Graham Phantom Supreme?

Halcro/Dertonam,
Thanks guys, I've been interested in buying the Phantom at some stage and there are none here to look at or audition.
Dover

I had the pleasure of the past 4 years to audition every single version of the Phantom in Syntax' system.
Every version includes every effective length too, as Syntax collected all arm wand length available for the Phantom including the 12".
It is apparent that Bob Graham very carefully works on improvement in his design.
Every version did improve in the sonic picture while maintaining the virtues of the former.
To my ears - as well as to my brain and technical understanding - this is at the moment the UNI-Pivot with the most engineering input and the most money spent by the manufacturer to bring the design forward.
While I am certainly no fan of any additional connection before amplifying the tiny cartridge signal, - the Phantom sounds incredibly open keeping in mind that it has at least 2 more connecting joints than most tonearms today.
Might well be worthwhile having Syntax' Phantom Supreme direct wired from cartridge pins to phono input somewhen late winter.
Just curious to see/hear how much transparency will improve even further.
All the other current contenders do long sport direct-pin-tp-phono-input wiring.
We'll see ...
Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertonarm,
I recall the issue of "extra" connectors in the Phantom's cable loom was first brought to my attention in a review of an Origin Live tonearm which contrasted with it's continuous loom.

My old Ittok LVII consisted of the standard 3cm short links from cart to armtube (2 connectors), 1x DIN connector at the pillar base, and finally, RCAs - a total of 4 connection breaks?
The Phantom II that replaced it consists of 1x set of cartridge tags, armtube DIN, arm pillar DIN and RCAs - a total of 4 connection breaks i.e. the same.
Your assertion that the Phantom has "2 additional connectors" surely only refers to tonearms which use a continuous cable loom ( = a total of 2 connection breaks - hardly representing the majority of tonearms on the market.

The fact is that the short cartridge links are a good way for novice cartridge installers to "cut their teeth" on the process. I'm sure that you, like myself, will have "graunched" a stubborn cartridge wire on at least one occasion with long-nosed pliers, causing that link to be rendered useless and requiring either repair or replacement?
Having a spare set of these wire links handy means that the install is back on course within seconds. Continuous cable looms are possibly rightly viewed by some as being sent by the Devil. Once broken the repair is somewhat more involved....
(Naturally I am much more careful with the Graham because it does not use such links and would mean having a spare armwand in reserve :o)

Getting back to practical matters again : my Phantom loom consists of approx 0.35m internal wiring followed by 0.5m of regular coaxial. (Fortunately the phantom's DIN connector affords me the choice! :o)
I would be most surprised if someone else's "0.35m + 1m" or "+1.1m" of external loom would offer less resistance than this?

Kind regards...........M.

... Having said this....any experiments you care to conduct will of course be viewed with great interest!

Anyone who appreciates the Phantom as much as you do is a friend of mine :)

Dear Moonglum, the connector where the Phantom's armtube is connected to the bearing house consists of 2 connectors - one on each side.
Same with the DIN socket and the connecting phono cable - again 2 connectors.
This makes a grand total of 6 connectors/joints from cartridge tags to phono input RCA sockets.
A Talea, Tr-Planar and many other modern tonearms only have 2 connectors on that path from the cartridge terminal to the phono input - the cartridge tags and the RCAs which go into the phono input.
The Phantom has 4 connectors more.
I have seen Phantoms here in Germany with customized wiring going on the outside of the arm tube and into the phono input.
I have done similar in the past with FR-tonearms and can report that it is ALWAYS a significant gain in micro detail and "air" as well as dynamics.
But it looks dreadful and in areas with heavy radio frequencies floating around you may well pick-up some unwanted "dirt" with the small antenna .....
Cheers,
D.