Hi John,
Lots of Thai, Vietnamese and excellent Chinese restaurants in my neighborhood(and no Starbucks nearby...)! Drop me a mail again when that next trip is in sight. I´ll be glad to further extend your appreciation of my hometown :-)
Cheerio,
Frank |
It's nice to get feedback from two highly respected designer/manufacturers. Especially since a tonearm will be my next major analog purchase, one I don't want to have to do ever again.
Frank,
Well, if you are going to be cuting deals at the RMAF, I'm in! I'll see you there. I stopped looking at other arms aside from the Phantom after getting some feedback from Lugnut, Doug and Cello. I tried again to make it to listen, but since I could not, at least those are some ears I trust.
Bob,
The Phantom is still in the hunt, but a cocobolo wand should top off my cocobolo Teres very nicely. At least I should be able to listen to both @ RMAF.
This is going to prove to be a tough decision, as everything I've heard about both arms has been positive. I do know that it will be either the Phantom or a Schroder. I feel either one will fall into the final purchase category, since I have no patience for a butt-ugly linear arm. For me aesthetics is just as important as the sound. And both arms are very fine looking indeed.
Now if Raul would just say one of them sucks, I'd know which way to go. |
Frank,you forgot to take ROUND TRIP into consideration.Let alone the cost to me,or anyone else taking time off.In my case,from my business.Take that all into account and you'd be giving your arm away if you were so nice as to discount expenses.The offer,I'm sure, was meant in a good spirit,and appreciated,but the "little woman" at home would make me pay DEARLY.I guess I'll have to live with what I currently own,for a while longer.
Anyway,as you pointed out,and what any well heeled audiobuff already knows,something like a tonearm "SHOULD" be judged in one's own set-up,unless you are intimately familiar with the NEW system at hand.My complaint about the loss of good dealers,revisited.
I do want to thank you and Bob Graham for your fascinating(to me)responses.I'm impressed,and kind of surprised that in a HOBBY-RELATED site,the dialog could be such that they could garnish responses from proven designers like you two.Sort of humbles me,a bit,about keeping my mouth shut(although I have been at this 37 yrs)and am still free to express opinions "Learned" from owning said products.
At the very least,I'm really getting paranoid about my propensity for excessive word count!!Anyway,it is now SPRINGTIME here in New Jersey,and I'll be out practicing my first love,TENNIS,so I doubt if I'll be boring anyone in the near future,unless I decide to analyse new tennis racket technology should my backhand go astray!!Anyone know of any good tennis websites?Good luck to all!! |
Did you know the bumble-bee CAN'T fly, according to one school of theory? This is the thought that first came into my mind when I read the posts of 3-19-05 from Frank Schroder. (And I REALLY won't have time to keep this thing going, but sometimes a question just must be answered, before the wrong impression is left untouched for too long..!)
The point is that I think that, while heated debate among the hobbyists and consumers themselves is fine, it is not in good taste for us manufacturers to try and "suggest" something may be amiss in someone else's design, thereby planting the seed of doubt in the readers and potential customers.
In this case, the comment such as "your new design is well founded but not exactly revolutionary" is something that I, no matter what I may know or think of another design, would never utter. It's just not appropriate. I have high regard to many other tonearm designs, including Frank's, but if any of us where to try an take the time to suggest a "weakness" of some kind, we'd only be opening the door to the shortcomings in our own efforts, which are always present.
I am not aware of the article that Frank refers to, but I am VERY sure there was nothing like the horizontal stablizer that's now in Patent Pending status; we checked carefully into the history of tonearm designs and found nothing remotely like this.
OK, with the Philosphy and Ethics Class 101 dismissed, just a few points before I have to get back to work, REALLY, and off this thread, if I'm to get the necessary things done on time:
My reference to the jewel bearings in Rolex was only an off-the-cuff remark that superior bearing quality is not that much more costly to make the inferior materials. I'm aware of the properties of sapphire/ruby, as well as tungsten carbide and steel. Simply put, I went for the more exotic tungsten carbide as a high-quality, long-life bearing component, since the cost differential over the less-desirable steel wasn't so great. And I don't like to take the cheap way out, anyway, especially in something as central to performance as the main bearing.
