Bigdog,I think you should change your name to "LUCKYDOG".
PS--I HATE YOU!!
PPS--Splaskin,you bring up a VERY important question, regarding the asking around about phono cables.I and my friend have the IC-70.Wonderful performers,but I have heard that the Purist Audio Venustas is superior.The arm to phono stage connection is probably the most important cable in a set-up(I read this on many occassions,not my words here,so I don't mean to be confrontational).I have put out threads asking about "REALLY PRIMO",as in costly,cables,in comparison to the IC-70 and never got a response.Probably 'cause I'm so obnoxious.Maybe a response can come from this thread.I'm open to any feedback,as I have A/B'd the IC-70 with the 30 and heard a huge diff.So,to me,this can be a very sensitive area in phono reproduction!Also,I see you own my favorite table.Basis Vac/Debut.That is one product I lust for.I know other tables are regarded more highly,but,that's the one I want.Some day.After all college and medical school tuitions are paid for!!The sacrifices we make,at the expense of our hobby!!! |
Bigdog,
What phono cable are you using with the Phantom? |
Gentlemen,
Not having owned a 2.2 & not being an engineer as well as not caring a great deal about how a result is achieved I will say this. I have the Phantom with the Nightengale II on a Transrotor La Roccia with the Boulder 2008 phono stage.The quality of sound is quite remarkable to say the least. What can be said in my setup is that the slightest amount of adjustment, either VTA, Azimuth, Tracking Force or Silicon Fluid create major soundstage changes. At this point I cannot find any specific areas of weakness, only time will tell any shortcomings. As an aside my XLR interconnect from the Boulder to a Mac C-100 was a subject of considerable concern. Changing this interconnect created large changes in frequency balance & timing. The best cable so far has been the JPS Superconductor 2. I am a bit concerned over the considerable changes with cables as this has been by far the most sensitive application I have experienced. Thanks to all who have contributed experiences with the Fluid damping etc.. It helped to dial in the phono rig. I cannot say what is better or best, just that the Phantom appears to be a very fine precision instrument. |
I would think a completely magnetic bearing would have its own resonance challenges since there would be no solid support.
I think Graham explains neutral balance on his website as a benefit from having the arm's center of mass at the pivot, rather than below the pivot as with the 2.2 and other unipivot designs.
I agree it's premature to judge the Phantom's performance with a low mass cartridge without actually listening. |
Steve,I have NO DOUBT that the arm IS great.I did not realize you owned one.If I were running a heavier cart. than what I have now,or, if I ever upgrade to a higher mass one,there is no question I would seriously consider a Phantom.So long as I didn't go for an air bearing design,which I love,but,they are a pain to run(tubing,pumps etc.).And, it is here,in this thread, that I'm not kibbitzing you!!However,think how great it would be if the magnets were both vertically and horizontally applied.Well,I can always dream!!Good luck,and I hope you get real pleasure from your records. |
Dear Sirspeedy,
All I can say is that the new arm has made a significant improvement in my system. Be it reductions in arm resonance, distortion, improved bearing, or the addition of Great Dane Doo Doo, the detail and rendtion of acoustic space is something else!
You are in for a real treat with this arm.
A gezunt ahf dein kop!
Steve |
Splaskin,glad that we are keeping this a nice and polite debate,or I would not comment any further.I really never should have made ANY comments regarding the newer arm,since any of my thoughts are STRICTLY an uneducated opinion on a product I have never even seen.Who am I anyway?Just a hobbyist like anyone else reading this thread,but critical analysis can be fun.What the heck is Neutral Balance,other than marketing speak?Do you imply the 2.2 or other top arms,like the Triplaner are NOT neutral in balance?Also,I don't see why the new BIGGY arm is more "MEANINGFULLY" lower in resonance than the low resonance of the 2.2 tube(ever check how non resonant ceramic is?)I mean if you want to be rediculously picky,I guess you could say that the 2.2 tube is LESS resonant than the Phantom,since there is another JOINT in the new tube!I have never measured,nor do I care to,and I assume you are merely mouthing what you have read,so,we'll call this one a draw.As for the locking collar,who cares.The collar on the 2.2 is military spec!Even if the Phantom is more structurally rigid here,the problem of resonance STILL rests squarely with the bearing/damping.That my friend has NOT really been addressed,unless you want to recite some more of the web-site.
