Graham 2.2 traking force, do you use more?

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.

A stylus does not ride on a single pivot point.

Dan_ed
A good point on the damping fluid, at the moment I am trying a combination of Graham's blue fluid with a higher percentage of SME fluid. This can be one point I need to explore again and will order new graham fluid tomorrow. The SME fluid I just find more open and transparent and it seems to allow the music to breath easier than the blue which I find a little dull sounding. I use the SME fluid full up on the dip stick which maintains the open sound but brings a more controlled soundstage (similar in sound to other threads on this site concerning damping fluid levels but without the hassle). It is an interesting point Dan_ed and I will look into this again. I use the Wally scale for tracking force.

I do find I have always been fighting a lighter sound with the Graham 2.2 (with blue damping fluid also) in comparison with say an SME 5 and with other cartridges. The higher tracking setting does bolt the sound down more into reality with better deeper bass and projection both forward and backward but it also maintains the Grahams superb movement (musical), smoothness and dynamics.