The other technical detail that needs a little polishing is Frank's correct assertion that tracking force will be affected by interia as the arm moves up and down. Of course that's correct; however, I see no reason to let that fact be compounded in fact by having a balancing system which will CERTAINLY add it's own additional forces to the arm as it's negotiating warps. And this applies to ANY arm of any pivoting design that places the pivot point above the Center of Gravity.
And one last little jab that needs commenting on is the "question" that the magneglide has higher horizontal friction than vertical. Again, I'm sorry to keep reminding Frank of this, but it's painfully obvious that, like a good attorney, the answer is known BEFORE the question is asked; all the better to influence the jury. The answer is, of course, that yes, there is slightly more horizontal mass to deal with - but only slightly - and due to the combined quality of the bearings involved (tungsten carbide main pivot, and an ABEC-7 ceramic ball-bearing assembly for the Magneglide tracker) the additional friction is mostly theoritical, not practical. If it were otherwise, then I've really been barking up the wrong tree with this entire excercise! In measurements, I cannot find any appreciable (read: none that I could see at all!) difference between the horizontal drag of the 2.2 and the Phantom.
As I said before, I have high regard for all other designers that make good products, and this list would certainly include Frank Schroder, as well as Alistair Robertson-Aikman (SME), Harry Weisfeld, and others. We each have our strengths - and our weaknesses! - and it's up to the listener - not us - to decide which sounds best. And without vested interest input from competiting designers, even on a friendly basis. I just feel strongly that we, as designers, should place our designs and theories out there for the public (and reviewers) to analyize, and then step back and let the music be the guide, not our competitors.
Bumble-bees really DO fly, and to try and sugget they can't is plain wrong: just sit back and watch them go if you want to be convinced....
|
Dear Mr. Graham,
First of all, my apologies if my post created the impression I was trying to raise doubts or question the quality or superiority of the Phantom over your previous designs. The question about the Magnaglide tracker was a "real" question, a question about a design choice and the wheighing of its merits versus potential drawbacks. I am totally satisfied with your answer.
I addressed the issue of neutral balance not to belittle the value of the magneglide feature, but wanted to point out that neutral balance in unipivots had been discussed on a theoretical and practical level many years ago. Anyone who reads the articles I was refering to, will find that they make a strong point in favor of the Phantom.
Rest assured that I never publically comment on the sound of other tonearms, I totally agree with your point about the consumer doing the judging. But when it comes to design philosophies, choice of materials and sometimes even aesthetics, I enjoy the exchange, partially because it is the exchange with likeminded people that is part of the fun in this hobby/profession. My word isn´t gospel and I have taken a strong beating before, but I´d still rather write and sign my own posts instead of, say, telling somweone else to do it for me.
To put this to a hopefully happy end, I promise not to comment on a specific design feature in the future (except when asked about my own arms) and suggest to the moderator to remove my earlier post(03-19.05;"Dear Mr. Graham...") within the next few days.
No hard feelings, and I owe you a drink(Munich, Denver?)
Frank Schröder |
Dear Frank,
I appreciate your response and hope that my own response wasn't taken as too much of a slam. We all have different approaches to design, and hope that our respective efforts do the job admirably; it's up to us to do our homework, and up to the consumer to see if they agree! If you do take your note off, then ask them to remove my reply, as well - fair's fair, after all!
I thought long and hard about the best way to accomplish the desired goal of Neutral Balance in a way that would provide the tracking advantages it offers, and at the same time, not create additional problems of it's own. The components of the Magneglide system are all of low-mass design: small parts, lightweight materials, and a short distance to the pivot. Together, this combination does provide the required stability and allow the arm to pivot freely in both horizontal and vertical (with Neutral Balance) planes. We're very pleased with the results.
