Graham Phantom Supreme?

Spindle to pivot distance is 295.6 mm according to Michael Fajen at Musical Surroundings.

Voraratc: 295,6 mm

Does anyone have information on phantom supreme ii with 12 inch arm wand. What is spindle to pivot distance. I cant find them any where

Thx

Mulveling

I'm in the same boat. With the 10 inch. My cart is all the way back inbthe headshell. But I was able to verify that independent of the cart, the headhsell is not in the same plane as the tube. The micropoise spirit level shows one thing and a spirit level not the headshell showa the oppPaige.

My 9 inch want didn't have that issue.

Andrew

Aoliviero and Egrady,
I noticed that my Koetsu carts are not clamping flat against the headshell. For proper overhang, these carts ride almost all the way back in the 10" armwand's headshell. That positions their mounting hole "wings" almost behind the blue damping dot, which causes a torquing force when you tighten the screws. Thus, the cartridge is slightly "tail up" even while the headshell is 100% level.

At first I thought removing the dot would fix it, but no -- that only exposed 2 low-relief "rails" in the headshell that cause the same issue. This is my only complaint about the arm -- the headshell should be freaking flat!! No bumps, dots or other crap.

Headshell issues aside, the Phantom Supreme is a fabulously built, fabulous sounding arm that is a cinch to setup in all other paramaters!

Bill

Thanks for your thorough feedback.! That basically sums up my experience. I'm still fiddling with VTA as I'm also observing what Egrady did with the headshesd section slightl tilted down and forward. This was validated by seeing the base if the cartridge having it's tail slightly up. In other words, previously the cart was parallel to record to achieve 91.5 degree SRA. So I have been lowering the bearing section and that is improving things. FYI, I didn't have that issue with my original 9inch wand but recently I had to get a 10inch version to be compatIble with table.

Thanks and enjoy.

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Yes, I received the upgraded Supreme and mounted it on my Brinkmann Oasis with a Benz Ebony L. I think it's clearly a step up from the Phantom II. Transients are cleaner, dynamics more explosive, and bass seems deeper and more coherent. In fact,the whole sonic fabric seems more coherent. So far, I hear no weaknesses in this arm. It's remarkably balanced and resolving with more organic wholeness than before.

Earlier Grahams (I've owned the 2.2 and Phantom II) could be criticized (justly or not) for an analytical tendency to "murder to dissect," especially in comparison to richer, more holistic arms like the Triplanar VII (which I also own and really like). Not the Supreme. I think this Graham combines musicality and highest-level resolution in exemplary fashion. Of course, this is just one man's opinion.

Bill

Bill

Did you get your arm back? Any thoughts?

Andrew

It is quicker to buy a new one instead of sending in an old one to upgrade. I sold my old one and bought a new one a year ago.

The wait is insanely long for the upgrade, at least in my experience. I was on the Musical Surroundings wait-list for something like 18 months. The only reason my arm was finally upgraded was because I had an issue with the DIN connector and had to send it to Graham, anyway. Otherwise, I'd still be waiting. Seems Bob has many other priorities.

Thanks for the encouragement.

It's been a bunch of years now since I bought my original Phantom, so this has become pretty much a moot point for me, at least from a usefulness point of view.

I have three Graham arms, the 1.5, 2.2, and the original Phantom. Probably that's enough.

Andrew, I appreciate the tip on damping fluid. With my PII, I filled it to just under the edge of the square shank. Seems the Supreme benefits from a little less. I'll let you know.

Jameswei, I can understand why that would bug you. Graham can be surprisingly lackadaisical sometimes, IME. Did you try badgering him? I would.

I would be more tempted to upgrade now if I had ever been sent an owner's manual for my original Phantom. -- Kind of a sour vibe.

My experience with damping fluid is the following:

Use very little. I initially tried ~0.25cc of the series 100 fluid. I then removed about a little more than half of it leaving the fluid touching the underside of the square shank and ~1/3 of the way up the bottom of the cylindrical damping housing. This was a lot better. With the original level, low level details and microdynamics were obscured with a weighter, guttural quality. Removing the fluid unveiled a wealth of detail, stronger microdynamic expression and cleaned up the bass making it also osounf more textrually detailed.