That being said,I NEVER implied,anywhere,that I'd hoped for a low mass design from Graham.He has a great track record,that I obviously like,or I would not own his products(which I do),or recommend them,which I do as well.All I'm expressing is my own opinion of what I'd have liked to see the Phantom as being,rather than what it actually is(on paper,since I have not seen it).My opinion is not empty,though,since I feel I know what the weaknesses of the 2.2 are.To me,and this is my real dissapointment(though,as I've said,it means nada)is that he did not eliminate "BEARING CONTACT/metal interface" that needs damping fluid to control it(resonance).Hey,this is my own hang up.It's just that The "Magnaglide" feature,to me,is a halfway measure.TO ME,once again.I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.Just having some spirited fun,around a topic that I know a "little" about,through 4 years with the 2.2,and about30 yrs with other arms.This still only makes me a hobbyist with some experience,NOT an expert,so don't get too overloaded by my comments.You can always get even in your next post.
What I did state I was dissapointed about,was the fact that this Phantom could have been/would have been FRIGGIN GREAT if he had gone all the way with the magnets,and somehow totally eliminated the BEARING contact point alltogether.Maybe Shroder has a patent on this,but that would have eliminated any metal to metal contact,that needs resonance control,ie. damping.Get it?If you have experience in this hobby,and I'm sure you do,as you seem sincerely intelligent in your responses,then you must know the advantage of products like air bearing arms/platter bearings/suspensions.Why should I get excited about the Phantom,massive/chubby or whatever, when I STILL have to FOTZ around with that damn fluid to damp the bearing resonance.The Platine table from France uses magnets to keep the platter from making contact with the bearing.CUTE and EFFECTIVE!
So I feel, that my hope, that Bob Graham would have gone to this extent,to me alone,is not such a dumb argument,even if I'm dumb to even be wasting time here instead of listening to my music.The magna-glide is cute.To have taken it all the way(no metal contact needing fluid damping)would have been the ULTIMATE,and was what I was hoping for.Big deal,it's just a hobby.
As for this more massive means less resonance bit,that's being marketed,I just don't buy into the fact that suddenly the 2.2 has resonances that are addressed in the Phantom.The damn thing STILL needs DAMPING OF THE BEARING.Anyone owning a Graham knows that this is a pain in the ass.Where is the big Progressive step forward.Bigger,wider,more massive,china finish?It's all in the damping,which is still a BIG issue!!It should have been eliminated,like ME,from this thread!
Please take some of this with a little "tongue in cheek",I don't think I can handle to many "let's get sirspeedy" responses. |
Sirspeedy, you have no argument here concerning van den Hul's comments on mass over the record groove. As for interpreting your thoughts, well your writing speaks for itself.
By suggesting that the Phanatom is a 2.2 on steroids kind of misses the new design features; neutral balance and reduced resonances due to the new arm design and locking mechanism. The new locking design is quite substantial.
Without meaning to insult you, it appeared to me that your implication was that Graham should have designed a new low mass arm. Perhaps if there is enough demand, he will.
Best Wishes,
Steve |
Splaskin,read my comments more carefully!I never said I thought the Phantom could not handle my cartridge!!I said I felt(and it was only my opinion)the 2.2 was a better match for a low mass cart. like mine.Read van den Hul's comments,on mass over the record groove,before you start to interpret my thoughts to suit you!!
By the way,I am SURE the Phantom will prove to be a great arm. |
Sirspeedy, your response and concern over the Phantom not being able to handle your cartridge is a bit much.
