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

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.

I would suggest waiting on any upgrades until after the CES in January. VPI will be coming out with a few upgrades for the Aries that are said to improve performance substantially. In particular, the platter/ring of the new TNT-HRX will be available for the Aries. VPI also mentioned plans to roll out an upgrade for the JMW and a new motor assembly for the Aries. The arm upgrade will, I think, be a new VTA adjustment device that will offer greater rigidity than the current one. The new motor assembly will apparently be oblong-shaped and will house both a motor and a flywheel (somewhat like the new motor on the HRX).

Lastly, I believe a new low-wattage motor is available from VPI. This motor produces less vibration than the current motor. It is my understanding that this new motor can be easily dropped into the current motor assembly.

Hi ya Been Rwd? I think I gave some input on a thread with a similar question you ask now. Not sure. I will pass along what myself and friend Jcbtubes felt about these TTs. The VPI with your arm, the top of the line Audio Research Phono Stage, The pre amp i do not remember. I am sure Jcbtubes will remember should he post. I think the cartridge was a Benz, not sure of the spelling. The VPI that we listened to was the latest, greatest, TNT at the time. This took place about a year ago. Very nice sounding setup.

We then listened to the Basis 2500, Graham arm, and i think a VDH cartridge. The phono section we listened to did not have near the reputation of the ARC phono section. The preamp used was made by Jcbtubes. As nice as the TNT sounded, it could not come close to what we heard from the 2500. We tried to be as polite as possible. Very hard when it was so obvious that the TNT was no contest for the Basis 2500. I realize there could be many reasons why the TNT failed to compete with the 2500. I would love to give a good reason. We did not do this comparison in a manner which would benefit the Basis. In fact, The TNT had a dedicated stand, some kind of device that makes sure the motor is always running at the proper speed. But the TNT sounded slow, rounded, too rounded, not even close in bass performance, with a soundstage that sounded a bit closed in in comparison to the basis. Again, there could have been a problem that we could not figure out with the TNT. I will end this story saying that Jcbtubes bought the 2500. After what was heard, he would have been foolish not to.
This is no attempt to put down the TNT. It has such a great reputation, I would never be so foolish to degrade this TT with such a great standing among many audiophiles.

Twl's learned response is instructive as usual, but fails (perhaps out of necessity, given the context) to address two of the fundamentals I was attempting to point out above: A) Rwd apparently is not happy with *either* a low-compliance Lyra *or* a medium-compliance Benz in this arm, and B) we still do not know what it is *sonically speaking* that makes him unhappy, other than his set-up's observable performance on a test-record's anti-skating track, something which Harry Weisfeld would probably tell you to expect with his arm. So we know that changing arms could improve performance on that test track, but what of the sound? We have no way as yet to intelligently proceed in the only area that really matters (and still don't know about the phonostage and cables). I will continue to stick around this thread to learn what I can from those who possess more experience than I, but find it frustrating when help is requested without providing needed specificity and detail, and am uncomfortable with the idea of change for change's sake, or seeing someone, with the best of intentions, basically blowing with the breeze depending on what others say, based as it must be so far upon imcomplete information provided.