Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II

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 ?

Dear Nolitan, according to Syntax's findings - which I had the pleasure to confirm for myself last saturday at his place - a firm and solid YES.
The Phantom II does build on the MKI's virtues and goes considerably further.
Its worth the extra price.
Consider it one of the handful of TOP-flight tonearms today. Among this very tiny group, it is the least expensive, most easy to adjust to 99% and most versatile.
One can hardly ask for more.
It is an evolved design which now looks back on 20 years on the market and has seen constant positive development while maintaing its basic design and outlook.
In the far future - when we are all old, half deaf and white haired we will look back and consider the Phantom II one of the very few great classics which did stand the test of time with bravura.
If I were looking for a pivot tonearm today - this would be the one I'd go for.