I'm considering going even lower where only a portion of the bearing tip is covered. Will provide feedback when I do but for now staying at this level.

Bill, let us know what you think.

Anddrew

Has anyone gotten their hands on an Elite yet? The inverted bearing sounds interesting.

You're preaching to the choir, although I do think the newest Tri-planar bests the Graham 2.2 I owned for years before the Phantom II.

I felt the Phantom II was better than the triplanar..

It is fact.
The Phantom has another huge advantage: It works on a top sonic level with nearly all cartridges, the Triplanar doesn't. You see it pretty often in pics with Koetsu (mismatch, not good), Lyra Titan (disaster), super with Zyx or any other cartridges which move no energy into the Arm...Bob Graham simply has a better knowledge about energy transfer, and what is important generally for a good Arm Design.
The Triplanar had its good time against Graham 2.0 series but when the Phantom became available it wasn't in the same class and the gap got wider...

comparison Phantom / Triplanar VII

Hi Andrew,

Your description of the Tri-planar is right on, IME. That fullness is quite attractive, especially when paired with a cartridge that compliments it well. I have a Soundsmith-retipped Shelter 901 on mine now and works surprisingly well--better than my A90, actually. Ordinarily, I find the 901 a bit exaggerated at both ends but the Tri-planar fills it in nicely. It's a delightful arm and I'll keep mine, too, but I'm really looking forward to the Supreme!

Bill

Wrm57,

I agree I felt the Phantom II was better than the triplanar. You will be shocked by the Supreme. The new version has a very live attack without sounding threadbare or strident. The triplanar is a little fuller but is missing a lot in comparison. The Supreme can also sound full but there is now a larger gap between recordings. The triplanar tends to have a house sound where the Supreme is mores neutral.

I still like the tripalanr and plan to keep it.

Andrew

Thanks for the post, Aoliviero. My Supreme-upgraded Phantom II should be here in a week--after a four month absence. I'm really looking forward to it. I have that Triplanar, too, and thought the Phantom II was already a wee bit better.

Hi All,

I had my Phantom II upgraded to the Supreme status a while back and finally had a chance to install it. Some comments:

1) this arm has incredible macro and micro dynamics. It's is one of the first things that stands out. Dynamics start continue and die out in the sharpest way that I have ever experienced. This is real, natural dynamics without any glare or break-up.

2) the amount of detail is significantly increased. Inner details are easily rendered.

3) this arm has perfect timing. It is not slow or fast....just right

4) all of the above create a timbarally, detailed and dynamic presentation which is much much better than the original II.

I have compared it side by side with the triplanar-7 uII and is unquestionably the superior arm in my system.

It's is a highly recommended upgrade.

Andrew

I must have been lucky....
In contrast to your experience (Egrady) everything happened strictly "by the numbers" for me.
I found that once the arm was levelled for VTF, the ideal mid-range setting of force for the Lyra Delos was perfect.
Whenever I change the VTA to suit a given weight of disc, I optimise for the best sound then find that, coincidentally, the bubble ends up bang in the centre. Nice when that happens.
My previous cart was the Music Maker III whose instructions specified that the cart face should be strictly perpendicular to the disc surface for best VTA. The arm I was using at the time, a Linn Ittok LVII, was not helpful for precision tuning of VTA (if you unlocked the arm pillar to make a super-fine adjustment there was no guarantee that you'd actually achieved it!) so in common with a lot of folk I made up for it as best I could with VTF adjustment. The cartridge actually sounded fine and tracked well at both 1.53g and 1.58g. (Range 1.5-1.6)

Egrady, it may not be SRA that's causing the sound to be harsh, there's a very strong possibility of incorrect azimuth. In all of the alignments I've done, rarely is the optimum azimuth setting at the dead level position, regardless of the cost of the cartridge. The effect can be mind blowing in some cases.

Egrady, being honest, I seriously doubt that any cartridge generator is dead-on accurate in terms of forward or lateral mounting tolerance. I often hear people (usually reviewers) saying e.g. ""every sample of Cartridge X always requires a 91 degree front face SRA setting to extract the best from it.

I'd find it hard to believe people were comfortable with generalised assumptions like this.

