anyone gone from the Graham 2.2 to vecteur arm ?

Thanks for all your comments. I was listening earlier to the Johnny Hartman/John Coltrane album and I definitely heard the sibilance in Hartmans voice during louder singing passages. I just read MF' s review of the Phantom b-44 in stereophile and can relate to some of his findings w/ the 2.2. Then of course he went on to talk about how the Phantom improves on the 2.2 in all the areas where it (the 2.2) may be lacking. I believe he called the 2.2 a little medicinal and mechanical sounding next to the Phantom and for that matter next to his Immedia RPM-2 tonearm. Not to rock anyones boat, but We all have different systems and I am quite sure the 2.2 may complement ones particular system. However , I am only looking to improve my sound based only on my own personal preferences. I am awaiting a new Benz ruby 3H and when it arrives I may just ride on in to the sunset w/ the 2.2 guiding the way. I will make it a point to report my findings at that time if any are interested. Hopefully when I play the Stairway to heaven 45 rpm w/ the benz tracking, things wont kind of fall apart just when Jimmy Page really lets loose. I just cant have that. Next up, the Phantom vs. the Vecteur. Dont change that channel.

Lgraef,
During the time that I lived with the Ruby/Graham combo, I experienced two periods of mistracking with the Ruby both of which were eliminated. The first was caused by too much damping fluid in the well. Once I got the damping tuned (less than the recommended amount), that took care of things for quite a while.

The second occurrence happened when dust had built up on the cantilever unknown to me. I clean the stylus regularly but never looked at the cantilever. It wasn't until I was switching cartridges and had the wand off the arm that I noticed the build up. I cleaned the cantilever before proceeding with the switch and that took care of the mistracking I was experiencing.

I ADMIT that I must seem like a bit of a fanatic,and obnoxious in some of my posts.Sorry!That being said,it is correct that we all just want to find our own concept of musical reality,whether digital/analog/I-pod/car radio etc.

Obviously some systems will sound better with certain combinations.Some will vary,and I've seen some of my own friends' systems where a product worked in one,and not another,so I respect all of you guys' findings,and opinions.

I will add that I have NEVER (and both of my friends with the same arm) had any mistracking with my 2.2!If I had mistracking,I would certainly not think it was the 2.2 that,itself,was the culprit.As with the rediculous claim of any kind of sibilent nature to the 2.2,these can easily be attributed to other dial in parameters,or the set-up person themselves.Best regards.

First off, there was no dust on the cantilever. I am religious about stylus cleaning.
And yes, I tortured myself with the damping fluid issue to no avail. One could argue that the need to be so precise with damping fluid indicates a design flaw (I'm ducking while writing this). Ironically, the Speakers Corner Coltrane/Hartman was one of the LP's that had annoying sibilance with Graham but none with the Vector. I have focused on this issue (as it was the one that bothered me the most) but would say that the Vector has been an overall improvement, making great Lp's greater and making previously bad-sounding Lp's sound much better.

I do find it annoying that components are constatnly "upgraded." However, if one respects the designer of a component, they should at least consider that the new product is an improvement. Does anyone really debate whether the 2.2 is an improvement over the 1.5? I have seen the 2.2 criticized long before the Phantom was even being developed, so not all of the criticism is new or related directly to the availability of a newer product. If one believes in the design of a product and designer himself feels that the new product is better, it may not be all hype.

When I spoke with AJ Conti, he told me that the Vector was one of his crowning achievements. As I am completely satisfied with the Debut TT, I decided to trust him on this issue and am completely satisfied with the arm. Incidentally, I have sent an unsolicited copy of my initial posting to AJ to include on his website.

My initial response was not intended to trash a particular product; the initial post asked for feedback from people who switched from the 2.2 to the Vector, and I feel that I have duly answered the question.

Lgraef,You are a true, quality citizen,and nobody I know would doubt it.I admit to trying to bait some folks,but haven't gotten the responses I thought I'd get.Though a brick did come through my window,yesterday.The getaway car had an audio mag's logo on it.

Of course many products,by reliable mfgrs are considered superior to previous designs,and in this case,the Phantom does look like a winner.Graham has a great track record,so I have no doubt as to it's attributes,as well as for the seemingly fine design,of the Vector.My only complaint(my own problem)is the issue of Sibilence in the 2.2,which ain't there.I suspect anyone(including MF,in his review)of not maxing out that design's potential,if a claim of a "mechanical/sibilent" nature exists.Of that I'm quite secure,as I had a subtle resonant characteristic for quite some time,before learning to "eliminate" it.It is way too easy to just give up,and in this hobby,dump more money into another design.It's a cycle I've had way too much exposure to,and am getting a grip on,myself.

Best regards!!