The Phantom is not a 2.2 on steroids. It is the more elegant design. As for one tonearm being the "absolute best" for everyone is an unreasonable expectation.
It agree that you seem to be going through a set of rationalizations of why you should not buy this arm. The fact is, the 2.2 is a wonderful arm. The new Phantom does not change this reality.
Give Graham credit for taking the time to release a truly completed design that delivers what he advertises.
As for the SME-V, I have owned this arm; the Phantom is something very different.
With every record I play, it is now a new experience with the Phantom. |
I would like to add that ultimately the final verdict as to the success of the new Phantom design would be determined by listening and not by conjecture. |
Sirspeedy
I share your concerns also, because my Lyra Helikon is only 8 grams. So at the moment I am still on the fence waiting for the second manufacturing run. |
Gmorris,please don't get me wrong.I know nothing more about the Phantom than you or anyone else.I, personally,don't like the loss of damping capability on the newer arm.I know it still has the fluid,but as I understand it,the 2.2 damping is more critical.A disadvantage?Possibly,yet after all I have learned about the tuneability of the 2.2,I don't want to give that up.
Also,if you look at many of the popular cartridges reviewed,and favored,in the mainstream mags(dreck as they are,the mags,not the cartridges)you have a shift towards higher mass designs.EX:Myabi-appx.13 gms/Dynavector XV-1s-14 gms.Koetsus 12 gms./Titan 12 gms.Graham's own cartridge 14.5 gms.NOW I most likely am wrong here,and admit to it,however,in looking at a Capitolistic market, Graham stands to sell a hell of alot more arms by being more universally acceptable,hence a much more massive design,like the Phantom.
I have mentioned in the past that van den Hul feels a much lower mass over the record groove yields better results.So does the Air Tangent people.Who ever said that the 2.2 is overtly resonant in design,once you know how to tune into the fluid's signature traits?Who wants a Graham/Sme-5 hybrid,which is what the Phantom seems to be,to me.Does adding the cute "magna-glide" lock-in capability really afford one the "UNIQUE" sound of a true uni-pivot?A true uni-pivot should NOT be restricted in movement,IMO!There is a real advantage to that "SOUND".I could see where one would NOT want the sideways(not the movie,which was great BTW)flexure,if you had a fairly heavy cartridge,but my cart. is only 7 gms.Anyway,the 2.2, in structural rigidity, is Extremely Rigid,on it's own.The way my mindset works(not very well,actually,if I have to go on, like this),I would have "LOVED" and had "HOPED" the Phantom was going to be much more like the UNIQUE,but RARER than a rare orchid species,Shroder Reference.NO BEARING FRICTION AT ALL.NO DAMPING FLUID TO FOTZ AROUND WITH!That is what I had hoped for,with all the delays and all.Instead what I see is a 2.2 on STEROIDS.I got rid of my SME-5 some years back.I'll bet the difference between those two arms is not that great!!Before I offend anyone,let me admit that I'm sure some of my comments are just rationalization,though I do feel this way.It's just that I'd really hoped for Graham to REALLY do something GREAT after all the hoopla,regarding his BRILLIANT marketing of the PHANTOM.I expected,and would have gotten in line,to see an arm that ELIMINATED ANY FLUID,through the use of what a TRUE magnaglide design(vertically and horizontally)would have aforded us!
To really let myself off the hook(so I don't feel guilt when I get WACKED,by responses),if I had a significantly heavier cart. I'd probably consider a Phantom,if I did not LOVE Air Bearings so much.Any more money spent by me,on arms, would take me there!! |
Hello Sirspeedy:
Thanks for your treatise on 2.2 damping fluid level tuning on another thread.