If I were a cartridge designer I'd be aiming for 0/90 degree orientation of the cart as a setup requirement simply because that is the the easiest setting to achieve and maintain at different VTA settings.
(There are plenty of tools which will indicate an orthogonal arm position but few that are aimed at producing an angle of decline geared to a specific cart type and arm length :)

On the basis that some designers deliberately aim for non-orthogonal mounting angles I'm glad I'm not :) :)

Egrady, you are spot on with your conclusions.
VTA depends on the cantilever angle, angle of stylus A_N_D what kind of Diamond is used. The side walls have different cuts (and more...) and they track the information. So it is logical that every change in that "angle" will give you different results. some record collectors say, you simply have to dial it in, until it "settles". You can hear it. Another chapter is the cutting angle from mastering...
Anyway, the bubble show you that the Arm is level, it is an indicator for the user that he has a "level" from where he can do his own settings. It can't be done by eye anyway based on the tempered Armtube, the eye will be always cheated. It tried it several times, before I bought the Phantom with the bubble I used a small gauge onto the Headshell with the earlier Phantoms to get it even.

I recently acquired this arm, I had a 2.2, and have a question for any Phantom II/Supreme owner with the bubble level.

My Basis 2500 is dead level. When I level the arm, with the bubble exactly in the middle, the sound is a bit harsh. While the arm appears to be level, it's hard to tell as its tapered, my Ruby 3 appears, by eye, to be tilted ever so slightly forward. My experience with Benz is they like a bit of negative VTA, that is tilted slightly backward. So I lowered the arm until the Ruby 3 appeared, by eye, to be tilted every so slightly backwards. While the bubble is way off, the sound improved dramatically.

At the end of day all that really counts, in VTA terms, is the vertical angle of the stylus. Just because the arm is level doesn't mean the VTA truely is neutral because the body of the cartridge may not be level. It may not line with the headshell perfectly or the stylus/cantilever may not line up and equal neutral VTA even if the cartridge body and arm are perfectly level.

Of course VTA can be a bit of a personnel preference and perhaps my ears and system simply like the way I've set it.

My question is simple. Am I correct in my conclusion that there are a number of variables and, as a result, just because the bubble is level, indicating the arm is level, doesn't necessarily mean one has neutral VTA?

Very interesting, indeed! Thanks.

Some news.
Interesting product imo.

S-shaped armwand

.

Call me old fashioned but whenever tightening headshell screws on "fixed head" designs, I would always remove the arm from the T/t first to preserve the bearings. Messing around with a single piece cable loom while doing this would drive me bananas. DIN connector convenience wins the day for me every time.

I had the opportunity to acquire a single-loom specimen of an equally priced competitors gimballed arm but rejected it. I'm not unhappy that I did and pleased with my choice.

In theory, I side with Doug and Dertonearm. In practice, I think I can "hear" connectors with MC cartridges and not so much with higher output MM and MI cartridges. I empirically assign blame to the low output of the MCs in question. However, the contacts I/we are usually dealing with are either DIN plugs at the base of the tonearm or the horror of a headshell, which can actually add three sets of contacts in the signal path, one at the cartridge pins, one at the rear of the headshell itself, and one on the other side of the headshell, where it mates to the tonearm. This is indeed a "worst case" scenario. However, I would not categorically say that it is impossible for Mr. Graham to have implemented contacts that are relatively benign in their effect. I'd far rather have one set of contacts at the pivot end of a replaceable arm wand than 3 sets at the headshell end.

That Bob Graham quote does not prove anything in this context because he did not say he compared the standard connection to a single set of wires to the preamp. The jury is still out there, I have to say.

P.S. He's a manufacturer. Of course he wants his product to be flexible. I don't blame him.

_______

Dear Dertonarm,
You are referring to the number of connectors....I was referring to the number of contact points or possible "signal breaks". 2 connectors does not necessarily = 2 signal breaks, more likely one solitary break?

To help clarify this I will refer you to the words of the maestro himself :

"...While it's true that poor connectors are to be avoided, it's also true that a high quality connector will have a minimal effect on things, and will be much better, in fact, than a straight-through design that has inferior wire. Or, worse, an inferior tonearm design. These fellows seem to be basing their entire idea on connector counts, whereas they SHOULD be looking at the total design picture.

