Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II

Most SME V I know do already have v.d.Hul silver wiring inside. The top frequencies are more detailed and the sound gets a bit more open.
Blue Tec on the armpipe - especially at the pipe's widening - is another great tweak.
But the ceiling remains hanging too low....... no matter what you do.

Guys
yes, I'll go along with that 'signature' bit, as I'm sure you both had your fair amount of comparisons.

Here my point:
MOST of the latter day 'high-end' speakers tend, at least slightly, towards the lean side of things --- and so do my Burmester 961. (AMT tweeter, 5 1/4" carbon mids, 8" woofers, with 4 order acoustic XO).

Now, this 'lean side' of neutral also (always) means a lack of upper bass (a design challenge), and this is where plenty of musicality / music gets lost.
The SME V arm in a lean-ish rig, AND a slim-ish 'table is where synergy becomes yet an even more significant item.

Axel

Well Axel, from my point of view most (really most .....) current and past day speakers in home audio systems have upper bass only...... hardly any do have any neutral and flat bass worth mention below 60 hz ( I mean free of inverse phase support via bass reflex... - the audio reviews and printed frequency sweeps may tell you otherwise, - but go and have the actual frequency response measured in your room: you will be shocked what really gets delivered).

So, while I won't put your comment in question, that indeed there might be some synergy effects ( in maths "-" x "-" gives "+".......) with some modern day speakers (especially german speakers......), the signature of the SME V still is not dark - its rather a kind of "muted" headroom.

But then this is the Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II thread, not the "does the SME V have a sonic signature" - thread......

D.
y.s.: >>> But the ceiling remains hanging too low....... no matter what you do. <<<
Actually an interesting acoustic take allocating such to a TONEARM...

It is for most acousticians a matter of room acoustics rather, which produces a 'low ceiling'

Where would be the 'ceiling' with a Phantom ! or II then?

Also a CD player wound suffer the same 'low ceiling' problem, since my V arm does not create any less 'ceiling height' then my ML390S...

I have heard the VPI 9" arm and it has nowhere near the 'body' and bass slam that can be had from a V, and as to 'ceiling height', you may have a point. This unipivot has something floating and angelic to it --- bass not being its notable characteristic.

Leaving the question of 'bass slam' for a Phantom I or II.

Also we are not in tune it seems with 'upper bass' (call it lower mid range?): ~ 300 - 150 Hz.

Then we have mid bass ~ 150 - 40 Hz, followed by lower bass going 40 - below ~ 20 Hz.

Axel

Axel, well - with the Phantom II the ceiling is about 1/3 higher than with the SME V.
With the Phantom II bass transients have equal slam, but more speed and edge sharpness.
But then the SME V must by todays standards be judged and "filed" as an "oldskool" tonearm, as it origins from the same year/period as the FR-66fx and 64fx among others (..... somehow ironic - isn't it...).
The fact that it is still available new today does not deny that.

I for one would "divide" the bass register as follows (after all chambertone a - the tuning frequency of an orchestra - is today around 440 hz) :
* 220-100 - upper bass
* 100-60 - mid bass
* 60 and lower - lower bass

...... see why I meant that hardly and high-end speakers do have real low bass performance in the listening room.
If you extend "mid bass" to 40 Hz, then most high-end speakers won't even have flat mid-bass response either.