I know each one of us have some very particular " ideas ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

IME you can have 2 identical cartridges in 2 identical tonearms with all parameters being the same. The chance of the sound being the same is very slight. Depending on the break in period, amount of warm up etc the exact same cartridge will sound slightly different.

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

Raul,
You are right about trying to minimize the factors between tonearms. However, I agree with Paul about the important fact that using a wire that is not offered to customers would be a serious problem in any type of evaluation. Nobody would know what the "real" tonearm would sound like.
I don't think Frank and I use the same type of cable.
Another aspect of this is that, to a certain extent, the tonearm is "tuned" with the cable I'm using. If I used another wire, I might have to modify other things to get to the sound I want. In that sense, the cable is as important in the global sound result as, say, the wood I use for the armwand, or the material I use for the counterweights, and so on. Any change anywhere modifies the delicate balance between the elements. It can bring the whole thing to a higher level, of course--I'm not implying that I currently have the perfect recipe--and when that is the case, I adopt the change.
Joel

Dear Dougdeacon: My suggestions were trying to eliminate factors that per se makes a difference if we minimize those factors that has clear influence in the quality performance ( differences ) IMHO we can have a better idea of each one tonearm " real " performance. In this way the main tonearms difference ( yes there are other design factors that makes difference. ) will be the bearing type design.

Anyway just a thought.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

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.

Does anyone know how the kuzma 4p or the Kuzma 313 tonearms fit in the ladder of superior tonearms? Here in Australia the Kuzma tonearms are well represented so there a few of us have them. Unfortunately the tonearms that you guys speak of have no distributor here.

Would love any feedback on your experience on the Kuzma arms.

Dear Doug, I am thinking that I sounded snotty when I was preaching about scientific method. I apologize.

dear Thom,Frank and Joel: I know that in that night there will be not a shoout, there are not the best conditions/enviroment to do it but any way will be really interesting not only to hear it but to meet you and these great tonearm designers and of course all Agoner's.

Even that is not a shooout maybe you could take some ideas about if you can think could help to the whole purpose of that night:

- that both tonearms have the same kind of wire from cartridge pin connectors to phono stage. This sole factor IMHO preclude fair comparisons especially when attend so many " customer experts ". Frank and Joel could agree in which one for both.

- that both tonearm designers choose and agree in six-seven LP's tracks to make the listening test. Of course that after we heard that test will be a " free " listening/tracks/recordings time.

Anyway, looks like a great fun to come and a learning audio exercise. Good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

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

Sarcher, I believe human hearing would be most sensitive at between 500 and 2000 Hz (grossly speaking), and that's why we have 1kHz test tones and why crosstalk, distortion, etc, are usually measured at that frequency. Does the optimal electronic setting for azimuth vary much between 500 and 2K? I do not know. I would guess not.

Dgad's points are indeed valid - in fact, true optimization of the analog front end is a time consuming, laborious task that takes much longer than the optimistic numbers Dgad postulates (unless you happen to have a stroke of dumb luck, or you're sloppy). I believe the only caveat in his example is that all 3 designers (Tri, Frank and Joel) will be in the room, optimizing the setup of their respective arms. I would imagine that a common denominator, such as a Dynavector XV-1S, or a ZYX Universe will be present. All three designers are intimately familiar with the turntable in question; all three will be familiar in part with the rest of the system Thom will be using. I think the biggest variable will be the room and the overall system setup. So, while nothing is perfect, I do think the playing field is at least level. Will each arm be heard at its very very best? Probably not, but I think everyone present will hopefully glean something more useful than a mere 'character assessment' of all the arms in play. Of course, the potential and actual rarely meet, and Murphy is always lurking...

Dgad, you make great points. I, personally, am not really interested in a quest to find which arm is better than the other. I expect them to be very close in performance. If I'm wrong on this, I won't be the first time. :-) As is usually the case, I expect some may prefer one arm/cart combination to another as Frank pointed out before. For me this is simply a wonderful opportunity to meet and learn from some of the best.

One thing I will say that in all of my Talea listening to the present, I have not really fine tuned the setup (No MintLP protractor yet, for instance) of my XV-1s on the Talea. Yet the Talea clearly shows enhanced performance of the three cartridges that have been mounted when I was present compared to the Triplanar. I hate to keep saying this because I still love my Triplanar, but that is the best reference I have. I have heard a Schroeder Ref on several occasions but that is much different than my having hands-on experience.