In having the removable armwand, we have one more connector break than on the average arm with removable cable facilities. And that connector has phosphor bronze contacts, gold plated, and it's VERY transparent. More than that, it also provides for ease and accuracy of cartridge setups and multiple arm options.

The proof is in the listening and I believe the Phantom II Supreme can be confidently compared to ANY tonearm at any price...
Best wishes,
- Bob Graham"

minimal connection points are highly over-rated. The Graham Supreme demonstrates this quite handily.

How so? The only way to know would be to compare a single-wired Phantom Supreme to a standard-wired one, which no one has done AFAIK.

The problems caused by additional connections go beyond increased capacitance or resistance. At the atomic level, each material boundary presents a barrier to the unimpeded flow of electrons. Diffraction at a boundary is inevitable and varies in proportion with frequency, it's basic physics. Sonically speaking, the more boundaries, the more mud.

A single crystal conductor presents the fewest boundaries. Insert multiple crystals and you get multiple diffractions. Insert different materials and you get even more diffractions.

I agree with Dertonarm that a single-wired Phantom Supreme would be an experiment worth hearing.

*Back To Mono*

It is an Arm with a right Geometry and easy Handling

Well Rockitman, I guess we all can agree, that even the very best connection do sport at least 2 solder joints and a composite of different material (solder, brass, nickel, phosphor bronze, coating) won't better a bare silver wire which runs undisrupted.
This is a simple picture I guess.
I had the Graham Phantom II Supreme here at my place for 3 days this past weekend.
It is a great tonearm with very good connectors.
The fact that it is that good, doesn't say it won't be better with less connectors interrupting/degrading the electrical flow of a very tiny signal.
If it were mine and if I would keep it for a very long time on my table, I would definitely provide an all-through-direct wiring from cartridge tags to phono input.
The point here is, that this is the start of the chain with a VERY small signal hub (0.2 mV with most LOMCs). Here the signal is the most vulnerable.
After the preamp the signal is 500x to 1000x "larger".
Would wish Bob Graham would consider offering a "hot rod" version of his Supreme with non-detachable arm wand and all-through wiring.
I bet our eyes and ears would pop in amazement of the sonic improvement.
Just as I have had the experience with a handful of other tonearms before.

minimal connection points are highly over-rated. The Graham Supreme demonstrates this quite handily.

Dear Moonglum, the connector where the Phantom's armtube is connected to the bearing house consists of 2 connectors - one on each side.
Same with the DIN socket and the connecting phono cable - again 2 connectors.
This makes a grand total of 6 connectors/joints from cartridge tags to phono input RCA sockets.
A Talea, Tr-Planar and many other modern tonearms only have 2 connectors on that path from the cartridge terminal to the phono input - the cartridge tags and the RCAs which go into the phono input.
The Phantom has 4 connectors more.
I have seen Phantoms here in Germany with customized wiring going on the outside of the arm tube and into the phono input.
I have done similar in the past with FR-tonearms and can report that it is ALWAYS a significant gain in micro detail and "air" as well as dynamics.
But it looks dreadful and in areas with heavy radio frequencies floating around you may well pick-up some unwanted "dirt" with the small antenna .....
Cheers,
D.

... Having said this....any experiments you care to conduct will of course be viewed with great interest!

Anyone who appreciates the Phantom as much as you do is a friend of mine :)

Dear Dertonarm,
I recall the issue of "extra" connectors in the Phantom's cable loom was first brought to my attention in a review of an Origin Live tonearm which contrasted with it's continuous loom.

My old Ittok LVII consisted of the standard 3cm short links from cart to armtube (2 connectors), 1x DIN connector at the pillar base, and finally, RCAs - a total of 4 connection breaks?
The Phantom II that replaced it consists of 1x set of cartridge tags, armtube DIN, arm pillar DIN and RCAs - a total of 4 connection breaks i.e. the same.
Your assertion that the Phantom has "2 additional connectors" surely only refers to tonearms which use a continuous cable loom ( = a total of 2 connection breaks - hardly representing the majority of tonearms on the market.

