Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II

I wonder who the Bouncer is at that place...

We should try to take it not too serious. I dreamed about it, because I am sensitive and can't stand it when you don't love me anymore.I had a Dream,
there is Restaurant at the end of the universe.
But honestly, it is not a Restaurant, more a very unfriendly low pub, where only
fat, dark, bad smelling pieces of meat are served, with a glibber, awful looking sauce.

That's it. Nothing else. Always the same. Every Day.
And for drinking only warm Cherry Coke is available.
In this Restaurant at the end of the Universe all High Enders are taken prisoner, who
had a lot of sins in their regular life.

You will meet people, who rated the power of their amps once of more often in Horsepower, those who made a lot of money with cable- or
Rackvoodoo , those who hyped units which create Ear cancer when listening too long.
Or those who sold their inferior cheap made speakers to those unlucky enthusiasts who believed in reviews.

Btw. in that Restaurant you will find one or the other High End Journalist, too.

In this Restaurant you will hear day in, day out Chris de Burgh only, from Mini-Disc via a continuous
clipping Pre-/Amp combination linked to 6 way speakers with defect midrange chassis.
I had that dream last night and I have absolutely no idea what was real in that dream.

But I liked it very much.

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 !

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.

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.

It appears that we have a "clever" audiophile in our midst. You are so transcendent in your thought...

Oh sage please,through a few pearls of wisdom to the swine that surround you, i want to "KNOW" the secrets that i have been denying for so long as i through my fortunes to the wind...Just kidding, of course!

So many words, but nothing is said,

tell us, what makes your words any more credible, or better yet, what makes your judgement/knowledge any more credible than "most audiophiles" or "dealers" that you condescend to.
So far it has remained unseen.

One who chooses to confront his fellow music lover hiding behind oblique comments and explaining them all as the unwashed masses, rarely does any good except to feed his own ego. We have a word for that on these threads, it's called a troll.

i prefer the honesty of sharing and helping my Hifi friends, and on occasion showing my ignorance.

Happy Listening! Come in here dear boy, have a cigar, your going to go far...

And when I would be a customer, who has money but no idea, I would agree.

I think a read of Syntax's System would reveal the veracity of this statement?

But to be fair, only new products makes the money go round.

Are we not talking about the NEW Phantom compared the OLD Phantom?
Methinks his confusion overwhelms him?

Well, when I would be a Dealer I would write the same.
And when I would be a customer, who has money but no idea, I would agree.
Most Audiophiles WANT to spend money, they don't want to KNOW what the unit really does. They "like" it or not. Or. they read something in a magazine and save a few lines in their memory and after a while it is transformed to "Knowledge".
But to be fair, only new products makes the money go round. And when something is really better (or clever made) than others, and cheaper, and limited...then it can be dangerous. The goal is the "Balance".
It is the way it is.

>>10-21-09: R_f_sayles
.....My concern and my understanding of Conrad Mas's concern with unipivot arms on his table is that his clever suspension is also essentially, unipivot, which together create some basic engineering challenges, and very possibly a poor result in combination with a basic unipivot tonearm......<<

Does Mas consider his suspension unipivot?
I thought it was fairly conventional 3 point spring setup with lateral stabilising rubber bands. Not sure what makes this suspension 'unipivot' - or for that matter incompatible with a unipivot tonearm.
In any case if Mas considers unipivots don't work (for whatever reason), why not just go with one of the other excellent arms available - eg Triplanar or Kuzma 4point?
I'm a Phantom owner but I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with either those other 2 arms.

Correct again Bill!

>>10-21-09: Syntax
The Phantom Arm is probably the best Arm made today<<

There is, of course, no best of any component and tonearms are no exception.

I have my favorites as well but hyperbole such as this should simply be ignored.

Syntax, if you happen to be commenting on my previous post to your thread, I would like to add a little insight.

Likes or dislikes play into it I'm sure. I admire the Swiss watch like fit and finish of the entire Graham line, it is truly very alluring. It is also truly rare, even amongst a history of many great tonearms and tonearm designer/manufacturers. I also understand and appreciate the fact that Bob Graham makes a tonearm that has functional precision that leaves most others in the dust, IMHO. My concern and my understanding of Conrad Mas's concern with unipivot arms on his table is that his clever suspension is also essentially, unipivot, which together create some basic engineering challenges, and very possibly a poor result in combination with a basic unipivot tonearm. It is an issue of basic mechanical compatibility not synergy to the subjective listener. Personally, my experience as an industrial designer and analogue Hifi enthusiast tells me that Mr. Mas also has a strong command and insight on turntable/tonearm physics.

