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

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.

Jackcob, yes I agree with what you say about that, as I definitely prefer gimbal bearing arms with low compliance. But, there is a somewhat mitigating factor with the Graham, because it has the "outrigger weights" that tend to stabilize it better than most unipivots. That said, I am strictly into low-compliance cartridges and have a gimbal bearing arm, because I think that is "where it's at" for controlling a low compliance cartridge.

However, one must realize that there are some strong points to unipivots, especially in "liquid" midrange reproduction, that some people are after. And, with all the unipivots out there, many people have a "bias" or "desire" to have a unipivot.

So, taking that all into account, I still think a very high quality gimbal bearing arm is preferable, but if a unipivot must be selected, the Graham is by far the best candidate that I know of. It is undoubtedly one of the best tonearms made, and it has some stabilizing features that help it overcome some of the traditional difficulties that unipivots have. I did not say, nor will I say that it might not have some small difficulty, or be "on the edge" of its capability. I did accept RWD's seeming desire to remain with a unipivot design, and made the best recommendation for the application, as far as a unipivot is concerned. The Graham 2.2 has been used by many with Koetsu carts, which are lower in compliance than the Lyra, and good results were reported. I still do think that an OL Illustrious would be the best candidate overall, because I have the OL Silver, and it has the "liquid midrange" qualities of the best unipivots, as well as the stability and bass response of the best gimbal bearing arms. The Illustrious has a higher lateral mass than my Silver, and should be even better at bass response, and also has a better bearing set than my Silver, so should be even better at resisting any chatter. My Silver handled a DL103 quite well, which is far more demanding than the Lyra. The Illustrious has some lateral mass advantages over the Silver, and should be a better performer because of this. However, the Silver is a competitor to the Graham, at a much lower price. It is a good value in this regard. But RWD is looking for a "flagship" quality arm, and the Illustrious is the "flagship" of the OL line. Any improvement in performance over the Silver puts the Illustrious at the top of the heap, of all pivot arms(IMO). The Silver is at least a match for any of the others, like Graham 2.2, SME V, Ekos, Aro, JMW, etc. Possibly the Breuer may exceed it. I seriously doubt that any pivot arm exceeds the Illustrious. There are precious few that may exceed the Silver. They may in a certain category of performance, but not in the overall. The SME V may have 1% better bass response than the Silver, but cannot match the Silver in the midrange, and musicality. The Graham may have a touch more liquidity in the midrange, but cannot match the Silver in bass response. The Ekos may have a slight edge in detail, but sounds clinical compared to the Silver. Overall the Silver is within a hair of all of the strong points of all the other great arms, and has them all together in one arm. It is an extremely balanced performer of a very high level. The Illustrious is even better, and that should speak for itself.

I don't mean to confuse the issue, but the immedia arm I would think would merit consideration. Alan perkins used lyra cartridges in the design of this arm.
As was stated above, you haven't really made clear which direction ou want to go. The vpi arms are said to have a certain sound to them, as is said both the graham and immedia. (the vpi turntables, for that matter).
You are definitely in the big leages, so to speak, as far as quality is concerned, but yet I get the impression that you don't feel you have what you want. I think it would be wise to assume that you are not happy with the particular sonic signature of the things you have, as you have stated that you think you have made bad matches, but it should be pointed out that many people have the same rig you have and really like it, and problably prefer it to the sound that you are trying to achieve. In order for you to like something, it has to be your favorite. I would think that this is more than a matter of which is a good match. From what I hear, all of the possibilities mentioned here for arms are good matches and actually designed around cartridges like yours. I feel you will have better success in identifying your taste and the various sonic signatures of the arms and/or tables.