Graham Phantom Supreme?

minimal connection points are highly over-rated. The Graham Supreme demonstrates this quite handily.

How so? The only way to know would be to compare a single-wired Phantom Supreme to a standard-wired one, which no one has done AFAIK.

The problems caused by additional connections go beyond increased capacitance or resistance. At the atomic level, each material boundary presents a barrier to the unimpeded flow of electrons. Diffraction at a boundary is inevitable and varies in proportion with frequency, it's basic physics. Sonically speaking, the more boundaries, the more mud.

A single crystal conductor presents the fewest boundaries. Insert multiple crystals and you get multiple diffractions. Insert different materials and you get even more diffractions.

I agree with Dertonarm that a single-wired Phantom Supreme would be an experiment worth hearing.

Dear Dertonarm,
You are referring to the number of connectors....I was referring to the number of contact points or possible "signal breaks". 2 connectors does not necessarily = 2 signal breaks, more likely one solitary break?

To help clarify this I will refer you to the words of the maestro himself :

"...While it's true that poor connectors are to be avoided, it's also true that a high quality connector will have a minimal effect on things, and will be much better, in fact, than a straight-through design that has inferior wire. Or, worse, an inferior tonearm design. These fellows seem to be basing their entire idea on connector counts, whereas they SHOULD be looking at the total design picture.

In having the removable armwand, we have one more connector break than on the average arm with removable cable facilities. And that connector has phosphor bronze contacts, gold plated, and it's VERY transparent. More than that, it also provides for ease and accuracy of cartridge setups and multiple arm options.

The proof is in the listening and I believe the Phantom II Supreme can be confidently compared to ANY tonearm at any price...
Best wishes,
- Bob Graham"

That Bob Graham quote does not prove anything in this context because he did not say he compared the standard connection to a single set of wires to the preamp. The jury is still out there, I have to say.

P.S. He's a manufacturer. Of course he wants his product to be flexible. I don't blame him.

_______

In theory, I side with Doug and Dertonearm. In practice, I think I can "hear" connectors with MC cartridges and not so much with higher output MM and MI cartridges. I empirically assign blame to the low output of the MCs in question. However, the contacts I/we are usually dealing with are either DIN plugs at the base of the tonearm or the horror of a headshell, which can actually add three sets of contacts in the signal path, one at the cartridge pins, one at the rear of the headshell itself, and one on the other side of the headshell, where it mates to the tonearm. This is indeed a "worst case" scenario. However, I would not categorically say that it is impossible for Mr. Graham to have implemented contacts that are relatively benign in their effect. I'd far rather have one set of contacts at the pivot end of a replaceable arm wand than 3 sets at the headshell end.

Call me old fashioned but whenever tightening headshell screws on "fixed head" designs, I would always remove the arm from the T/t first to preserve the bearings. Messing around with a single piece cable loom while doing this would drive me bananas. DIN connector convenience wins the day for me every time.

I had the opportunity to acquire a single-loom specimen of an equally priced competitors gimballed arm but rejected it. I'm not unhappy that I did and pleased with my choice.