In the words of Bob Graham:"Once Neutral Balance is chosen for use in a unipivot tonearm, one must remember that both the vertical and lateral planes will be affected the same way; without proper lateral stability, such a design would not have consistent, proper vertical alignment, and the pivot would tend to flop over to one side or another (usually in the direction of the weighted cartridge offset angle mounting). Obviously this condition must be avoided. The answer to this lies at the very heart of the Phantom's design." In brief, the Magneglide system which completely changes the paradigm of how a unipivot arms responds. This could very well be the key for my success with the Avid and on a grander scale be beneficial to almost any TT set up.

A thought about vibrations, the very nature of all record players works on physical vibration, obviously from the source (Lp). It would be naive to believe or suggest that turntables themselves or tonearms for that matter, do not have inherent vibrations both from the source and from the loud speakers or foot falls or a truck driving down the street near by. The object is what you do with them. Material dampening alone is a cave mans analogy to solving this tricky puzzle. Vibration management on the other hand is the ability to control where and when particular menacing frequencies resolve and the properly dissipation of them in areas that don't adversely effect the music. It is a science that is still being pioneered by those with outstanding insight and technical skills. It's obvious that Mr. Graham is unique in that he has shown a strong command of these skills and an amazing standard for both taste and quality.

Lastly, my inquiry was that of supporting observation and opinion on the given subject... I felt this might be a pretty good forum for some help from those intimately familiar with this tonearm in many different applications. What it was not was an attempt to divert the main discussion tangentially. Just looking for a little help.

Happy (analogue) Listening!

Personally I always have a problem, when there is a discussion about a Tonearm which has "a or no synergy" with a turntable. What does it mean?
A Turntable which has lots of internal vibrations can't be used with a clever made Tonearm, which has none and it is obvious after a short time, that the TT is the problem? Or a Tonearm which has average bearings mounted on a clever made Turntable which can show what is on it?
The Phantom Arm is probably the best Arm made today, it works with a lot of cartridges on a very good level, not with everything, but most. Clever design and excellent from quality.
Turntable Design can have a lot of differences (Material mix, suspension, Platter quality ....), but Designers are Humans like you and me and they have their favorites, too. When someone thinks, this Arm is the best for his turntable, why not..Lots of people are happy with units I would never touch...try it and learn :-)

On the subject of the Phantom II and its virtues...I was wondering if anyone have experience with the Phantom II on an Avid Acutus Reference. After reading that Conrad Mas, the designer and builder of the Avid was not fond of and was not recommending the use of a unipivot arm for his TT, I felt conflicted about my decision to purchase the table. Part of the upgrade path/plan I have is to run a Graham arm, one because I like the arm and two because one can set up multiple arm/cartridges, of course (mainly mono and stereo). It turns out I wrote Mr. Mas recently and he felt that after an acquaintance of his had run the Phantom with its magnetic stabilization in the lateral plain he was not willing to count all unipivot designs out of the running. So I'm looking for further experiences, if there are any out there. Opinions would be appreciated too.

Happy Listening!

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...).

Dertonarm

Your physics seems to be faulty here. Assuming that the counter weight is indeed firmly connected to the tonearm tube (which is always the case in a well designed pivoted arm), then, the effective mass of the arm must be dependent on the distance of the counterweight from the pivot (ie. the moment of inertia “I”is dependent on the radius squared). The composite "I" for the arm tube/counterweight and subsequently the "effective mass" would essentially have the same dependency.

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!

Dertonarm,

I can't be bothered to argue with you but you are wrong. There is effective mass & nominal effective mass. Please understand the difference.

By the way such also applies to effective length of a tonearm.

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.

Dertonarm,

The damping does in fact damp the tonearm. It is a resistance to motion or vibration. It would change how the arm behaves dynamically.

Below is a quote from another website. This is the best summation of what is effective mass and how the distance of the counterweight (obviously in relation to the weight of the cartridge) does change a tonearm's effective mass.

"Equivalent Mass of counterweight at stylus tip=M*Lb^2/La^2(g)
If counterweight M weighs: 120g for example
Lb=counter weight centre mass distance from pivot: 5cm for example
La=effective length of arm from pivot to stylus: 24.5cm
Then "equivalent" Mass of counterweight as seen from stylus point can be calculated approx 5g.
Thus adding effective mass 5g on the cartridge+shell (when ignoring other masses of wand and fitting etc).
Effective mass is changing in accordance with the position of counterweight to balance the head mass so that "any" effective mass of arm is only "nominal or representative" value - useless for determining the actual resonance frequency expected from cartridge compliance and total effective mass (especially when the counterweight shaft is elastically connected with arm body as in "DYNAMIC DAMPING MECHANISM")."

Now to go beyond this explanation, I will add that a lower mass counterweight further away from the pivot in fact resulted in a lower resonant frequency for the same cartridge in the same arm. This gave me close to an 10Hz resonant frequency with extreme sonic benefits.