The Phantom seems to be a more rigid design with improved resonance damping across the frequency spectrum. Wouldnt these improvements be manifested even with lighter cartridges? |
I'm not doubting the superb performance afforded by the move to a Phantom.However ,I'd like to see some comments from those that have moved from the 2.2 to a Phantom,running a cartridge that is lighter in weight than those already mentioned.The Phantom,apparently has a much higher mass arm-tube,and would,obviously work better with the higher mass cartridges(compared to a 2.2).So,let's not be so quick to bury the 2.2!So far the Koetsu's mentioned are MUCH higher in weight than my 7 gm Transfiguration,and I'm just still a little suspicious of the sudden additional mass of that armtube,in light of the fact that Graham's own Nightingale is 14.5gms!So,the jury is out on how much more performance can be obtained,over the 2.2,until enough feedback with lower mass cartridges is funneled through this forum.BELIEVE ME,I hope my suspicion, that the Phantom is actually only better with heavier cartridges,is proven wrong!!If the envelope is to be pushed,let Graham give it a "GOOD SCHTUUP"!! |
My Phanton just arrived after two weeks. It replaces a Graham 2.2
The tonearm is outstanding. It reproduces more detail with tighter, better defined bass. The soundstage is deeper and a bit wider. The tracking of my Koetsu Jade Platinum has improved with a reduction of glare and hardness in the midrange on difficult to track passages. The resolution of the highs is detailed but without emphasis.
The build quality is excellent. I had no problems mounting it on a Basis Debut Vacuum.
In short,a big upgrade for Graham 2.2 owners.
Steve |
Hopelessly confused, as usual. I thought you were referring to something in Jameswei's report.
If you're just referring to general "refinements" that may appear then I'm with you. |
Dougdeacon:
Would you prefer the term "refinements" instead? |
What bugs? He didn't mention any bugs. |
Thanks for the feedback.
I have an Oracle Delphi MKV SE. I am planning on purchasing the Phantom. I may delay my purchase until the second manufacturing cycle to ensure that all the bugs associated with a new product are sorted out. |
I installed it a few weeks ago in early February. I placed my order in August, before they were unveiled in October.
I replaced a Graham 2.2. In comparison, on acoustic jazz the Phantom had more air around the instruments, a more precise midrange, and definitely more mid- to low-bass. By "more precise midrange" I mean better clarity and harmonics/tone. Piano notes were better defined. When I played Steely Dan's "Do It Again," the electric guitar notes were rounder and fuller than I recalled with the 2.2 -- almost bell-like in a funny sort of way. Maybe I'm hearing the Koetsu more exclusively here.
I found the Phantom to be an audible improvement over the 2.2, more noticable than swapping cables, power cords, or preamps. Order of magnitude (but not in the same way), it was comparable to getting the right VTA after being off. When I took it out of the box, seeing the magnet move around by itself was a little strange, but it apparently does its job. It's a good-looking piece of engineering, and it looks bigger than the 2.2, although the pivot to stylus distance is the same.
Installation was challenged by close tolerances. While there was no problem mounting my Koetsu Rosewood Signature using Graham's excellent system kit, the ring clamp on my HRX increased the effective diameter of my platter such that I wasn't able to place the Phantom (when on its rest) exactly parallel to the side of the plinth. I had to rotate the base so that the headshell was angled a little to the right. Of course, this is purely an asthetic issue, it makes no difference in play. I also found it necessary to go back and forth a couple times between the settings: VTF, azimuth, and anti-skate, since I found that a change in one seemed to throw the others off just a bit. (Graham did not include a finished manual in my box. Graham provided a manual for the 2.2 plus a few pages of addendum for the Phantom. The Phantom manual should be finished, and I expect to get it in the mail before too long.)
The close spacing also prevented me from using my tonearm lift. I expect this will be an issue with any Phantom being used with a ring clamp, not just with HRX's. I had been using a Profile Lifter (also marketed via Signet and Audio Technica) and an Express Machining The Lift on a prior turntable. I've ordered the larger sized Expressimo Lift2 and hope to install it backward behind the Phantom's counterweight so it will push down on the VTF adjustment knob. There's lots of room in the back. |
