.
I was able to hear the Phantom at a dealer back in November, but it was on a completely different system than mine (Maggies in lieu of my Sonus Faber Extremas), so I don't have a great frame of reference.
.
The detail was incredible, the sound staging compressed and not well delineated and the bass lacking. The sonics did not have much weight behind the notes. I blame the dealer's system for the drop off in sound characteristics compared to what I hear in my system. The detail was better than what I hear, but the sound stage and lack of weight was poor compared to what I get in my system.
.
Having said all of that, I was still impressed with the Phantom. I have a 2.2, which I really like (in part thanks to the help I got from your thread comments on damping fluid - thanks for that one).
.
I had listened to a new Tri-Planar and liked the improved attack, dynamics and Bass, but I am completely sold on a Schroder Reference.
.
I have heard the Schroder Reference on my system on my table with the same cartridge and was able to do an A/B against my Graham. I really enjoy my Graham, but the Schroder is just heaven in all respects. It does is all.
.
I also just heard a Schroder last weekend for the whole weekend on another system with a ZYX UNIverse with all types of music and I have never heard anything as magical or beautiful as that combination.
.
I have a two-armed table and was thinking of getting the Phantom. Now, I am definitely planning to get a Schroder Reference and would consider either the Phantom or the Tri-planar as the second arm.
.
It would be great to do an A/B of the 2.2 and the Phantom in my own system and I will if I get the chance and report back. The Schroder Reference, although a good bit more expensive than the Phantom, is well worth the price difference and in my thinking, could easily turn out to be the last tonearm you ever buy...it is that good.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.
I was able to hear the Phantom at a dealer back in November, but it was on a completely different system than mine (Maggies in lieu of my Sonus Faber Extremas), so I don't have a great frame of reference.
.
The detail was incredible, the sound staging compressed and not well delineated and the bass lacking. The sonics did not have much weight behind the notes. I blame the dealer's system for the drop off in sound characteristics compared to what I hear in my system. The detail was better than what I hear, but the sound stage and lack of weight was poor compared to what I get in my system.
.
Having said all of that, I was still impressed with the Phantom. I have a 2.2, which I really like (in part thanks to the help I got from your thread comments on damping fluid - thanks for that one).
.
I had listened to a new Tri-Planar and liked the improved attack, dynamics and Bass, but I am completely sold on a Schroder Reference.
.
I have heard the Schroder Reference on my system on my table with the same cartridge and was able to do an A/B against my Graham. I really enjoy my Graham, but the Schroder is just heaven in all respects. It does is all.
.
I also just heard a Schroder last weekend for the whole weekend on another system with a ZYX UNIverse with all types of music and I have never heard anything as magical or beautiful as that combination.
.
I have a two-armed table and was thinking of getting the Phantom. Now, I am definitely planning to get a Schroder Reference and would consider either the Phantom or the Tri-planar as the second arm.
.
It would be great to do an A/B of the 2.2 and the Phantom in my own system and I will if I get the chance and report back. The Schroder Reference, although a good bit more expensive than the Phantom, is well worth the price difference and in my thinking, could easily turn out to be the last tonearm you ever buy...it is that good.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.