I myself did sonic tests comparing lower mass counterweight away from the pivot and a very heavy counterweight close to the pivot. I preferred the result with the lower mass weight away from the pivot. This in effect explains that the cartridge/arm type and combination is important in determining what is best.

I myself don't subscribe to the universal rule that is being put forth that the closer the counterweight to the pivot the better the performance of the arm.

Now, lets take what many people mention in regards to any of the dynamically balanced arms where the VTF is via a spring. Many suggest to disengage the dynamic VTF and use only the counterweight. I would suggest that this is more a function of the cartridge and arm combination. That in fact the best sound might result from a combination of the 2. Some dynamic VTF & some static VTF. This would yield an ideal combination in some cases. In the case of my Breuer this is easily realized. So in the end the cartridge sees the spring and the counterweight as a form of mass in terms of VTF. Effective mass can not be a defined number for a tonearm.

Oct. issue of Stereophile is reviewing the Phantom II and answers many of the questions asked.

Jean.

Thanks for the inputs.

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.

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.

Jaspert,

The armwand of the Phantom I is 1 gm heavier than the Phantom II. That doesn't answer your question but the effective mass of any arm is a function of the distance of the couterweight to the pivot and possibly in the Phantom's case the amount of damping fluid would change things. I would assume for a fair approximation about 11 gms.

Hi all,

Does anyone know the effective mass of the new Phantom II?

Thanks.

Good question. You are on the right track...when I would have the chance for a custom made cartridge, I would prefer AlNiCo's. But to be honest, these alone are not the secret, there are outstanding cartridges (Miyabi for example) which sound very life-like and some don't (XV-1s) or you go to one of these FR-cartridges, they have a kind of Pysical Force which is rare to get. Even today. But then you need a different Arm and a real high gain Phono section.
But to go back, the Helikon is right, when you have the chance to get one used, try it. There is worse out there.

interesting, do you think the helikon would be even better with allnico magnets?

Perrew, I did try most Lyras with the Phantom II and my favorite one is the Helikon. It is so much better than the much more expensive Koetsu RSP, it is depressing.
Haven't tried the Titan i, will do it in the next days..

Glad I waited long enough and ended up with the version II.

Was listening to my system late this past weekend and was transfixed! This arm does resolve a lot with my Orpheus

which lyra do you prefer?

After using the Phantom II for some time now, I would like to say, it fascinates me more and more. I guess it is based on the new Armtube (probably on the new wire but this i can not check) and it is a excellent match with the Lyra systems. They are designed to move a lot of their energy into the arm and the better that one is (Bearing etc.) the more subtle details are offered, they are not "smeared" like with other Arms (in comparison). Another miracle for me, with that Arm the Lyras show a kind of "musicality" which is really rare to get. Seems, those Lyras have a very high limit which is not available for every Arm. The high frequencies are not sharp like most users write, they have a effortless speed with a holographic 3-dimensional body. I had a lot of carts, but they can show a killer performance. Even with VERY complex music (Spanish Flamenco) I can follow every instrument sharply in focus. We will see what goes on but I bet, this will be one of the great Arms when out of production.

Because the main cylinder is moving on one plane when you set the azymuth with the magneglide, mine is leaning left side to have the right azymuth. Micropoise is a help for VTA to have armwand parallel to the record.

I agree that the micropoise is a good idea, but I wonder why Bob didn't put it on the bearing cap so that you could level across all angles. THAT would have been far more valuable.

Flyfish, like you I have owned the 1.5T for a long time (18yrs) but finally cracked and got a Phantom 2.
I don't think you'll find the 'micropoise' level a waste of shipping. I find it a really handy feature - and yes, you wonder why no-one else has thought of putting this on an arm before.
I've only just installed the P2, and have very little listening/tweaking time, but already I'm thrilled with the gains over the (very respectable) 1.5T. Everyone talks about the bass improvement, but the increased clarity, presence, sound-space, air and dynamic ease are immediately apparent.
Enjoy!

I never owned an original Phantom. I had a 1.5t for 16 years, but recently broke down and ordered a Phantom Mk ii. I exchanged e-mails with Bob Graham during the process. There is no Mk iii.

Here's what I learned: When original Phantom came out, Bob indicated that he continued to tweak things and over time this got to the point that enough had changed to warrant the Mk ii designation. A few posts mention these changes accurately.

After the Mk ii was officially released, Bob indicated he still continually tweaked things - it is in his nature. This included the bubble level, a screw tap to mount the bubble level and a few other "minor" tweaks he thought of along the way. Certainly nothing to warrant Mk iii.

