Halcro, If your Phantom pivots on a red herring, that may be the problem. Especially after a few years, I am sure the sound stinks.
- ...
- 123 posts total
Halcro. You are right, it's not necessarily a deal breaker. That said there is really no doubt in my mind that fewer connections are better, but often there are reasons it is not practical. It's usually not a night and day difference in most cases, and it can be swamped by other factors. For the sake of argument, if integrated amps were built to the same standard as separates, and used outboard, separate power supplies for each section, then they could be better. There are a few reasons (at least) no one builds integrated's that way. First, they would have to charge an enormous amount of money for them. Second it is rare that any one manufacture is skilled enough to get the most out of every different section (phono stage, dac, line stage, amplifier). Therefore something in the design will be less than optimal. And third, allot of audiophiles like to have the flexibility to try different things without replacing the entire system. |
I don't think that's possible because the Schroeder SQ is a version of unipivot arm and it cannot "move" the extra pivot. The only way to retain the string concept is to have a servo linear slide. Frank is a genius so he might be able to come up with something that combine the two methods but I don't see it to be practical. However he did make an experimental string arm in the form of a Thales concept with a pivoting headshell before. Even though it still achieves tangential tracking but it behaves dynamically different from the LT model. ______ |
- 123 posts total