As for ALNICO - even if there are "better" (read: stronger, smaller (=concentrated) and more homogenous field emitting) magnets on hand today, the "oldschool" Alnico as well as the rare earth samarium-cobalts magnets in cartridges old and new often (not always....) do have a sense of "rightness" and "live-likeness" going with them. I suppose however that this is a kind of side-effect of and interaction with human hearing similar to the 2nd order harmonic distortion which is one of the technical basis of the seductive sound some SET-amplifiers can produce in the ears and minds of some many listeners.
On the large scale however I think one single parameter is paramount in the design of a true outstanding cartridge.
The clear concept in the mind of its designer and (most important..) his individual taste in sound and the ability to bring this particular taste into sonic output.
Isamu Ikeda and Takeda certainly didn't design outstanding cartridges because they are technically better in this than other skilled designers.
Or because they used mysterious materials others didn't find out about.
Maybe they just had a very attractive and precise vision about the sound they wanted.
And didn't settle for less than a product which did exactly what they had in mind. |
Well, I guess it will keep on going that way. Syntax will speak his mind and take a clear position and some others will not like that.
Fine.
As in old german saying: "viel Feind - viel Ehr".
Or in english: "your honor is in direct relation to the number of your enemies".
Guess we all can live with that situation
Can't we.
Cheers,
D. D. H. K. |
The distance of the counter weight from the pivot does NOT determine the effective mass of a tonearm.
The damping fluid is located circular around the pivot and thus the amount do have ZERO effect on the moving mass of the tonearm.
The effective moving mass of the Phantom 2 is between 15 and 17 grams I would estimate. This is the effective moving mass sans the cartridge. So the effective total mass is always and in any tonearm depending on the added cartridge body weight and the distance this added mass (the cartridge body) has from the pivot. Thats why similar designed tonearms (DaVinci in 10" and 12" version and - oldskool ... - FR-64s/FR-66s) do have different (and the "longer" tonearm of course always more) moving mass despite almost identical design and material.
It is true however that you should always try to get the counterweight as close as possible to the bearing.
The reasons are obvious. |
Dgad, let me quote myself:
"The distance of the counter weight from the pivot does NOT determine the effective mass of a tonearm.
The damping fluid is located circular around the pivot and thus the amount do have ZERO effect on the moving mass of the tonearm."
Now tell me, what your post 09-15-09 - which is obviously written as a direct answer - does have to do with what I said ?
I said that the distance of the counterweight does not DETERMINE the effective mass of the tonearm (take for instance that the countermass is not a moveable weight, but a fixed shaft or a ball - to illustrate the principle...).
And of course does a circular located damping fluid has no effect on the moving mass. It would certain had if it was located in the armtube (which it isn't for obvious reasons).
And yes - we all had the model of the simple lever and the very easy calculation of force being a result of mass and distance in fairly early high school (my sons turns 11 next year and it is in his curriculum for next school-year) - you do not need to search for it on the web.
Let me quote myself once again:
" This is the effective moving mass sans the cartridge. So the effective total mass is always and in any tonearm depending on the added cartridge body weight and the distance this added mass (the cartridge body) has from the pivot. "
Just give it a brief thought, why certain (most..... if technically allowed by their design....) tonearm designers do offered their products with a range of different mass counterweights (even - and especially so - if dynamically damping mechanism (Technics) was incorporated in the design...).
And sorry - physic does not care, whether you personally preferred in your specific set-up and with your taste in sound a low mass counterweight further away from the pivot vs. a higher mass closer to the pivot.
Again - the (obvious... if sad) fact that still most audiophiles do not understand the true nature of dynamically balanced mode and its very special interaction with the cantilever's suspension isn't physics problem either.
That several do prefer a mix of balanced and static mode is certainly fine with me, but is again a result of their sonic preference in their specific set-up and viewed (heard) through their individual matrix.
That try and error in audio does give individual satisfying results is great - that these great results all too often loose their magic touch in a few days or weeks should tell something.
The proof may be in the listening for some - but it is always an individual proof suitable of the one recipient only.
And many times just a lucky cross-out and vice-versa compensations of many sonic mistakes.
The fact that even Joseph Stalin was once backed by a large portion of his people did not make him a great statesman and philanthropist either.
