12 inch Graham Phantom

This is so far - heads and away - the most sophisticated and educational thread in the analog department in 2010.
But to add to the pure technical aspect of the question: yes, longer is better - obviously. In terms of geometry and in terms of - well .. - feeling. Anything less than 10" is not really serious and the real fun starts with 12".

Dgad, it certainly all is a matter of perspective ......
Length never hurts - if applied with expertise and skill.
Those poor souls who prefer short and thin will still have a wide selection.
Given the fact that the 10" are rare and the 12" are even scare.
Those lucky few who have experienced the advantage of the long versions applied with skill, will never again settle for less -neither skill nor length.
And they KNOW why.
And - yes, I recall! - we were talking tonearms.....

o.k. - back to the mere prosaic world of analog-highend audio.
If the rigidity of a given tonearm AND its moving mass AND its ability (if there is any ability) to transfer energy is NOT diminished by the increased length of the armpipe - then the advantage in minimized geometrical error will show off in "improved" (whatever that is..) sonic presentation.
So - if all strong points of a given tonearm-design are preserved while increasing its length - and thus decreasing its geometrical error (tangential...) - then the longer version will be the "better" version.
As with everything in our physical sphere, there is a "window" or "frame" of superior function under the given mechanical circumstances. Below 9" the error in a pivoted design becomes too large to allow serious high-fidelity sound (at least to my ears). Above 12-13" there will be very few plinth/turntables around to accommodate a tonearm of that length. Furthermore the further minimization in tangential error will be so little, that it won't show off any more in real-world set-ups.
Between 9" and 12" there is a significant improvement in tangential error and the toenarms of that effective length still do show reasonable rigidity and moving mass.
Compare the 12" to the 10" versions in tonearm-designs like the SME, the Ikeda, the Phantom II, the Fidelity Research FR60s-series. While the differences are subtle, they are there. Clear and in all the different designs of the tonearms just mentioned, they are showing in the same direction.
I like it when physical laws and geometry show their impact in analog.
Not all is myth or voodoo.

Dgad, ...
10-03-10: Dgad
I remember reading somewhere that mistakes in setting up a 12 inch arm as compared to a 9 inch arm will be more "severe". I forget where I read it but it seems to make sense. A 12 inch arm is less tolerant of poor setup than a 9 inch.

.... interesting.
You will supply the geometrical background for this statement ?! At least for this poor educated soul of mine it is not immediately apparent, why "mistakes in setting up a 12" arm as compared to a 9" arm will be more "severe"...".
This rather seems one of those "high-end-audio-only laws of physics" probably stated by one of the self-promoted deans of analog-audio-MIT
Please clarify.

Dear Asa, thanks for the further hint, but my problem is with the statement itself - not so much its "origin". It lacks even the most basic traces of logic and geometry. It is o.k. with me if an audio reviewer has problems in aligning a pivot tonearm (I guess most of them have...), but it is something else if one tries to hide one's inabilities and lack of expertise behind "technical explanations" which have nothing to do with the real world and are (at least for some) an insult to basic school knowledge.
It reminds me of that indestructible "zombie statement" in tube audio that 12V and higher heaters are somewhat sonic inferior to 6.3V heaters.
Seems that in high-end audio no statement is silly enough, that it don't become "proven statement" if it is only published somewhere online.

Dgad, "why not 14 inches tonarms"? Because of the lack of available space on most turntables AND because the decrease in tangential error relatively becomes less and less with increased effective length.
14" and 16" tonearms were invented for and mounted on special broadcast turntables/plinth to be able to play transcription discs of large diameter common in the 1940ies and 1950ies.
On the better calculated 12" tonearms the maximum tangential error is already between 1.3° and 0.3°. This is a relatively large advantage to the 2.8° to 1.6° in 9" pivot tonearms. Lofgren A,B,C (vs in between...), Baerwald, Stevenson or any other calculation can be applied to 9", 10" or 12" effective length. It will not alter in any way the inherent advantage in tangential error (read: smaller...) of the longer version.
For those not to be convinced by physics and logic, there is always the opportunity to compare 9" to 12" versions of the very same tonearm.
Which leads us back to Graham and the 12" Phantom II.
Wider soundstage, more stable individual voices in complex choruses, more free and detailed high frequencies and a kind of "relaxed feel" in dynamic scale music.

Given the fact that Graham now offers a 12" tonearm may have several reasons: - he has given some of his above statements from the early 1990ies a second thought .....
- the "today's needs" have changed.
- market demand.
The quote that "a longer tonearm only shows a lower tracking error if the cartridge is properly aligned" - please, give me a break !! - sorry Gentlemen, of course, a preamplifier too will only give good results if you switch it on.
Apparently, today the longer tonearm no longer has those "disadvantages" ..... otherwise it wouldn't be an option.
A certain design principle in high-end audio is officially burden with problems - until it is part of the product range.
Logic - isn't it.

Aside from the - no doubt and undisputed - increase in inertia (only an important point if serious off-center pressings are played) and effective moving mass (fairly insignificant with top-flight cartridges - again for obvious reasons), the "longer" 12" pivot tonearm has as well some very simple and obvious mechanic-dynamic advantages (especially with warped records ....) to its shorter 9/10" brothers. Its advantages are not limited to smaller tangential error - it is a bit more complex. Which is again the point where any serious modern day audiophile moves out.

Syntax - did you recall why CD was such an instant success back in teh early 1980ies?
2 strong points going with it which told/tell a lot about the vast majority: - remote control AND plug'n'play (NO adjustments.... CD-tweaks came later...).
I guess we should just settle with the one difference which is apparent to all and restrict ourself to the simple omnipresent economic law of our time: - new= better, bigger=better, more expensive=better, more press-presence=better, "read it somewhere"=better, longer=better. It gives a nice comfortable feel to break complex issues down to the very simple facts of life. All a sudden it is so easy.