Continuation of my Thread on VPI, Basis, Origin...


....Graham etc.
First off thanks all for your help and advice.

So here is where I stand. I believe that I have a good unit...Aries/10.5/helikon/Benz M2 BUT my integration was not thought out well. Possibly better match with cartridges and arm. I also believe that the weakest point in my set up is the 10/5 arm. So I am leaning to an upgrade to the arm. I hope I can keep my cartridges...I like to use both (one or two months at a time). My candidates are Graham 2.2, Origin Live (high end version) and then possible the Vector.
Now the question. If I got this route, so I change the table? Will a Basis 2500 make a difference, a Big difference?? My advice in another thread says yes.

Finally, this afternoon I was listening to the EMI recording of Rachmaninov "The Bells" and toward the end of side one, close to the spindle, I began to hear low level rumble for about 3-4 revolutions. Is this the result of poor anti-skate, turntable feedback, poor isolation (I have a pretty good table for the set-up) poor recording??? I tried this section of the record on BOTH cartridges and same results.

Comments please....again, Thanks
rwd
I can not offer you any educated or experienced advice concerning the above choices, but the thing about your question that leaps out at me is, you don't even say exactly what it is about your current set-up you are not happy with. It does seem unlikely to me though, that between a modern arm such as the 10.5, and two such different and popular modern MC cart's as the Lyra and the B-M, that they would all be poor matches. Considering that the Aries is a well-regarded but unsuspended design, what is it supported by? Has everything been professionally set up, or set up knowledgably by yourself using the aid of precision guages? What are your phonostage and phono cable situations? I haven't seen your other thread, but it seems to me this one lacks sufficient information to draw conclusions based upon.
Hi Zaikesman...my Aries was set up by a fairly knowledgeable person. The arm 10.5 cartridges as well. My concern is the arm....the 10.5. You see, I had tried the HR test record for anti-skate and the arm faired poorly....Many people have advise against the arm because of the unique anti-skate system (twisting the arm cable).
I listen to vinyl only and so my concern. As TWL said, this is a system and I believe I went too quickly and choose good gear but not matched good gear. So here I am.....
Have no fear, RWD. This is nothing that hasn't happened to a million people before you. It's just that alot of things change when you decide to start using lower compliance cartidges.Medium and higher compliance cartridges will get along with just about anything these days, so long as you don't try to mount them on a brick. When you get to the lower compliance stuff, all-of-a-sudden, things are a whole lot different. One of the main reasons for this, is that there has been a trend for years now, towards lighter arms and unipivots, for better vertical tracking performance. But this is the worst thing to have when you are using a low compliance cartridge. So it radically narrows the field, in terms of the arms you can use. It is my opinion, that eventually the "audiophile with an ear" will discover that the best of the MC carts are low compliance. When that happens, the whole world is upside down. Most of the arms don't work anymore. Very great care is required, in your selection of arms and carts, because of the high energy that is transferred back into the arm by these cartridges. Any weakness in this area, will immediatly be displayed to you. FWIW, the Lyra website specifically states that a gimbal bearing type arm should be used on all their cartridges. Most unipivots are immediatly obsolete for this type of cartridge, although the Graham does have a record of good performance with lower compliance. The outrigger weights are the "saving grace" of this design. I can't think of any other unipivot that will suffice with the low compliance stuff. And even with the outriggers, it still doesn't have the bass response of gimbal arms like SME V or Origin Live. Also, gimbal bearing arms are subjected to the rigors of low compliance, by a potential of "bearing chatter" if the bearings are not of the highest quality and precise adjustment. And stiff, anti-resonant arm tubes are also required. With low compliance you are putting the arm to it's maximum stress test, and anything that is not superior will not perform well. But, when you have a sufficient arm design, the low compliance cartridges will give sound quality that is quite unlike everything else. That is why Koetsu, Shelter, Supex, Lyra, Denon, and the like, have the sound and reputation that they do. These are not made low compliance simply to make the arm have a hard time. They are made low compliance to sound better. The makers would not make them like this is if it wasn't necessary for the sonic end-result.

The added weight, stiffness and bearing configuration that makes an arm suitable for these cartridges, is not necessarily ideal for the other higher compliance type of cartridges that are so prevalent. So arm makers are making light arms to suit the majority of carts, which are medium to high compliance. You need to zero-in on the arms which are correctly suited to the type of cartridge you plan to use. If you plan on Lyra, Koetsu, Shelter, Denon, or "classic" type MC designs, then you need to get an arm that will suit them. If you plan to go with Benz, Clearaudio, Dynavector, Grado, VDH, and the like, then you can use most any of the better available arms.

I am telling you this now, so that you will know what you need to know before you spend any more money. You have found out what can happen, and now is the time to re-assess, and make a well thought out decision about the future of your analog rig. You must know the direction you want to go, before you choose a road. There are known guidelines that have existed for the last 25 years or more about how to go about this process. I am trying to show you some of them.
Isn't the Graham 2.2 a unipivot design? Is so, given what TWL says about their incompatability with low compliance mc cartridges, wouldn't it be just as problematic with the Helikon as the JMW arms.
I have a Basis 2500, Graham 2.2 and a Ruby 2. I used to have a full boat Linn front end. The Linn front end had nothing I don't have now, but my new front end has superior image focus and bass control. The Graham has adjustments that allow you to tweek the arm the way you like it, plus it is very easy to switch arm wands allowing you to use both cartridges in no time.

Will it sound better, materially, than what you have now? It will be an improvement but how much is pretty subjective. The comment that a TNT V is a bigger step than the 2500 is open to debate. The Basis competes well with the TNT and has the advantage of a much more compact size. The engineering of the Basis gives one security it will run for many trouble free years. The TNT isn't chicken feed either.

The more exotic turntables mentioned are, I'm sure, fine units. That said, get a unit from a company that will be here to service it in five years or is so well engineered that it is unlikely to need service. I chose the Basis because other than replacing the belt or motor, there isn't much to go wrong. Oh yeah, is sounds great to.