(For the hobbyists who may not be aware of the cumulative effects of this, in calculating Effective Mass, we are concerned about the static weight of an object -counterweight, headshell, cartridge, etc, - times the distance from the pivot SQUARED! That's why a larger counterweight, placed closer to the pivot, will have a lower effective mass than a small one - remember, looks are deceiving! - placed further away).
Anway, I paid close attention to this important consideration during the design, and rest assured that all's well in that area! Neutral Balance is a desirable condition in tonearms that goes back years, I agree. I remember Edgar Villchur discussing this in the 1960's, when the AR turntable came out. He was right then (as he was in so many things this genuius/audio pioneer created), and it's still true today.
And yes, I'd very much like to have a beer and pretzel with you sometime. Have never been to Munich, but hope to in the not too distant future...
So, all you audio adventurers out there, enjoy the dialogue and theories to consider, but most of all, sit back - forget those theories - and enjoy the music!
Now, I really MUST get off this thread and back to work! Happy Spring to all - Bob |
Hi Mr.Graham,
This is an ignorant question. I have yet to see my Phantom so I have no idea how the Magneglide works. Essentially, it replaced the sideweights. Did it? Is it adjustable say to take cartridges with a heavy (3.8gms) tracking force?
Please enlighten me. Thank you |
To answer your question, the Magneglide(tm) system is totally independent of cartridge weight. It provides lateral stability (replacing the weights, as you suggested) but does not carry any real load; it's main function is to stabilize the tonearm assembly in such a way that the static downward tracking force is kept consistent regardless of arm height (here I'm referring to lifting the arm up and down, as over warps, not just the VTA position....) |
Bob,in lieu of the fact that I have a Vacuum table,would the magna-glide feature help me that much.I have a 7.5 gm Transfiguration Temper-v coupled to a 2.2.
I was not going to post anymore,as you stated you didn't have time to respond seperately,but you broke your rule(ha,ha)with your last thread.Anyway,if you chose not to respond,I'll see either you or a rep,from Musical Surroundings,at HE-2005.Either way is fine with me.Thanks. |
Hi Mr. Graham,
What I am worrying about is the anti-skate because I was watching a friend adjust the anti-skate in a 2.2 using a cart with a heavy tracking force. The arm kept sliding inwards at a fast pace in a blank record. To correct this he added some lead weights along with the supplied side weight and it stabilized. My question is will the Phantom be able to tackle the situation? In the case of the 2.2 when extra lead weights were added, the problem was solved.
But how about in the Phantom?
I thank you so much for answering my queries. |
Dear Sirspeedy,
I have a vacuum table. The Phantom is as the kids say "Way Better". In fact, if the arm does not sound a great deal better, I will take you and your wife out to dinner if you come to San Diego.
Best Wishes,
Steve |
DDDRRR.Steve,I hope you let me pick the venue.
My point regarding the Magna-glide was in reference to the supposed warped record factor,which is not an issue with a vacuum table.As you know,everything is pancake flat on my table.I'm not questioning the effectiveness of the "Feature",but would like confirmation,as to how effective it is if the records are never warped,in the first place.Believe me,I'm fairly convinced the Phantom is a winner!As is the case,from what we all hear,with the Shroder arms.Sorry,Frank I don't know how to add the punctuation marks over the "O".
Also,Bob and Frank are CLASS ACTS in my book,in the professionalism afforded each one's opinions.I wish more "posters" were like this minority.I also wish I had a table that could support 2 arms.Thank God I lose one college tuition in May,when my daughter graduates!! |
"DDDRRR.Steve,I hope you let me pick the venue."
Absolutely!
I just received the Revelation Audio Labs phono cable. I'll report my findings to you shortly Sirspeedy.
