Looking for a great arm that is low maintenence

sirspeedy - I'm leaning toward the TriPlaner, but you mentioned that TriPlaner does not appear to have dealt with the issues that concerned you during your experience. How concerned do I need to be about that.

It's tough to make the choice since all the arms on my list are disliked by at least one person that I trust, except for the Schroeder. They just take a long time to order, and I just sold my Rega. I'd rather not sit around and wait a few months for a new arm. Does anyone know how long it takes to get the Schroeder?

My Cosmos should be done in the next couple of weeks. Ideally I'd like to have everything in place by then. What to do, what to do???

Nrchy, most good arms require careful setup but none that I know of (including the unusual Souther linear arm) require any maintenance.

I have a SOTA Cosmos also. I have replaced the SME IV with the Graham 2.2 and I am delighted I did. Overall, the Graham sound more transparent--no heaviness in the bass--and livelier. It also offers more adjustments and execute them better than the SME.

I have had a long look at the Wheaton Triplanar. Great construction. It sounds excellent in my friend's system but in my limited exposure to it, it was not as ergonomic as the Graham. So I selected the latter. Though there are too many variables to make a valid comparison, I felt that my system with the Graham sounds better than his with the Triplanar. Finally, I like the fact that Graham has been consistently improving their arms over the years and offered reasonable upgrades to their customers.

If you are like me, no matter which arm you eventually buy, you are going to have the nagging feeling that the one you did not get might be better. These are great arms that will all do well on the SOTA. Any one of them will give you great sound. Just pick one and enjoy!

Nrchy,I really don't have alot to add,that Justin has not stated.I think I initially chose the Triplanar because it looked more solid and massive in construction.Like a fine piece of medical equipment.I'm sure this plays a part in "ALL" products chosen,though performance should be the first criteria.Obviously it was,for me,but as the eventual owner of both arms,I can state that it really is the Graham 2.2 that is MUCH better designed,built,finished,and as stated(beautifully phrased)by Justin,it "executes" the adjustments(needed for accurate set-up)better than the Triplanar.

As I look back at both arms,the 2.2 is an incredible design.SO GOOD,to me,that I really don't care about the Phantom(especially in lieu of the fact that I run a very light,high compliance cartridge).Also,and here is where the "human nature" of asthetic choice comes into play;the 2.2(to me)looks like it was made for the Cosmos.It just looks SO DARN GREAT on my Black Fountainhead table.The Phantom looks absolutely MASSIVE,and although I have NO DOUBT it is a fabulous design,it looks a bit like overkill,for a cartridge of 7 gms.I'm probably wrong,but we all have our own way of seeing things.If I had a much heavier cartridge with low compliance,I'd be looking at the Phantom,or Schroeder Ref.For sure!Actually,I like the Shroeder with my current Transfiguration,since I can select arm mass.

Which brings me back to the original advice I gave you and was so beautifully expressed by Justin.Just pick one,of these all fine arms,and be happy!!You will love any of them.Remember,though(like this year's Belmont and Preakness winner)the Schroeder should NOT be easily dismissed.It may be the "dark horse sleeper" in the field.Something tells me that I'm not wrong about that.The design is WAY too strong to be dismissed,and you have a designer/owner who seems to be unbelieveably passionate about his products.Like Elliot said,in Close Encounters Of The Third Kind;"This means something"!

Sir Speedy, there you go again. I disagree with your characterization of the Phantom as MASSIVE. The fact is my Helikon is 8 grams with reasonably high compliance and it sounds wonderful in the clutches of the Phantom. I hate to repeat myself, but as you have never auditioned the Phantom I would caution readers to take your comments with the proverbial “grain of salt”. In the final analysis, actual listening not conjecture will determine the compatibility of the Phantom with low mass/high compliance cartridges.
Fact: The Phantom exceeds the 2.2 in every musical category, and not by a small margin.

Dear Gmorris: As all we know is not exist the " best tonearm " , like many things in audio all is " relative " and in the tonearm subject there are many issues around that can define the " best one ".

When we are comparing tonearm " names " like: Graham, Triplanar, SME, Breuer, Schroeder, Audiocraft, Brinckman, Pluto, Audio Note, Moerch, Wilson Benesch, Basis, Air Tangent, Kuzma, etc.., we have to compare " around the stage system " where that tonearm is working, here the most important ( maybe ) issue is with: which cartridge.

I own all my tonearms and cartridges not because I wnat to be a " collector " item, but because that give me the opportunity to " test " one cartridge with severals tonearms till I find which one is the " best match " combo for to have the greates sound reproduction with that particular cartridge. When I find it I never think that this " best match " tonearm is better than the others, it is only the best match with that cartridge, that's all.
Till today I never find a tonearm that have the consistense that with that tonearm any cartridge sounds always better.

So, your statement that: +++++ " The Phantom exceeds the 2.2 in every musical category, " +++++, is a " relative " one not an absolute one. I can assure you that with the right combination the 2.2 can " beat " the Phantom and that don't means that the 2.2 is better than the Phantom.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.