Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II

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.

Hi D.
OK, now I do think we are on the same page as far as bass register goes.

Here my point I was trying to make, and you confirmed some of this with your in-room measurement mentioning.

Upper bass LOOKS A-OK on practically most frequency graphs --- BUT put such speaker in a room and you will find 9/10 it is treble tilted, the current high end pursuit in order to achiefe 'air' and resolution. It was this that I tried to get across.

Upper bass (for me) is well expressed by the German (Grundton) and if that is leaned out, for what ever the reason, the music / musicality suffers greatly.

So, given that most current ~10k - >15k Euro ~ 20k and > $ speakers have this kind of 'balance', a slightly 'richer' arm is not the worst thing for synergy.

Also, often because of the room boost, there is a pick-up around 40Hz BUT it does not really make up for a lean upper base, and most often due to floor bounce related cancellations, - the design challenge I eluded to.

Greetings,
Axel

In the end guys, is it worth springing for a new Phantom II if a used Phantom I can be had for $2500 only or less ?