Sorry again, - but this is not an empirical nor an objective set-up according to any scientific rule.
It is a personal impression as a result of a complex bundle of variables and viewed through a private matrix of preferences all your own.
Dgad, I do not want to lecture you nor anybody else.
As you wouldn't believe me anyway let me just suggest you send a PN to Schroeder or Bob Graham - you are in possession of both designers babies and they will happily explain the points to you. |
Dgad, great - now you tell me I am wrong.
O.K. - wrong, but.... wrong with what ?
Anyway - after having learned so much from your two posts, I won't die a stupid man.............
Syntax - you were so right! |
Gmorris, please read my initial statement: the effective mass is not DETERMINED by the distance of the counterweight from the pivot.
There are a lot of tonearms - past and present - which do feature different weight counterweights to match different weight cartridges/headshells.
This is done to situate the counterweight (technically preferable (if not sonically in the ears of some audiophiles.....) as close as possible to the pivot.
So the distance is of course ONE factor/parameter of the effective mass, but it ALONE does not determine the effective mass of a tonearm.
A tonearm in static vice versa dynamic mode has different effective mass (and here in this model the distance of the counterweight is usually indeed the ONLY variable parameter in comparism, as the other parameters are fixed).
If an audiophile does only use or look at a tonearm with one fixed mass counterweight only (Graham....) he may overlook that there are other options (Triplanar...). |
What make Syntax' comments more worthwhile and valuable than most (.... not all...) others?
First he has absolutely no financial interests in promoting either component and has tried most in discussion here in his home system.
Furthermore - as I do know him quite well and will visit him again tomorrow - he tries to make as little compromise as possible and does judge any component (and through his hands and system went a hell of a lot of components with really serious price tags the past years...) by its performance only and not by hype, fellowship or price tag.
Honestly - this alone is rarely seen.
Add to this an open mind which includes and shows some affection for logical chains, conclusions and enough stamina to make a stand against any crowd.
On the negative side he has quite a vein for teasing lesser minds and making harsh statements.
And he has some friends around which are even worse .......... one being me.
But then - no one of us is really perfect..........
BTW - Syntax is certainly no Troll. I have seen 2 Trolls in 1986 in the very northern part of Finlandia (close to Kilpisjärvi - permafrost area). They do behave different....
Maybe it would be a bit smarter to take some of Syntax's comments more serious and not seeing an instant insult in any of his posts.
He is much more serious than most of you imagine. |
In general (.... I like this phrase...) a good TT should indeed be a good TT independent of the particular tonearm mounted.
In other words - the TT has to spin the record and should provide a stable base for the tonearm to be mounted.
If a TT designer chooses to built his entire design on a theoretical base which sees from the start problems with certain tonearm bearings, it is of course his choice.
I for one believe in designs, which are independent in their display of quality from certain design features of associated components which - first in line - do not have anything to do with the pure physical function of the TT itself.
There are similar demands in many respects to a high-class TT and the base of an electron microscope - both do deal with an isolation from outside vibration and both do need to supply most stable and continuos foundation for the performance of components mounted on them (cart/tonearm on one and electron-microscope on the other).
Yes, I know - the base of the microscope doesn't revolve with 33 1/3 rpm.....
Anyway - I guess this is a common place and something everyone (.... even if a general agreement might well be impossible in Audio society ...) can agree upon.
A TT trying to meet the pure mechanical demands resulting from the real world requirements to give the stylus the chance to extract each and every detail from the groove will always have some certain features.
It will be immensely heavy, suspended on below 1 hz frequency, sport a platter with relatively high mass (30 lbs ++) and thus can't come cheap.
Please note that I have not mentioned any bearing type or drive to be preferred.
These are pure mechanical requirements which do result direct out of the physical mass and the special behavior of the stylus and the record.
Back to the initial quest.
The Graham Phantom II is an extremely well designed tonearm.
While I am certainly not an admirer of unipivot tonearms, I have high regards for the Graham Phantom II.
An excellent basic design which features now many clever details which do further add to the excellent sonic performance and does so with a wide bandwidth of cartridges.
If I would today look for a new tonearm it would be one of my prime choices. |
Dear Halcro, no.... a look in Syntax's line-up of past and present components does not tell the story. And it does not tell much about the veracity of his statements either.
