Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II

Hi,
following this thread with its Brucknerian fortissimos – and ~pianissimos, I find it interesting to read about the "darkness" of the SME V arm --- once again.

It seems to underscore the point made by Downunder about 'arm / table synergies.

Using a SME V on my SME 10 'table, leaves not the smallest of notions about darkness! --- so that 'table may just be a 'lean' lady? (It looks the part, yes)

In turn it would suggest that a Phantom be too 'light and breathy' on an SME 10 (similarly open in plinth design to the AVID)?
However, Graham has a nice and ready fit for those SME arm board connections. Perhaps an indication that there is a demand for the more beefy SME 20 and 30 models?

Greetings,
Axel

Guys
yes, I'll go along with that 'signature' bit, as I'm sure you both had your fair amount of comparisons.

Here my point:
MOST of the latter day 'high-end' speakers tend, at least slightly, towards the lean side of things --- and so do my Burmester 961. (AMT tweeter, 5 1/4" carbon mids, 8" woofers, with 4 order acoustic XO).

Now, this 'lean side' of neutral also (always) means a lack of upper bass (a design challenge), and this is where plenty of musicality / music gets lost.
The SME V arm in a lean-ish rig, AND a slim-ish 'table is where synergy becomes yet an even more significant item.

Axel

D.
y.s.: >>> But the ceiling remains hanging too low....... no matter what you do. <<<
Actually an interesting acoustic take allocating such to a TONEARM...

It is for most acousticians a matter of room acoustics rather, which produces a 'low ceiling'

Where would be the 'ceiling' with a Phantom ! or II then?

Also a CD player wound suffer the same 'low ceiling' problem, since my V arm does not create any less 'ceiling height' then my ML390S...

I have heard the VPI 9" arm and it has nowhere near the 'body' and bass slam that can be had from a V, and as to 'ceiling height', you may have a point. This unipivot has something floating and angelic to it --- bass not being its notable characteristic.

Leaving the question of 'bass slam' for a Phantom I or II.

Also we are not in tune it seems with 'upper bass' (call it lower mid range?): ~ 300 - 150 Hz.

Then we have mid bass ~ 150 - 40 Hz, followed by lower bass going 40 - below ~ 20 Hz.

Axel

Hi D.
OK, now I do think we are on the same page as far as bass register goes.

Here my point I was trying to make, and you confirmed some of this with your in-room measurement mentioning.

Upper bass LOOKS A-OK on practically most frequency graphs --- BUT put such speaker in a room and you will find 9/10 it is treble tilted, the current high end pursuit in order to achiefe 'air' and resolution. It was this that I tried to get across.

Upper bass (for me) is well expressed by the German (Grundton) and if that is leaned out, for what ever the reason, the music / musicality suffers greatly.

So, given that most current ~10k - >15k Euro ~ 20k and > $ speakers have this kind of 'balance', a slightly 'richer' arm is not the worst thing for synergy.

Also, often because of the room boost, there is a pick-up around 40Hz BUT it does not really make up for a lean upper base, and most often due to floor bounce related cancellations, - the design challenge I eluded to.

Greetings,
Axel