As Thom mentioned above, the Talea is making me rethink my aversion to two arms on my Gavia.

I just don't get how one night of comparison at RMAF is going to tell anyone which arm is better. I do feel that Dan_ed's personal experience will be much more valid (especially for himself). But any cartridge I have ever setup (and a good setup takes time and tweaking, I don't care what expert you are - as VTF, VTA etc all need to be fine tuned over time) needed about 2-3 days to lock in all aspects. The best one will accomplish is an overall character assessment in some regard or other.

On a different note the art of setting up a Schroeder is long and painful but very rewarding in my case. Using different counterweights and different headshell weights all contribute to the final sound. As does the damping etc. I can't imagine many people getting to hear a Schroder at it's best. But, Frank - that is the curse of your arm. It is a setup nightmare and has been confirmed as such in the mainstream press. You should almost include a DVD. But when you change VTA you change VTF and you change azimuth. Anyhow it is as if I circle in on a point and as I keep refining the setup the circles get smaller and smaller until I finally get to the point, where VTF, VTA - damping, Azimuth etc are all locks in. Don't forget HTA as well. The difference I have observed of the Schroeder outside of the difficultly of setup is that the lack of a ball bearing does slightly change the dynamic and resolution in the bass. This is similar to an air bearing arm. But there is a musicality and dimensionality that exists with certain cartridges on Franks arm that has made that sacrifice worth it. Now if a different arm w. a unipivot bearing can combine the best of all worlds that would be great but honestly surprising. But no single night in RMAF will give the complete answer. Just a gimpse of what the possibilities are.

If one could determine what frequency range that crosstalk is most discernable to the ear. Then maybe there would be an ideal test tone to use.

Dear Joel et al, By choosing 1kHz in my little proposal, I did not mean to take the position that 1kHz is the sine qua non for setting azimuth. The goal of my proposed experiment would simply be to compare the outcome when a really good ear (like Doug's or Paul's or Tbg's) sets azimuth according to his/her preference vs when azimuth is set by a typical audiophile conventional electronic method ((based usually on a 1kHz test tone). I have no preconceived notions (i.e., no hypothesis). It's actually dangerous to design an experiment to prove an hypothesis. It's better to acquire some good data and then make an hypothesis centered on the data. Further experiments then test the strength of that hypothesis. If you can develop a way to use a set of frequencies to set azimuth electronically, rather than just a single frequency, that would be a useful improvement on the electronic method, IMO.

From what I've learned about the Foz and Feikert's software I would expect this. The Foz would get one close, and the software package would get you pretty much dead on the theoretical optimum. If one can do it by ear, it gets to be much faster. I would ask how much deviation from the theoretical optimum can we tolerate?

Lewm,
I'm not advocating setting azimuth by ear as necessarily the best method over any other one, but one thing I've noticed is that using only one frequency (1kHz, or another one) to measure crosstalk isn't terribly reliable. When I managed to establish a good balance at 1kHz, I measured that it was not right at other frequencies. Obviously, a musical signal is extremely complex because of the number of acoustic waves occurring at any given time, but also because of the way they interact with each other (addition, subtraction), to stay with just the frequency domain. I wonder if one could make a recording where, instead of just single frequencies, there would be "blocks" of stacked up sine waves in various groupings across the spectrum... But even that might not be realistic enough to parallel the complexity of musical signals.
Joel

Doug,
You're very right about the process--with one addition, perhaps a very personal one: I love accidents, mistakes and wrong turns. In musical composition (which many people don't see as rigorous, but actually is, just as much as scientific explorations, in different ways) as well as in tonearm making, I've often come to theoretical understanding after empirical discoveries resulting from unreasoned decisions (what if? oops! what did I just do? etc...).
Hypotheses sometimes get proven by testing, but more often than not, they just serve as jumping boards to jog the brain into action, to bring oneself into places one hadn't thought about.
If you get a better result than before, you try to reproduce the outcome again and start generalizing... until you find a new reason to move on and discard the theory you just established.
This is fun.
Joel

With all due respect, Doug, forming an hypothesis about the sound of a particular type of cartridge and "confirming" it with a sample of N=1 is not good "science", nor are the other examples you give. But I do agree that lack of a scientific approach is endemic in these discussions. The problem always is that, if we agree that we each have different and unique test instruments (our ears and brains), all of which are equally valid as adjudicators, then "science" as we would like it to be applied goes right out the window.

