Graham 2.2 traking force, do you use more?

Sniper101,

There's a reason VPI users apply excessive tracking force. Until recently, JMW tonearms had a very crude antiskate mechanism. Rather than design a proper one, VPI recommended the sledgehammer approach of increasing downforce, even to levels above the limit recommended by the cartridge manufacturer.

This approach is demonstrably in violation of the physics involved. What business does the maker of improperly designed tonearms have telling customers to ignore the advice of cartridge designers? Why would anyone using a better tonearm take such advice seriously?

The Graham 2.2 has a perfectly serviceable AS device, so VPI's reason for excess downforce does not apply to you. If you think your rig sounds better that way okay, but you are risking premature wear of your cartridge and unnecessary pressure on your vinyl.

Personally, I would ask AJ VdH before ignoring any of his setup parameters. You might find you're invalidating your Condor's warranty. If you ever decide to sell it, I hope you mention this abuse in the ad. A prospective buyer would have the right to know.

Best regards,
Doug

Hi Doug, Yes this is a point that I agree with regarding the VPI arms and a matter that was brought up very quickly upon it's release. I would not have thought this to apply to the graham, but for sure as physics would predict, tracking is much superior and does appear to have some merit in my system without loss of music or dynamics. Imaging was improved beyond what I would believe possible with such a minor tweak.
I have played it once like this and would like to find out if any other unipivot users have a preference for a higher setting.
I believe most unipivots will have tracking problems due to their inherent instability around the pivot point. I would hazard a guess that the Graham Phantom and Bassis Vector do not suffer this problem at all.

The point of a too high setting does worry me as this cartridge ain't cheap but it's 300 hour service is coming up so I will get some feedback then.

What arm and cartridge do you use?

PS I don't buy or sell second hand cartridges, I only have a record player and always wanted as many cartridges as I can possibly own.

Sniper1,

You are correct that the Vector does not suffer from the same instability issues as the 2.2 can. I owned both of these arms at the same time and found this to be an issue when taking into account what cartridge I used on the 2.2. Nothing seemed to bother the Vector. However, the condor reportedly is highly compliant, at least statically. (I don't know first hand, I'm going by the cartridge database.)

I don't mean to question that you know what you're doing, but I'm curious to know what scale you are using and if you tried adjusting the 2.2's dampening fluid?

Sniper101,

Excellent insight! I just learned another reason (besides VPI's antiskate problem) why some people achieve better results using apparently excess VTF's. Thank you for that.

Unipivots are of course inherently unstable in the azimuth plane (with the exceptions you noted). An increase in downforce would help the arm resist lateral rolling forces. Keeping azimuth more stable reduces crosstalk and improves just what you said, image focus and tightness. Brilliant!

I use a gimballed arm (TriPlanar VII + ZYX UNIverse, check my system). Like your 2.2 it has an easy azimuth adjustment, but then it gets locked in place. It also has a very finely adjustable antiskate device.

In this environment the optimal VTF for every cartridge I've used has been a small zone residing just above the mistracking point (which of course varies somewhat with the weather). Taking VTF any higher (as you're having to do) starts to smother microdynamics and the HF harmonics which give natural instruments and voices some of their unique character.

IME the 2.2 does not quite resolve some of those things, so the sonic penalties of higher VTF's are probably minimal compared to the sonic benefits you described. I've often wondered why my friend Cello prefers much higher VTF's than me when using his 2.2, even though we both use the same cartridge. It all adds up.

Thanks again for sharing an interesting experience and a keen insight,
Doug

Well, it must do something if the results are better. I don't see how adding more vertical pressure on a single pivot point can diminish the tendency for the arm to roll around the other pivot point 9" away, which also has greater mass associated with it. I was thinking that perhaps it was a by-product of having the counterweight just that smidgeon closer to the pivot, but I'm not so sure. Perhaps if the counterweight was below the plane of the pivot, or if it was concentric like the Rega heavyweights.