anyone gone from the Graham 2.2 to vecteur arm ?

I have both a 2.2 (remember that one 4yanx?) and a Vector Model 1 that I use on my 2500. They both offer excellant playback! I like the Vector with my Denon 103R and the 2.2 with my Benz Glider. I have tried the 103 on the 2.2 and the Glider on the Vector, but wasn't quite as impressed with these combos. Probably a mass/compliance thing.

The Vector offers exceptional performance without alot of fussing. It is pretty much set and forget, although I believe that there is something to be gained from experimenting with the level of the silicon oil. A little less than prescribed sounds better to me. The Graham 2.2 is also an excellant arm that does lend itself to all the tweaking one might care to do. It may take more tweaking on the Graham to get to the maximum that arm is capable of. I really like both arms and couldn't choose between them right now.

If you are contemplating changing to much lower compliance cartridges then the Vector might be worth trying. All in all I'd say that your Graham is giving just as good performance as a Vector might. But please keep in mind that I have not had a Vector Model 3 on my table.

Just my .02, hope it helps.

Dear Fjn04: Both tonearms are really top performers. How to choose one of them?
+++++ "
anyone gone from the Graham 2.2 to vecteur arm ?
I am considering the Vecteur arm as a natural match for my Basis 2500 table for increased performance... " +++++

Increased performance: this depends on the TT and the phono cartridge. I think that your TT can match to both tonearms. The most important issue is with which one you can have a better match with your cartridge and this issue is the which one that can define if you can have a performance improvement.

If your cartridge works best with the 2.2 than with the Vecteur, this fact tell us only that the cartridge has a better match with the 2.2, not that the 2.2 is a better tonearm

Like always, this is a subject about the best synergy. That's the name of the audio game.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I did exactly this about a month ago. TT is a Debut vacuum. Cart is a Benz Ruby 2.

With the Graham, I found myself constantly futzing around with all the adjustments, mostly due to sibilance that I could not eliminate by changing cartridge alignment, VTA, VTF, azimuth, etc. The first thing I noticed after changing to the Vector was that the dreaded sibilance had disappeared. Moreover, there was a significant improvement in overall resolution. I have to assume that along with sibilance, the Graham was producing (or allowing) other distortions which were obscuring what was actually in the grooves. Speaking of grooves, the Vector (with Benz Ruby 2) produces NO groove noise. To call dynamics 'explosive' would imply distortion, so suffice it to say that things now get louder and faster without any breakup. I was skeptical about the idea of "no mistracking" and "reduces record wear" but am now a true believer. It is liberating to be comfortable playing valuable/rare LP's without worrying about degrading the vinyl with every play.

Overall, the Debut/Vector combo seems to take the record itself out of the equation, letting the stylus trace the groove as perfectly as I have experienced. Many times there is no perception of hearing the vinyl record itself, only the music contained therein. Because of this, I no longer feel the need to keep 'tweaking' and can just enjoy. Yes, the Graham was more easy to adjust, but after a while the adjusting just became frustrating. I have only readjusted VTA once, and have left it alone since. Folks with non-vacuum turntables who fiddle ceaselessly with VTA adjustments are probably chasing their tails (IMHO) as no LP is truly flat, causing VTA to change constantly.

I am still puzzled by the lack of publicity this arm receives. I would postulate that if Basis were a one-trick-pony and just made Vectors, there would be just as much (if not more) buzz about the Vector as there is regarding the Graham, Schroeder, etc. Hopefully more people without Basis tables will get to try the arm on their tables too.

I too have wondered why the basis arm hasn't gotten alot of attention,what with the designer's reputation!It seems to be a fine design.

Also,it always amazes me,how well respected and proven designs(in this case the 2.2)get the quick "hook",once a newer product comes around.Here the 2.2,but in the past I've seen this with almost all types of audio products.Note how suddenly the Dartzeel solid state amp is good enough to replace the beloved "TUBES" in so many set-ups(in many cases replacing Lamms,on Kharma speakers,which was HERESY 2 years ago).Both formats(tubes,as well as solid state) are fine,in given situations,yet audiophiles,at least MANY I know, LOVE to run with the sophomoric "it must be better if it is so and so,or you can never have too many tubes,or solid state is the only way to go,to control a woofer,or only dipolars can sound real,or box speakers suck" and so on and so on.What a crock!!If you don't know what you're doing,maybe!

We love to spend,and feel vindicated for our particular component choices,but how many of us make choices SOLEY on what we hear,in our own set-ups,WITHOUT feedback from media,reviewers,friends,web sites.Are YOU that secure???I doubt it!!I know I'm setting myself up,for a BIG hit here,and don't care.I've felt this way for a long time,and am stating it for all of the 6 people who will probably read this,but it does make me feel better.I guess I'm self centered.I don't take myself seriously either,and everyone is entitled to their way of thinking(listening).Yet I still believe what I'm spouting.Boring as it seems.

PS--I'm not singling anyone in particular out,just a generalization,which becomes more clear to me as time,in this hobby,goes by.

The 2.2 is NOT adding any sibilence to anyone's ears.I can assure you that if this is your perception,something else is not quite right!I'm perfectly willing to take any venom,that may come from that statement,but I know it(as abnoxious as it sounds.Tough!)to be true.That doesn't mean I think it cannot be,or is bettered,but audiophiles are SO fickle.Raul happens to be correct,when he states that there are many variables at play in "correct matching" of arm/cartridge,and this will play a MAJOR role in any arm's performance.While I will most likely improve upon many parameters of performance,in my system,in time,I don't expect any new revelations to come from a new tonearm(I live,happily with a 2.2)at present.Though I won't keep it forever.Also,the 2.2 does NOT need to be fotz'd around with,constantly.It can be voiced,a hell of alot,with fluid/vta/downforce,like a rubic's cube,but if you know it well,which alot do not(let the bricks fly on that statement too)then you can set,and look elsewhere in your system,for other ways to change presentation.There are SO many OTHER choices to make.Just my 2 cents worth!Regards!

I do think there is much synergy using the Vector on a Basis table and I have no idea what the arm may sound like on another brand of TT. However, I would bet that does very well. It is such a rock solid tracker.

Like sirspeedy, I'm puzzled by the sibilance Lgraef experienced with the 2.2 and also agree that I have not had to putz around with the adjustments. The Ruby is fairly hefty at 9.6 grams and also fairly compliant. Seems like a good match with the 2.2. I won't dismiss what Lgraef reports but I will say that I have not experienced anything like it with my Graham even with a low compliant cartridge. What adjusting I have done I have chosen to do just to see if I can get more from the arm. This is something that sirspeedy has written about extensively and has really gotten my curiousity up. I'm waiting to get a little better cartridge on the 2.2 before getting serious about adjustments.

I like both of these arms so much I'm thinking of someday getting a table that will mount two arms.

>