The fact is that the short cartridge links are a good way for novice cartridge installers to "cut their teeth" on the process. I'm sure that you, like myself, will have "graunched" a stubborn cartridge wire on at least one occasion with long-nosed pliers, causing that link to be rendered useless and requiring either repair or replacement?
Having a spare set of these wire links handy means that the install is back on course within seconds. Continuous cable looms are possibly rightly viewed by some as being sent by the Devil. Once broken the repair is somewhat more involved....
(Naturally I am much more careful with the Graham because it does not use such links and would mean having a spare armwand in reserve :o)

Getting back to practical matters again : my Phantom loom consists of approx 0.35m internal wiring followed by 0.5m of regular coaxial. (Fortunately the phantom's DIN connector affords me the choice! :o)
I would be most surprised if someone else's "0.35m + 1m" or "+1.1m" of external loom would offer less resistance than this?

Kind regards...........M.

I had the pleasure of the past 4 years to audition every single version of the Phantom in Syntax' system.
Every version includes every effective length too, as Syntax collected all arm wand length available for the Phantom including the 12".
It is apparent that Bob Graham very carefully works on improvement in his design.
Every version did improve in the sonic picture while maintaining the virtues of the former.
To my ears - as well as to my brain and technical understanding - this is at the moment the UNI-Pivot with the most engineering input and the most money spent by the manufacturer to bring the design forward.
While I am certainly no fan of any additional connection before amplifying the tiny cartridge signal, - the Phantom sounds incredibly open keeping in mind that it has at least 2 more connecting joints than most tonearms today.
Might well be worthwhile having Syntax' Phantom Supreme direct wired from cartridge pins to phono input somewhen late winter.
Just curious to see/hear how much transparency will improve even further.
All the other current contenders do long sport direct-pin-tp-phono-input wiring.
We'll see ...
Cheers,
D.

Halcro/Dertonam,
Thanks guys, I've been interested in buying the Phantom at some stage and there are none here to look at or audition.
Dover

Dear Dover, the magneglide mechanism does induce a force which again kind of "simulates" a second bearing. Kind of "magnetic semi-unipivot" ...? The mechanical contact is the uni-pivot only, but there is undoubtedly a lateral force which act similar to a lateral 2nd bearing.
If not as consequent ...
Cheers,
D.

Dover,
That is correct. There is no physical contact between the magnets of the Magnaglide and thus I believe the Phantom II.....in fact all the Graham arms.......are true unipivots.
Cheers

Halcro,

Is the Phantom a true unipivot or a dual pivot. When I read Fremers review of the Phantom he says the magneglide mechanism runs on a bearing but is pulled by the arm via magnets, suggesting the magneglide is not physically connected to the arm. Is that correct ?

Thanks - Dover

I shared this procedure I used with Chris Feickert, Michael Fremer, and those attending the event about 5 years ago during one of Michael's seminars at RMAF

Correction, it was during RMAF 2008 instead of 5 years ago.

Dre

Anyone know if the phantom I or phantom II can be upgraded to supreme status and for how much?

Thanks

Michael

Thank you Halcro and Dre_j!

Grahams set up jigs ,simplistic child's play using pivoting arm boards. Though mapping out a blank fixed arm board for p2s needs total accuracy while tapping mounting screws.

P2S is simple
In the Box is a Pin for the spindle and a hole for it in the Headshell from the Armtube. Just flip it over and it is done and correct. Mark the 4 holes for drill and you are on the safe side. With the 9" Standard Arm of course.

11-01-11: Halcro
P2S distance with the Phantom II can be measured accurately with the cap removed and the Feikert pin lowered into the damping well.
This is recommended by both Bob Graham and Feikert.

That sounds messy. Unless starting with a dry well, the Feickert's pin will be dipping in the damping fluid - which is so sticky a fair bit of fluid will be removed.
You could fashion yourself a perspex location device for the feickert similar to the one used by the Uni-tractor. It uses concentric circles on the perspex plate to locate the tool over the centre point of the bearing. Maybe you could get one of those locating plates from 'dertonarm' - it looks like it might fit the feickert(?).
I personally use the MintLp arc protractor and think its a far easier and possibly more accurate solution.