Graham 2.2 traking force, do you use more?

Sniper101,

There's a reason VPI users apply excessive tracking force. Until recently, JMW tonearms had a very crude antiskate mechanism. Rather than design a proper one, VPI recommended the sledgehammer approach of increasing downforce, even to levels above the limit recommended by the cartridge manufacturer.

This approach is demonstrably in violation of the physics involved. What business does the maker of improperly designed tonearms have telling customers to ignore the advice of cartridge designers? Why would anyone using a better tonearm take such advice seriously?

The Graham 2.2 has a perfectly serviceable AS device, so VPI's reason for excess downforce does not apply to you. If you think your rig sounds better that way okay, but you are risking premature wear of your cartridge and unnecessary pressure on your vinyl.

Personally, I would ask AJ VdH before ignoring any of his setup parameters. You might find you're invalidating your Condor's warranty. If you ever decide to sell it, I hope you mention this abuse in the ad. A prospective buyer would have the right to know.

Best regards,
Doug

Sniper101,

Excellent insight! I just learned another reason (besides VPI's antiskate problem) why some people achieve better results using apparently excess VTF's. Thank you for that.

Unipivots are of course inherently unstable in the azimuth plane (with the exceptions you noted). An increase in downforce would help the arm resist lateral rolling forces. Keeping azimuth more stable reduces crosstalk and improves just what you said, image focus and tightness. Brilliant!

I use a gimballed arm (TriPlanar VII + ZYX UNIverse, check my system). Like your 2.2 it has an easy azimuth adjustment, but then it gets locked in place. It also has a very finely adjustable antiskate device.

In this environment the optimal VTF for every cartridge I've used has been a small zone residing just above the mistracking point (which of course varies somewhat with the weather). Taking VTF any higher (as you're having to do) starts to smother microdynamics and the HF harmonics which give natural instruments and voices some of their unique character.

IME the 2.2 does not quite resolve some of those things, so the sonic penalties of higher VTF's are probably minimal compared to the sonic benefits you described. I've often wondered why my friend Cello prefers much higher VTF's than me when using his 2.2, even though we both use the same cartridge. It all adds up.

Thanks again for sharing an interesting experience and a keen insight,
Doug

A stylus does not ride on a single pivot point.

Tris,

I haven't heard Cello's 2.2/UNIverse since he started exploring above-normal VTF's. IIRC he was using 2.3g (ZYX recommends a maximum of 2.2). Since then he's acquired a Schroeder Ref SQ. I believe his 2.2 may be collecting dust.

Raul hit the nail on the head of course. I was trying to be gentle but I agree with him 100%.

Yes, we are very lucky to have so much incredibly good gear to choose from these days! The Phantom is a major step forward by all accounts, Frank Schroeder has improved his already remarkable Reference and Tri Mai is shipping a newly enhanced version of the TriPlanar VII. Truly amazing stuff from three amazing guys.

Doug

Bill,

We haven't heard a Vector III, but we heard a Vector I easily outplay a Graham 2.2 so I presume the newer versions do too. Paul ruled out unstabilized unipivots on theory before we ever heard one. We've heard several since then and have never regretted that judgement.

When we chose the TriPlanar, Basis was not yet offering any height adjustment. That made it a non-starter for us. If we were looking today a Vector would certainly be an arm I'd investigate - and I'd drive all the way to Buffalo to hear it!

Dan,
Interesting analogy. I don't like driving big Lincolns either! Remember my car? Zoom-Zoom!

I suppose some in the excess VTF camp may simply prefer stronger bass and macrodynamics at the expense of clarity and microdynamics, but that still leaves us with no explanation for Sniper101's report of superior imaging and focus. This flies in the face of normal expectations unless we posit superior stability in the azimuth plane - doesn't it?

Doug