SME V, Tri-Planar or Phantom B-44

BTW, I have heard from several users who have compared the version I and II and say that the arms are more alike than they are different. In one case the arm was subjected to a cable cooker prior to use. He describes the "house sound" of the Phantom II is the same as Phantom I. Apparently, the Phantom II is a little quicker and more detailed without much change to the body and smoothness the Phantom I is known for.

Maybe the dealer referred to by Downunder did not give it enough time for burn-in and/or optimization.

Aoliviero

That would probably be the case, as I said he only had the Phantom II for a few days. That said I would not want any more detail with the Phantom, it is plenty detailed.

How does the Tri-planer gel with the Raven?. Nice review in Soundstage this mnth of the tri-planer, then comparing against the Phantom. Mark M made the tri-planer sound more to my musical liking than the Phantom.

Downunder,

The Raven and Triplanar sounds great. No complaints.however I can't really say if they gel together because I haven't tried any other arms. The triplanar has been my first and only. Guess I'm lucky in this regard. My interest in the Phantom is based on some feedback that it mates well with the Raven. But I suspect that the cartridge arm mating is probably much more important.

Andrew

Dear Andrew: Nice to hear from you again. Yes, I agree with you Raven/Triplanat works very good, last time I heard that combo was on SD in Mark's place ( :http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1219677256 ) really good and like you say it is critical with which cartridge you mate it or any other tonearm.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I'm surprised that the Basis Vector hasn't been mentioned in this thread, a worthy comparator to the Phantom, and some say better.

I would also say that more "true" detail, IOW true transparency, as opposed to "edge", is not a bad thing. To the contrary, as long as it is presented naturally, it is an indication of superiority.