Steve |
Dear Yagbol2, Anti-skate with my Phantom using the Nightingale cartridge seems about perfect after other parameters are dialed in. The VTA seemed sensitive to proper adjustment as a too low rear height seemed to produce effects you noted. I was also experiencing skipping near the inner portions of the record. After re-adjusting VTA (near level) using 1.9 gram tracking, Magneglide slightly above middle & anti-skate about a third from the innermost point, I was able to eliminate skipping, play a very warped record & balance perfectly on a blank groove using a test record. Of coarse your mileage may vary. |
Dr.Steve,please give it plenty of break in time.Also,you're a "Mensch"!! |
Hello fellas...
You're right, Sirspeedy - I really WAS going to go off-line on the discussion after my initial postings. I have an awful lot to do, and as fun as these pages can be, they can also take a lot - too much! - time away from duties. But I wanted also to appear responsive to questions and so I wrote again. But now I really have to take a break (although I'll continue to watch from time to time) and get these Phantoms ready for those of you who want them! (Wouldn't you prefer it that way??) And it seems as if you're answering the questions among yourselves just fine.
One last technical detail to keep in mind: the Magneglide is a full-time stabilizer, for use whether the record is flat as a board or warped as a potato chip (well, let's be realisitic here - maybe not THAT warped). It's job is to hold the neutrally-balanced tonearm assembly in the correct, upright, position during all playback activity. And it also provides a decoupled anti-skate force, which allows for total mechanical separation of the anti-skate mechanism and the tonearm assembly itself.
If I spot something that's WAY off the mark, I'll interject..
I hope I will be at the HE2005, but probably not for the whole time; I suspect it will end up being just Saturday and Sunday... But if I do make it there, will look foward to saying hi on those days...
Thanks for the nice words, all of you... It's much appreciated!
- Bob |
HiBigdog,
Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not too adept with how different arms work. My question is the anti-skating abilities of the Phantom vis-a-vis the 2.2. If you read my prior post to Mr. Graham in order to stop the 2.2 from swinging inward lead weights were added in the anti-skate which worked (cart tracking force 3.8gms) I was wondering if this situation was presented to the Phantom and how it will compensate. again we tried the same cart with a Wheaton Tri-Planar VII and it just didn't counter thus rendering the cart cannot be used with the Wheaton because it seemed a lot of lead had to be added and the arm kept swunging at a very fast pace inwards. We don't want our cantilevers crooked over time and thinking if playing records that the drag is uneven.
However, carts with much lesser tracking force, say 2.0-2.9 grams can take it with a breeze. What I can worried about are carts with much heavier tracking force like the one I have now |
Yagbol2, I have no clue, never owning the 2.2. I have never heard of using a 3.8 gram tracking force. Good luck. Wouldn't that high of a tracking force wear out your records prematurely? Maybe someone else can help. |
Sirspeedy:
I finally took the plunge and purchased the Phantom. The Phantom works well with my 8 gram Helikon (I recall you have a 7 gram cartridge and had some compatibility concerns).
The Phantom was installed over the weekend. It has less than 10 hours of run-in time. However, preliminary indications are promising to say the least, since I have not yet optimized the azimuth, VTA, anti skating, damping fluid, etc. All musical parameters stepped up a notch with the Phantom. I am particularly impressed with the speed of transients and the clarity of instruments at the rear of the sound stage. So far, I would characterize the sound as detailed and coherent, bold yet suave.
Incidentally, I am using the Phantom on an Oracle Delphi MKV SE with a Helikon cartridge. |
Gmorris,Wow,you have a really great memory.I'm happy for you,in that you love the Phantom(actually,what's not to love?).I saw it at HE-2005,and it seems to be a fine product.Good luck!!Actually,my latest little project is tube rolling my phono section.With the price of some NOS tubes,you can almost buy a new Phantom.How sad is that??? |
My Phantom X has been with me for awhile. I await the arrival of my HR-X with armboard. |
