Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH

As to the Phantom fluid usage.......Since I am close to upgrading my Graham 2.2 to a Phantom the subject of NOT using fluid perplexed me.I am very familiar with the huge differences even the most minute amounts of fluid impact the 2.2's performance(I am talking pinhead amounts,and have been at this for years,on this arm).
My friend has just upgraded his 2.2 to the Phantom,and "it"(Phantom) is not as sensitive to fluid as the 2.2.Yet,it still "definitely" benefits from fluid usage! You MUST be VERY careful about finding the "perfect" amount,for a given cartridge's energy!This will NOT take one listening session if you are exacting!
I called Bob Graham recently,as I had some questions regarding set-up.The fluid issue came up in the conversation(as did the titanium arm tube option,which he thinks is the equal of the ceramic,and a matter of taste).
As to the fluid usage...his feelings, on non usage was that the arm "sounded quite good,surprisingly,with no fluid,but that does NOT mean it should not be used"(his words). He has not done an A/B comparison,with fluid,and
based on my own experience with my friend's Phantom(he has the same Transfiguration Orpheus cartridge as me)I will definitely use the fluid.
This could be cartridge dependent,but the Phantom definitely likes fluid with the Orpheus in use.Small increments STILL affect sonics BIG TIME!
Hope this helps.
Good luck.

I ,for one, appreciate Mikey's personal response on this forum. I certainly would not want to be subjected to this scrutiny.

I think there can be way too much ego(nobody in particular,btw)in this hobby,and very obvious on these numerous threads.
I see this in all the little "groupings" in my audio circles.You know...the tube vs SS clubs,or the high mass vs suspended table clicks,or particular cartridge lovers/defenders,etc,etc.Everyone wants to voice an educated opinion(I'm no exception).Sometimes just to offer up "something" that will stick,and maybe get some thread time.
Here,to my surprise(a pleasant one)we had a well known hobbyist/reviewer,make a "series" of interesting posts about an interesting product,which developed into varied subjects.Still intriguing,to a good extent.
What this ultimately morphed into,and it really became kind of ludicrous,was the very typical "ego fest",with many folks questioning a "good natured" original series of responses by Mike Fremmer.
I doubt his heart was "not" in the right place!To me,all his responses were to be explanitive of his review.Then defensiveness set in,and "here" it was uncalled for.The hobbyist ego thing again(not Fremmer's ego either).Too many "I know alot,and want someone to know it too" posters,diluting a well intended series of posts by a well known person in our hobby,who truly seemed to be good natured and wanting to be helpful.AND did not have to!
What good could come out of baiting and questioning every action involved in a complex review process?I have been at this for four decades,and could not/would not want to perform such "pain in the ass" procedures.Just listening is way too much fun for me.
Do we think the forums on Audiogon would be more interesting if a reviewer,like Fremmer,did not even bother to contribute something?
Would all us simple hobbyist types(to different degrees)be more happy just kicking around the same stuff we always do,without input from the "guys" we all like to read......and be critical of(in private) to our own audio friends -:) We all do it!-:)
Yet,when said high profile folks are "NICE" enough to chime in(in this case "alot",and more than he should have,due to the stupid "contrarians" out there,IMO)with only good spirited intentions,it does not seem to be such a stretch to at least "want" more of this in the future!At least I would.
I doubt this will happen,much to this extent,in the future.Deservedly so!!
Now we can all go about posting the same repetitive,uninteresting stuff I've been following for some time!
Sorry for the rant,but I feel better now!
Best to all.

Great post Sirspeedy. I was one of the people that wrote Mike a personal email, thanking him for contributing to Audiogon.

It does not matter if I or others agree with the review, what's important is his position in the audio community and his willingness to take time out of his incredibly busy schedule to help us.

I think you're right about everyone wanting their opinions heard, perhaps even to the extent of challenging Mike (who is a big target).

Again, that's why my only other contribution on this topic was joking with Ken to share his classic automobile with Mike Fremer.

I hope we have not run him off.

BTW, I didn't realize Groovy is Fremer (I didn't read the thread until after I commented on the initial post). I wasn't intending to be antagonistic. I just feel with some devices subjective experiences are too open to change depending on many factors (what kind of mood the person is in, their health, the weather, etc).

To be honest, I don't really read much of the equipment reviews nowadays, unless I own the piece, except for speaker reviews because those have easily identifiable differences in character that make the subjective reviews more valid IMO.

Turntables and their associated components (phonostage, cartridge, tonearm) certainly have more identifiable character than a CD player or amp (etc) IMO, but still less so than a speaker (unless the TT and associated components are exceptionally bad in design...).