Any feedback on the Graham Phantom

Splaskin,read my comments more carefully!I never said I thought the Phantom could not handle my cartridge!!I said I felt(and it was only my opinion)the 2.2 was a better match for a low mass cart. like mine.Read van den Hul's comments,on mass over the record groove,before you start to interpret my thoughts to suit you!!

By the way,I am SURE the Phantom will prove to be a great arm.

Sirspeedy, you have no argument here concerning van den Hul's comments on mass over the record groove. As for interpreting your thoughts, well your writing speaks for itself.

By suggesting that the Phanatom is a 2.2 on steroids kind of misses the new design features; neutral balance and reduced resonances due to the new arm design and locking mechanism. The new locking design is quite substantial.

Without meaning to insult you, it appeared to me that your implication was that Graham should have designed a new low mass arm. Perhaps if there is enough demand, he will.

Best Wishes,

Steve

Splaskin,glad that we are keeping this a nice and polite debate,or I would not comment any further.I really never should have made ANY comments regarding the newer arm,since any of my thoughts are STRICTLY an uneducated opinion on a product I have never even seen.Who am I anyway?Just a hobbyist like anyone else reading this thread,but critical analysis can be fun.What the heck is Neutral Balance,other than marketing speak?Do you imply the 2.2 or other top arms,like the Triplaner are NOT neutral in balance?Also,I don't see why the new BIGGY arm is more "MEANINGFULLY" lower in resonance than the low resonance of the 2.2 tube(ever check how non resonant ceramic is?)I mean if you want to be rediculously picky,I guess you could say that the 2.2 tube is LESS resonant than the Phantom,since there is another JOINT in the new tube!I have never measured,nor do I care to,and I assume you are merely mouthing what you have read,so,we'll call this one a draw.As for the locking collar,who cares.The collar on the 2.2 is military spec!Even if the Phantom is more structurally rigid here,the problem of resonance STILL rests squarely with the bearing/damping.That my friend has NOT really been addressed,unless you want to recite some more of the web-site.

That being said,I NEVER implied,anywhere,that I'd hoped for a low mass design from Graham.He has a great track record,that I obviously like,or I would not own his products(which I do),or recommend them,which I do as well.All I'm expressing is my own opinion of what I'd have liked to see the Phantom as being,rather than what it actually is(on paper,since I have not seen it).My opinion is not empty,though,since I feel I know what the weaknesses of the 2.2 are.To me,and this is my real dissapointment(though,as I've said,it means nada)is that he did not eliminate "BEARING CONTACT/metal interface" that needs damping fluid to control it(resonance).Hey,this is my own hang up.It's just that The "Magnaglide" feature,to me,is a halfway measure.TO ME,once again.I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.Just having some spirited fun,around a topic that I know a "little" about,through 4 years with the 2.2,and about30 yrs with other arms.This still only makes me a hobbyist with some experience,NOT an expert,so don't get too overloaded by my comments.You can always get even in your next post.

What I did state I was dissapointed about,was the fact that this Phantom could have been/would have been FRIGGIN GREAT if he had gone all the way with the magnets,and somehow totally eliminated the BEARING contact point alltogether.Maybe Shroder has a patent on this,but that would have eliminated any metal to metal contact,that needs resonance control,ie. damping.Get it?If you have experience in this hobby,and I'm sure you do,as you seem sincerely intelligent in your responses,then you must know the advantage of products like air bearing arms/platter bearings/suspensions.Why should I get excited about the Phantom,massive/chubby or whatever, when I STILL have to FOTZ around with that damn fluid to damp the bearing resonance.The Platine table from France uses magnets to keep the platter from making contact with the bearing.CUTE and EFFECTIVE!

So I feel, that my hope, that Bob Graham would have gone to this extent,to me alone,is not such a dumb argument,even if I'm dumb to even be wasting time here instead of listening to my music.The magna-glide is cute.To have taken it all the way(no metal contact needing fluid damping)would have been the ULTIMATE,and was what I was hoping for.Big deal,it's just a hobby.

As for this more massive means less resonance bit,that's being marketed,I just don't buy into the fact that suddenly the 2.2 has resonances that are addressed in the Phantom.The damn thing STILL needs DAMPING OF THE BEARING.Anyone owning a Graham knows that this is a pain in the ass.Where is the big Progressive step forward.Bigger,wider,more massive,china finish?It's all in the damping,which is still a BIG issue!!It should have been eliminated,like ME,from this thread!
Please take some of this with a little "tongue in cheek",I don't think I can handle to many "let's get sirspeedy" responses.

Dear Sirspeedy,

All I can say is that the new arm has made a significant improvement in my system. Be it reductions in arm resonance, distortion, improved bearing, or the addition of Great Dane Doo Doo, the detail and rendtion of acoustic space is something else!

You are in for a real treat with this arm.

A gezunt ahf dein kop!

Steve

Steve,I have NO DOUBT that the arm IS great.I did not realize you owned one.If I were running a heavier cart. than what I have now,or, if I ever upgrade to a higher mass one,there is no question I would seriously consider a Phantom.So long as I didn't go for an air bearing design,which I love,but,they are a pain to run(tubing,pumps etc.).And, it is here,in this thread, that I'm not kibbitzing you!!However,think how great it would be if the magnets were both vertically and horizontally applied.Well,I can always dream!!Good luck,and I hope you get real pleasure from your records.