Graham Phantom vs the Graham 2.2

No problem.
I listened to various set ups with Schroeder. Some months ago there was a visit here from another Basis owner, he had a Schroeder ( Ref ) with the armboard from a Basis. He wanted to listen to a Miyabi ( and the Pass amps ), so we made it.
He sold the Basis combo later and went for a Yyger TT.
( I copied that answer from an older Thread )

Happy listening

Dear friends: It is almost imposible to compare precisely two or more tonearms performance because there are some inherent parameters on each one, example: internal wiring, effective mass, dinamically or statically balanced, pivot or linear traking, etc..., that has an effect on the final judgement. The Larry's comparison between the 2.2 and the Reference can tell us that the Larry's cartridge mates better with the reference than with the 2.2 or can tell us that the reference is a better tonearm or that Larry likes more the " reference distortions " than the " 2.2 distortions "..

There is no a " perfect tonearm ", pivot or linear one. All of them has advantages and disadvantages and depend with which cartridge we mate it.

My advise is to have very clear our targets on the music reproduction, what we want on the sound reproduction, which are our priorities and we have to organize those priorities by importance ( to us ), we have to graded ( scale ), example:

1- timbre,
2- tonal balance,
3- frecuency response,
4- dynamic balance,
5- inner detail,
6- attack,
7- soundstage,
8- etc,...

First that compare between two tonearms we have to compare each one against our music reproduction priorities and then we can choose the best tonearm/cartridge for us.

I have " live experience " ( in my audio system ) with linear traking tonearms: Dennesen and ET, and I hear the Rockport and Air Tangent ( I never hear the Kuzma ), with all of them you can have a different music sound reproduction experience against any pivot tonearm especially with the soundstage presentation and a kind of transparency that is unique to the linear tonearm, but these don't say that these linear traking tonearms are better than any pivot tonearm. Otherwise these linear traking tonearms are not my cup of tea ( because my music priorities ), they are very good but not exellent at the frecuency extremes, these are not their heavy characteristics. BTW, the Reference is exellent whit the soundstage presentation and ,I agree with Thomas, not very good at the frecuency extremes.

I never hear the Phantom, so I can say nothing about. I hope that this time this tonearm was a terminated design, not like his brother: 1, 1.5, 2, 2.2,....
I don't trust in an unfinished design like Graham and Triplanar ( I'm not saying that these tonearms are bad tonearms. No, I know they are good ones . ). Why I don't trust: well, the designers of those tonearms really don't have the 100% of know-how about all the differents tasks that any tonearm has to do or they don't test perfectly their prototypes before they put on sale. Both put on sale unfinished designs, the Triplanar is on his VII update and the Graham is on his V update ( including the Phantom ).
Take a look to the others tonearms designers like: SME, Breuer, Brhinkman, Audiocraft, Rockport, Moerch, Micro Seiki, SAEC, Dynavector, Ikeda, Satin, Technics, etc.... You never " see " a SME V MK2 or a Moerch DP-6 MK3. That's why all these tonearms are top performers and waiting for the right cartridges according to your music sound reproduction priorities.

So, define your music targets ( graded priorities ) and then make your choose.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul,while I,unlike so many other audiogoners,feel that you are a well meaning and knowledgeable audio hobbyist,you don't know what you are talking about regarding the differences between a good pivot and the Air Tangent or Kuzma arms.As you probably know I have intimate familiarity between the Air Tangent and other pick up arms,in a friend's system that is TRULY state of the art.There is no contest!There is a BLOOM to music when you eliminate the bearing resonances that all pivots(except the Schroeder)have.Add the linear tracking and,in a really revealing set-up there is no arguing(something I'm sure you will)the comparison.I don't mean to be disrespectful,truly,but,I don't think you can comment on any comparisons unless you have had extensive exposure to both types(pivot and Air Bearing)in a system you know really WELL.That is why I can only comment on the Air Tangent and not the Kuzma.By the way I remember on a past thread you had mentioned to Mr. Schroeder,himself,that you had gotten access to a Schroeder REF. and would make comparisons.What happened to that?Hmm!

Dear Sirspeedy: I already had extensive exposure to linear an pivot tonearms and what I post was my experience.

I'm confifent in what I alredy told to you and to all our Audiogon friends: till to now ( i don't hear the Kuzma, yet. ) there is no perfect tonearm, it does not exist, yet.

I don't know your graded music/sound reproduction priorities, but if exist any tonearm that can fullfill any and each one at 100% I want to know and want to test that tonearm and with what cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Interesting ideas from Raul, many of which I like. Certainly the difficulty of comparing arms is not easily overcome, and great care must be taken when making or offering comparisons. Synergy with other components - especially cartridges - makes a huge difference. Of course if you hear a tonearm with five different cartridges and you like (or dislike) every combination, it becomes a reasonable bet to buy (or avoid) that arm.

I don't quite agree that a tonearm design has to be "complete" before it becomes desirable to purchase. That almost implies that if a designer discovers some way improve his arm he shouldn't introduce it. I doubt that's what Raul meant because it's absurd. Cartridges, preamps, amps and speakers are improved all the time. So are automobiles and golf clubs. Why not tonearms?

FWIW, some of Raul's examples are actually counter-examples. The Rockport arm WAS altered after first being introduced, to improve its bass response. The SME IV is available up to version IV.vi. Should we now strike those from the list of acceptable arms just because the original version has been enhanced?

Many of Raul's other examples haven't been improved for the simple reason that no one is making them any more. You want a newly made Brinkman, Audiocraft, Rockport, Micro Seiki, SAEC, Dynavector, Ikeda, Satin or Technics? Sorry. No such thing. Would those designs have continued to evolve if the arms had remained in production? Nobody knows, but there's no reason to think otherwise. None of these arms is perfect, right? It's certainly reasonable to believe the designer would have continued to improve them if he'd had the opportunity.

Raul's beloved Moerch DP-6 (a fine arm by all accounts) has at least two obvious weaknesses: it has breaks in the wire and its VTA adjustment is rudimentary. No one would argue that either of those is desirable, they are compromises at best. If the designer fixed one or both of these shortcomings tomorrow and renamed the arm DP-6 MkII, would Moerch's top arm suddenly become less desirable? Of course not, just the opposite.

Yes, a design should be well thought out before being brought to market. No doubt some designs haven't been, Raul would know better than me. But an improvement every few years after careful testing seems like progress. Herb Papier introduced the TriPlanar MkI in 1967. We're now up to MkVII, so there have been six upgrades in 38 years. One upgrade every 6.33 years seems reasonable for a component with as complex a job as a tonearm.