Graham 2.2 tonearm cables

I had a Graham IC 50 running it on a SME 20/2 with SME IV.Vi arm. Before the Graham, I had a Van den Hul silver cable of some sort. The Graham was much more detailed, more quiet, a definite upgrade. However, there was a thinness in the mids. I only noticed this after I tried a hovland music groove. I like it better...more warm, but doesn't sacrifice the detail. This could all be system matching, and in your setup the Graham might be just fine. Also, I bought the Graham new, and the Hovland used, maybe the Graham wasn't broke in as much-although I used it for several months.

I've heard great things about the Nordost Quattro Fil and the Purist cables, but have no personal experience.

Purist Venustas, hands down!

I use XLO Phono Signature with that Arm.
It is better than the Graham cables.

I and a friend,both,upgraded our ic-30's to ic-70,at the same time.The difference was a clearly dramatic improvement in overall performance.As for the slight "thinning"that some may have experienced from this,I would bet that the improved resolution yielded the fact that the fluid level in the bearing was not at the ideal point.This would result in a "thinning" out of harmonic textures.The ic-70 upgrade would make this clearly apparent.That fluid level is UNBELIEVEABLY CRITICAL for first rate performance from the 2.2.As for the PURIST cable I am EXTREMELY interested in exploring whether this could be a credible improvement,since I have heard that their cable is FANTASTIC,but I have no experience with it.If Nsgarch could elaborate on this I and some others, that I know would be most appreciative!

I agree fully with SS with respect to the damping fluid. I almost gave up on my 2.2 before critically experimenting with the fluid level.