SME V, Tri-Planar or Phantom B-44 ?

Hello all,

Its been a while since I posted something on the gon. Its unfortunate to have these types of"best of", "a vs b" posts answered by folks who have not done direct comparisons in the same system. Indirect comparisons, conjecture, assumptions, etc can have the unfortunate effect of confusing and misdirecting people.

On the other hand, very few people have the time and money to make direct comparisons in the same system. Maybe that's why we tend to settle for the next best option.even with direct comparisons, system differences can lead to different conclusions.

I am in the process of comparing the Phantom-2 to the triplanar-7v2 in my own system and will be offering my opinions in the near future.
The only person who has made direct comparisons of these arms that I'm aware of is "thomashesig"here on the gon in a related post, and mickelson on Soundstage and Garcia in the absolote sound.from what I hear so far "thomashesig" hit the nail on the head in his comparison.there are big differences between these particular two.

I would like to go back and forth one more time before posting my final conclusions.

Stay tuned

Raul, Thom and others,

The concept of cartridge/tonearm matching has always intrigued me. What intrigues me is that this seems to preclude discussions of absolute best or better tonearm as a separate component.

I understand that a cartridge and tonearm need to be properly matched in weight and compliance to produce a specific range of resonance frequency.

However, that aside, what is it that drives desireable combinations. I suspect it is a matter of sonic and mechanical synergy.

1)For example, sonic synergy

Imagine a very bright, strident, analytical cartridge. I suspect this would be considered a good combo with a warmer,slightly slow, musical tonearm.

To me neither of these components would seem "neutral" on their own in this scenario. But what if there really are "neutral" arms and more neutral cartridges. Then it would be appropriate to rate tonearms and cartridges separately.

2) Mechanical synergy

I suspect some cartridges emit more vibration than others based on their construction, and certain tonearms dampen more vibration than others. I would think the better cartridge, all else bein equaln would be the one to emit less vibration. Since this may be difficult to control, I would think it is more straightforward designing a tonearm that was capable of dampening various types of vibrational energy. In this regard the tonearm that isbetter at damping is a better tonearm.

Of course specific tonearm design and cartridge designs have their inherent superiority over others.

Anyway, my point is that there probably is some justification in judging the merits of a tonearm separate from the combination.

Here is the link to the thread. I think his relevant post is on page 3

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1217432636&read&keyw&zztriplanar+phantom

Syntax, yes this is the correct thread. Thanks.

Raul,let's consider starting a separate thread at some point.

iSanchez,

Thanks for the welcome and most of all the explanation. Honestly I have been enjoying my system so much that I have been spending less time on the internet. I also find it a bit frustrating some times seeing threads go back and forth and with a lot of disagreement.it always seems that a given component someone owns is "the best". I tend to appreciate the threads that are more informational in nature. Anyway I hope to contribute some more directly and try to provide my opinions based on direct comparisons.

I see you have the Mambo. I used to have it and think itis a very very good table. I wish I kept mine for a second system. Also Rauls preamp is a tour de force.

This is a great hobby...obsession. I wish I could own the number of components that raul and Syntax have. On one hand I would like to experiment with different tonearm-cart combos but I wonder if I would just end up listening to one combo.

Adios for now

Andrew