It's interesting that you should bring up the question of scientific method, because I was thinking about the same thing last night. Here's an experiment you and others who set azimuth by ear can do, and the results would be interesting:

Set azimuth be ear, and THEN use a Fozgometer or Feikert or Wally tool to determine what amount of crosstalk and/or phase error at 1kHz is preferred by the senses. (I choose 1kHz, because most test LPs provide bands at that frequency for setting azimuth.) Do this several times with different cartridges and tonearms, and see whether there is a trend, using one person as judge. Do it again with a second experienced observer who has been blinded to the preferences of the first. (I guess this belongs on the Foz thread.)

Whew!!!

Am I glad I force myself to stay quiet these days -:)

quite the heavyweight thread i've just stumbled across here....and entertaining too. :^)

i'm looking forward to hopefully observing the comparison session at RMAF 2010 on Saturday night. (i would expect that the demand for an opportunity to be present will far exceed the space to do so).

i have had all the above mentioned arms (Schroeder Ref SQ, Triplaner VII, and Talea) in-use in my room recently, and currently own and enjoy the Talea. i do share the perspectives of the other Talea owners in this thread on it's comparitive performance; but also look forward to the neutral playing field of set-up by each arm builder to reveal some clarity for enthusiasts that have not had the chance for direct comparisons (and the possibility of new truths being revealed).

i also own a couple of Reed arms and have had the Reed during my time with all these arms and feel strongly that it should also be included in this comparison.

in any case a comparison session such as this should be a great thing....and thanks to those who will put it together.

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

The question of tonearm/cartridge resonance is a very complex one, as seems clear from some of the posts here.
What is referred to as "damping" usually refers to the combined action of two of the basic parameters that allow to identify the acoustical properties of a given material: internal friction (tan ∂, loss tangent) and elastic modulus. Density is often included in this equation, but in my experiments and measurements, it seems to be less relevant than the other two parameters, in the particular application of a tonearm tube (as opposed to, say, a sound board).
But there is actually more to this than just the properties of the material--the shaping of the tube is critical, and not just whether it's tapered or cylindrical. With wood, in particular, the orientation of the rings, and other such considerations need to be taken in consideration, together with the properties of the "raw" material. It's an amazing field of investigation and, to a large extent, not easily subjected to simple measurements--unless perhaps if you combine together a very large pile of data...
I'll be happy to talk more about all this at the RMAF, and I too am looking forward to the session.
Joel Durand

I'm not trying to "win" anything, Frank, and I do regret that you have been pulled into this. The full picture is not on this thread. This is not about who's arm is better, or anything else having to do with audio. He can insult me all he wants. However, Mr Weiss has repeatedly insulted people who I consider my friends on this and other occasions. I will not suffer that in silence. I'm sorry you saw sarcasm in my responses. I intended to let everyone know exactly what I think of Mr. Weiss. Please let me know if I did not accomplish that.

Hi guys,
I wasn't refering to either dmailers or anyone elses assessment as "speculation", quite the opposite. I supported the concept of decisions based upon personal preferences/listening impressions rather than an attempt to (pseudo-)objectivly assign qualities or the lack thereof to certain design features(no hard feelings Doug, Paul).
I.e. a wooden armwand can resonate like crazy and a metal or carbon wand can behave in a very controlled and predictable fashion. Or vice versa...

So any assessment is valid and helpful as long as there are no sales pitches, badmouthing or hearsay infos attached.

And that's why I'm outta here again.
Please, Jonathan, don't advertize any of my (or related)products on this forum.
Please Dan ed, if you can't ignore Mr. Weiss postings, why try and top his non-constructive sarcasm? Nothing to win here.
The ratio between information content and ego war occupied space has long fallen below 1. And it seems that figure is getting smaller and smaller...

Cheers and looking forward to the RMAF comparison session,

Frank

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.

Nope, Mr. Weiss. I am certainly not looking for anything you may have. Of that you can be certain. As I have posted elsewhere in A'gon, I would not let my dog piss on the side of your barn or your Soho shop. Actually, I'll reserve the honor of pissing on your Soho shop for myself, if I ever go back to Soho. Too many smug heads up their own asses in that place for me, so I can understand why your shop is located there. Do I need to tell you what you can do with your speakers, and your opinions, or can you figure that one out for yourself?