HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html

Can't connect to database, trying again.... Vinyl Asylum: REVIEW: Graham Engineering Phantom B-44 Tone Arms by Stitch

Home
AudioAsylum Trader
Vinyl Asylum: REVIEW: Graham Engineering Phantom B-44 Tone Arms by Stitch

Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

REVIEW: Graham Engineering Phantom B-44 Tone Arms

84.152.232.70


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread:  [ Display   All   Email ] [ Vinyl Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Model: Phantom B-44
Category: Tone Arms
Suggested Retail Price: $3900
Description: Unipivot
Manufacturer URL: Not Available

Review by Stitch on May 28, 2011 at 07:30:26
IP Address: 84.152.232.70
Add Your Review
for the Phantom B-44


Graham Phantom II





All started with a Graham 2.0 de Luxe, I guess it was 2002 (or so), at that time it was mounted on a Basis Debut with vacuum and I bought multiple Armboards for other arms to compare. At that time I listened to SME V, Schroeder Reference, Triplanars and a few more I forgot.
Then the upgrade to 2.2 was made, I got it and my thought was, that Graham made another step ahead. Other Arms didn't move on, only cosmetical "improvements" (cable, head-shell) were done, which had no improvement in Performance.
At that time I used the Tri-Planar VII as my main Arm, based on the easy adjustments and the Sound of it was ok too. But, in a way I couldn‘t described it properly at that time, there was always something which disturbed me when I used that Arm with heavy cartridges or a Design which moved a lot of energy into the Headshell (Lyras...). Later I discovered, that the Bearings frim the Triplanar aren‘t robust and the Arm is not heavy enough to remove resonances...
The Graham introduced the next generation, the Phantom. I bought it without listening to it before. Right after my first listening to that new Arm I sold the Triplanar. It made no more sense to keep it.
It was obvious, that Graham was - or is - able to re-think his own - successful - design. That Arm was not only a step forward, it was a jump.
The stability of that Arm with the Magnets is a work of a genius. Fantastic. And the Azimuth adjustment is remarkable simple.

If one happen to play - sometimes - microgroove records manufactured between 1956 and say 1980 (and I guess thats still the huge majority of vinyl out there - AND of interest) then you will encounter so many different (and huge differences indeed) cutting angles in cutting lathes between the early Fairchild to the later Neuman (and between individual samples of the same lathe-type) that the difference in groove-compliant SRA between say a Opus 3 and a Mercury SR90000 (two extremes of the range) results in about 1/2" in heights at the tonearm base of a 9" tonearm.
Back in the old days of the Mercury/RCA-collectors circle ( Sid Marks, Bob Corsetti, David Nemzer, Carol Keasler and a few others ) in the later 1980ies, that was common knowledge among analog audiophiles and the VTA was precisely fine-tuned for the setting for each of the labels of interest (DECCA SXL, EMI ASD, RCA LSC etc.).
Back then none of us would have talked about VTA in any other context but groove (label....)-compliant.
Correct SRA and VTA is a direct function of the cutting angle of the record-groove in conjunction with the polished area of the stylus.
And the engineers at Ortofon-laboratories will confirm that.
IEC standards? You visit the remaining record plants and will still find many different cutting angles around. Ever wondered why the ET2 or the early Wheaton Triplanar back in the late 1980ies/early 1990ies were that popular among serious record collectors going for the ultimate in sound ?
Because they featured easy change of VTA and precise return to earlier and different VTA settings.
Very impressive. An excellent basic design which features now many clever details which do further add to the excellent sonic performance and does so with a wide bandwidth of cartridges. I read endless discussions in forums from users which complain that their Arm has limitations here and there, about sharp „s“ vocals and so on. And I wondered about, because I never had these „problems“.
The reason for it are simple, Graham made a no-nonens design, it is right from geometry, it is right from bearing, right from wire and most important, his alignment System.
Spot on, even with 10 left thumbs a user can get a proper cartridge alignment in max. 1o min (when he is slow). The cartridge alignment is based on cantilever position, too.



Even with cartridges which have no first rate quality control, the user can bring out their best with that alignment.
The sonic result is: no distortion in inner tracks with even the most demanding records, a unlimited deep soundstage and the right size of instruments.

