Graham Phantom vs Triplaner

Logenn,I am not someone who likes only one product.I am a true fan of many fine designs(like Leica,which I always wanted too,but got a Cannon).If someone asks me a question about a product I own,hopefully I can give some meaningful feedback.BUT I am no authority!!A hobbyist,only.
OK,so about your question....I LOVE the Phantom.I like the fact that it has only one mechanical contact point,in this "seemingly new" very sharp bearing.It sounds amazingly like an air bearing design(which I KNOW,from experience sounds fabulous,and no resonances riding along with music).My MAIN reason for getting it,other than performance and familiarity,was economic.Sorry!!
I previously had owned the 2.2,and had the armboard drilled for a Graham,already.Also,I had the IC-70 arm wire.Of course,my friend went from the 2.2 and got a Phantom,so I knew the benefits of moving that way.
Yet,I know (I had one some time ago)that the Triplanar is a fabulous arm(why can't I like it too?),mainly due to "amazingly good word of mouth"(not unlike the Phantom)and it has been further refined.
So,my suggestion is to look at the design(of whatever you like),check out the design parameters that make it a viable product,and compare it's attributes to other contenders.What seems like the most plausible choice,based on the design brief?
That's how I do it,which is fairly logical,I think.
Good luck

Audiofeil I know you advocate the tonearm ahead of the cartridge and after hearing the effects of the Continuum Copperhead on the sound I can achieve, I can understand why you think so.
However where we differ is in the superb improvements in sound that one can achieve with a better cartridge in a 'decent' arm?
The effect of running the ZYX Universe in a Hadcock GH228 was just as astounding as moving up to the Copperhead.
What is your opinion of the Schroeder arms?
The magnetic unipivot principle seems very attractive at first but I have real doubts about it?
I'm convinced that one can induce movement at the pivot point by merely pushing back and forth on the arm.
That must translate into 'lost' information and would account for the descriptions of the Schroeder as 'warm and tubelike'....'relaxed' etc.
In other words I see the Schroeders as potential 'tone-controls' rather than SOTA tonearms?

halcro

Fremer reviews the copperhead and the cheaper TT in the current mnth Stereophile.

Just need to wait til my copy arrives

where we differ is in the superb improvements in sound that one can achieve with a better cartridge in a 'decent' arm?

Rather than casting the issue in terms about how much of a great cartridge's potential can be realized on a less than great arm, I think of it as an approach to the question about where do you put money on a limited budget, when you can purchase a great tonearm or a great cartridge but not both.

I would say at minimum the 'decent arm' needs to support accurate adjustment of the cartridge/cantilever/stylus in all three dimensions. A goodly chunk of the investment in an arm is learning how to use it.

Downunder...I've read it!
As I intimated, he isn't about to compare it, in print, to the Phantom made by his mate Bob Graham!?
Also in the latest Absolute Sound, Jon Valin goes one better on Fremer by making the Raven AC/3 the new REFERENCE! above the Walker...even with the Phantom arm.....and I'm here to tell you that the Copperhead CREAMS the Phantom!!!