He has a good hand in selling used components for insane prices and has an even better hand in getting to-die-for prices on very new units.
But - yes, he always wants to testify the toys in his own settings.
Thus he is giving little to nothing on 2nd hand experiences spread around widely.
He not even eats my advises and comments right away...... at least not always.
BTW - how's spring downunder ? We have a lousy autumn right now - cold, rainy, depressive - but great to switch on the music system ! |
Dear Raul, me being a late descendant from a very old family tree - its roots going back to the times when Iberia was almost completely occupied by the Maurin and well before the first european (- aside from Leif Erikson... - ) sat his foot on america soil, - I happen to have a total of 4 names given to me at my birth.
Dietrich as well as Daniel are two of the 4.
So the german jungle drums did reach middle america ...... documenting that I have stepped on many toes.
In any case - Dietrich has nothing to do with Daniel, but the meaning of this old northern german name simply is leader or chieftain or king.
Make your selection.
Regards and enjoy the music..........,
D. |
Dear Axel, I am very familiar with the SME V since its introduction more than a quarter of a century ago.
The SME V is not dark.
It is something else. I would rather describe its sonic signature as slightly forward upper bass (due to a resonance in its magnesium armpipe I suppose...).
The sonic side-effect is, that in all set-ups I have heard this tonearm and with all cartridges the sonic performance gives the impression, that the ceiling of the room seems to hand low.......
This may be named "dark" in some ears, but I would rather describe its sonic signature as mentioned. |
Dear Downunder, there is much truth in your comment......... much more thruth than most want to hear or know.
BTW - nice set-up.
Never forget who was and is the one, real and only King ! |
Most SME V I know do already have v.d.Hul silver wiring inside. The top frequencies are more detailed and the sound gets a bit more open.
Blue Tec on the armpipe - especially at the pipe's widening - is another great tweak.
But the ceiling remains hanging too low....... no matter what you do. |
Well Axel, from my point of view most (really most .....) current and past day speakers in home audio systems have upper bass only...... hardly any do have any neutral and flat bass worth mention below 60 hz ( I mean free of inverse phase support via bass reflex... - the audio reviews and printed frequency sweeps may tell you otherwise, - but go and have the actual frequency response measured in your room: you will be shocked what really gets delivered).
So, while I won't put your comment in question, that indeed there might be some synergy effects ( in maths "-" x "-" gives "+".......) with some modern day speakers (especially german speakers......), the signature of the SME V still is not dark - its rather a kind of "muted" headroom.
But then this is the Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II thread, not the "does the SME V have a sonic signature" - thread...... |
Axel, well - with the Phantom II the ceiling is about 1/3 higher than with the SME V.
With the Phantom II bass transients have equal slam, but more speed and edge sharpness.
But then the SME V must by todays standards be judged and "filed" as an "oldskool" tonearm, as it origins from the same year/period as the FR-66fx and 64fx among others (..... somehow ironic - isn't it...).
The fact that it is still available new today does not deny that.
I for one would "divide" the bass register as follows (after all chambertone a - the tuning frequency of an orchestra - is today around 440 hz) :
* 220-100 - upper bass
* 100-60 - mid bass
* 60 and lower - lower bass
...... see why I meant that hardly and high-end speakers do have real low bass performance in the listening room.
If you extend "mid bass" to 40 Hz, then most high-end speakers won't even have flat mid-bass response either. |
Dear Nolitan, according to Syntax's findings - which I had the pleasure to confirm for myself last saturday at his place - a firm and solid YES.
The Phantom II does build on the MKI's virtues and goes considerably further.
Its worth the extra price.
Consider it one of the handful of TOP-flight tonearms today. Among this very tiny group, it is the least expensive, most easy to adjust to 99% and most versatile.
One can hardly ask for more.
It is an evolved design which now looks back on 20 years on the market and has seen constant positive development while maintaing its basic design and outlook.
In the far future - when we are all old, half deaf and white haired we will look back and consider the Phantom II one of the very few great classics which did stand the test of time with bravura.
If I were looking for a pivot tonearm today - this would be the one I'd go for. |
First, - because most people do not know about the upgrade option. And second because many do want an "all new" toy and don't believe that the upgrade is 1:1 identical to the Phantom II in all parts and performance. Maybe a word about this from Robert Graham would clarify and encourage people. |