Does it show any problems?
Well, it is so neutral that it can‘t hide or compensate any weaks from the used Turntable.
When it is not properly suspended or any vibrations from motor are guided into the spindle or platter, the Phantom detects it.

In general a good Turntable should show some intelligent solutions, independent of the particular tonearm mounted (but some of the readers know, there are differences...).
In other words - the TT has to spin the record and should provide a stable base for the tonearm to be mounted.
If a Turntable designer chooses to built his entire design on a theoretical base which sees from the start problems with certain tonearm bearings, it is of course his choice.
I for one believe in designs, which are independent in their display of quality from certain design features of associated components which - first in line - do not have anything to do with the pure physical function of the TT itself.
There are similar demands in many respects to a high-class TT and the base of an electron microscope - both do deal with an isolation from outside vibration and both do need to supply most stable and continuos foundation for the performance of components mounted on them (cart/tonearm on one and electron-microscope on the other).
A Turntable trying to meet the pure mechanical demands resulting from the real world requirements to give the stylus the chance to extract each and every detail from the groove will always have some certain features.
It will be immensely heavy, suspended on below 1 hz frequency, sport a platter with relatively high mass (30 lbs ++) and thus can't come cheap.
Please note that I have not mentioned any bearing type or drive to be preferred.
These are pure mechanical requirements which do result direct out of the physical mass and the special behavior of the stylus and the record.


After some months I was at a Linn LP12 Demonstration, the new LP12 with Keel and Ekos SE were introduced. Never really a Fan from either I did listen to a comparison between the latest Ekos and Ekos SE and I heard remarkable differences in their Frequency range and in reproducing the tone.
SE Arm has Titan parts, I saved that experience in my memory and went home.
Months later I heard from the Phantom II with Titan Armwand, a red lamp started to glow and my interest in that new Arm started to grow.
I bought one and compared them.




The new version has the bubble, which is a nice fature because the user can see very quickly in which position his cartridge is (level or not) and can make his adjustments very comfortable. A new wire inside is used and the most important difference: The new titan Armtube. From the first tone you hear the difference in the lively detail and the tonal color.
It simply sounds more like the real thing, specially on the older records from 1960+.
Excellent tonal spectrum with a superior control in huge dynamic impulses. No smeared detail and a superior, airy and fast high frequency area.
This Arm has no sonic coloration, it is a excellent tool when you really want to know what is going on (depends on the Quality of your System).

Comparison with cartridges is very simple based on the changeable Armtubes:




It is the right Arm for the discriminated Audiophile who wants to push the curtain and who is not interested in any discussion what someone „likes“ or what kind of „taste“ is preferred. With the Phantom II the ceiling is about 1/3 higher than with the SME V.
With the Phantom II bass transients have equal slam, but more speed and edge sharpness in comparison.
Consider it one of the handful of TOP-flight tonearms today. Among this very tiny group, it is the least expensive, most easy to adjust to 99% and most versatile.
One can hardly ask for more.
In the far future - when we are all old, half deaf and white haired we will look back and consider the Phantom II one of the very few great classics which did stand the test of time with bravura.
There are a lot of other Arms out there, some work with one of the other alignment, some not and some very (very, very) few which are done right today.
If I were looking for a pivot tonearm today - this would be the one I'd go for. After listening and comparing...there is a new King born, true in tonal color, sensational from dynamic range and probably the real thing in analog of today, the Masterpiece from Mastermind

"Kudos Mr. Graham"



Compared with Phantom I, Kuzma Airline, DaVinci Grandezza and some more


Product Weakness: None
Product Strengths: The Best of the modern Arms<br>(a true no nonsense Design)


Associated Equipment for this Review:

Amplifier: Pass Aleph 0
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): Lamm L2R
Sources (CDP/Turntable): Basis Debut vac.
Speakers: Reference 3A
Cables/Interconnects: Audioquest Sky
Music Used (Genre/Selections): Decca, Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo
Room Comments/Treatments: done
Time Period/Length of Audition: 1 Year
Type of Audition/Review: Product Owner




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  



Topic - REVIEW: Graham Engineering Phantom B-44 Tone Arms - Stitch 07:30:26 05/28/11 ( 7)