Schroeder Reference Arm

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

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.

Whew!!!

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