Schroeder Reference Arm

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.

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

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.

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

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