I bought mine from a dealer that is heavy into analog and sells a bit of Graham - relatively speaking. He shipped my Phantom Mk ii back to Graham for an "upgrade" to include the last few "minor" tweaks, but they are very minor and it probably was a waste of shipping.

That's what I know.

My goodness - I missed seeing this thread before, and I want to thank everyone for their input.. First of all, I want to apologize to any who did not receive a reply when they wrote; we try to answer all e-mails, but with spam-filters being what they are, sometimes a letter gets lost in the system.

Now, about the Phantom I, II, and so on. The main difference in the II is the new titanium wand; however, it goes a bit beyond that. The headshell is slightly revised (only slightly) and gives a more direct patch for energy to be swallowed up by the damped armwand. Also, the internal wiring has been updated a little in order to reduce mechanical friction even further.

Another detail we have been addressing is the occasinal problem someone notices (PCosta on 6/19) of having the pivot not centered. We do recommend that, as a last adjustment after setting things up, the user would then carefully slightly lift the pivot housing just a small fraction and then reseat it into the pivot cup. This will ensure proper location (much like making sure you put in a vacuum tube properly in it's socket) and will not pop out from the magnets.

To help make this a bit more automatiac, we've recently reduced the size of the magnets (less pull), but placed them further out from the pivot (more leverage); the result being a high level of lateral stability, but with less sideways forces. If your arm is not causing troubles in this regard, there's nothing to be concerned about with whatever Phantom you have. If not, that's part of the upgrade to the "II" status.

The "Micropoise" bubble level system was an afterthought, and came to me within a month or so of the previously-described upgrades, and after the "II" had been announced. I thought of saving this for a "III" designation, but who knows when that might be, and the notion of this was so handy, I thought, that I'd start to include it. (Concidentally, our own manufacturing costs, like the rest of the crazy world, have gone up, so when we raised the retail to $4900.00, we added the "Micropoise" at the same time. That way, no one who purchased at the older, lower, price would be penalized).

Can the arms be upgraded? Absolutely. The armwand can be swapped by the user, obviously. And we're considering offering the "Micropoise" feature as a kit, although this will require care, a steady hand, and only one chance to get it right, since the retros will have to be applied with a drop of Krazy Glue.! (The production units are attached with a machine screw, but the earlier arms have no provision for this).

Generally, I'd recommend anyone wanting the upgrades to contact us and arrange for a return. Here, we can exchange the internal wire and the Magneglide components, and install the Micropoise" leveler. Cost for this is $475.00 and, when used with the Titanium armtube,will bring you completely current.

Thanks again to all who have purchased, enjoy, and support our products. Without customers, we wouldn't be here, and you're all - to a person - very appreciated..!

Hope this helps explain things a bit..
-Bob Graham

after listening and comparing...there is a new King born, true in tonal color, sensational from dynamic range and probably the real thing in analog of today, the Masterpiece from Mastermind

I'll do something, I do very rarely
"Kudos Mr. Graham"

you should triple the price, even then it is a bargain compared to others

Syntax:

If possible, what was the serial # on your Phantom I?

Thanks

Syntax:

If possible, what was the serial# of your Phantom I.

Thanks

Has anyone heard from Bob about cost to have the Micropoise installed and turn around time. If not, i will send him an email. Thanks

Can you tell us what you think of it in comparison to the original.

I received an e-mail from Bob yesterday regarding the Micropoise bubble level. The new spirit level is a new addition and can be added. He recommends that it is done at his factory but as Audiolui mentioned, it's possible for a user to do it themselves ... but risky! I will be dropping Bob an e-mail today to get more info.

Crystalref,
Nothing wrong with your hands or eyesight. I am lucky. No, I have been taking pictures for years as my secondary hobby. I guess I have taken more pictures than you and learned from lots of mistakes. The point here is to share and help each other out.

I know a person who works for the Graham distributor. I am going to ask him if there is any information about the Micropoise upgrade.

Audiolui
Great pictures on your system page. Alot better than I managed to get. Must be my shaky hands and failing eyesight!

I didn't know Crystalref already posted some pictures. I also took some. I don't have a virtual system posted. But I created one just for the Phantom II pictures. You can look at them at the following link.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vdone&1245616040

Jean.
Thanks for your kind words. You have some interesting pictures of vintage turntables, omnibuses and vampires on your photobucket pages!
Steve

Latest system photos including pictures showing Micropoise bubble level on pivot housing of latest Phantom II, now uploaded to my Photobucket page. Sorry for the delay and please pardon my mediocre photography skills.

http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/crystalref/

Please Crystalref do post it on photobucket, I had a look and your system pics, they are very nice. You can have a look at my photobucket pics, also Phantom based.
Same name, jloveys.
Best,
Jean.