Graham Phantom Supreme?

Dear Lewm, dear Rockitman, - I can't resist, but I now have to second Syntax' choice for the 9" arm wand. While I am certainly usually try to go for increased effective length, the 9" standard arm wand is the best for the Graham Phantom.
Why ?
I leave this to Syntax to explain - as it was on his selection of all 3 arm wands that it was discovered.

Rockitman, I usually always would go for lowest tracking error - i.e. 12" effective length or more - even at the sacrifice of increased effective mass.
But with the Graham Phantom this is a different issue and the 9" is the "best" arm wand out of the 3 length available.
Syntax may have the honor to reveal why.

Rockitman, Wrm57, the 10" arm wand was - as the 12" arm wand - Graham's reaction to market request. Indeed you will have a hard time mounting a 9" Phantom (or any other 9" pivot) when the platter diameter exceeds 320 mm or when using an outer ring on the platter. Whether Clearaudio, VPI in specific or others - the 10" is the way to go when using the outer ring anyway. But pay attention to the off-set.

Dear Hiho, you're right.
I forgot - the Phantom is a semi-unipivot design.

Rockitman, please - don't get me wrong.
Aside from increased effective mass a longer effective length version is always superior in terms of tangential error and sensibility to SRA/VTA variation due to the inevitable hills and valley on every LP.

It is in specific here - with the Graham Phantom and it's armwands of 9", 10" and 12" resulting effective length.
As I said: look careful to the off-set of the headshell mounting area.
It is correct only for the original 9" version.
That's why the 9" version here is the "best".
Usually I would always vote and go for the 12" version - but not here.

Dear Hiho, it is the off-set angle at the headshell mounting area. The problem here is, that the off-set of the mounting area is too large for the 10" and especially so for the 12" arm wand.
Resulting in additional and unnecessary breakdown torque as well as in an odd position mounting of the respective cartridge.
In an uni-pivot like the Phantom the bearing has no off-set - just the mounting area has ( here off-set is a function of the geometry and effective length ). The smaller the off-set angle is, the smaller the breakdown torque is.
That's one of the reasons why longer pivot tonearms do sport less skating force.
Hope I am not too obsessed with minute detail here ...;-) ....

Dear Dover, the magneglide mechanism does induce a force which again kind of "simulates" a second bearing. Kind of "magnetic semi-unipivot" ...? The mechanical contact is the uni-pivot only, but there is undoubtedly a lateral force which act similar to a lateral 2nd bearing.
If not as consequent ...
Cheers,
D.

I had the pleasure of the past 4 years to audition every single version of the Phantom in Syntax' system.
Every version includes every effective length too, as Syntax collected all arm wand length available for the Phantom including the 12".
It is apparent that Bob Graham very carefully works on improvement in his design.
Every version did improve in the sonic picture while maintaining the virtues of the former.
To my ears - as well as to my brain and technical understanding - this is at the moment the UNI-Pivot with the most engineering input and the most money spent by the manufacturer to bring the design forward.
While I am certainly no fan of any additional connection before amplifying the tiny cartridge signal, - the Phantom sounds incredibly open keeping in mind that it has at least 2 more connecting joints than most tonearms today.
Might well be worthwhile having Syntax' Phantom Supreme direct wired from cartridge pins to phono input somewhen late winter.
Just curious to see/hear how much transparency will improve even further.
All the other current contenders do long sport direct-pin-tp-phono-input wiring.
We'll see ...
Cheers,
D.

Dear Moonglum, the connector where the Phantom's armtube is connected to the bearing house consists of 2 connectors - one on each side.
Same with the DIN socket and the connecting phono cable - again 2 connectors.
This makes a grand total of 6 connectors/joints from cartridge tags to phono input RCA sockets.
A Talea, Tr-Planar and many other modern tonearms only have 2 connectors on that path from the cartridge terminal to the phono input - the cartridge tags and the RCAs which go into the phono input.
The Phantom has 4 connectors more.
I have seen Phantoms here in Germany with customized wiring going on the outside of the arm tube and into the phono input.
I have done similar in the past with FR-tonearms and can report that it is ALWAYS a significant gain in micro detail and "air" as well as dynamics.
But it looks dreadful and in areas with heavy radio frequencies floating around you may well pick-up some unwanted "dirt" with the small antenna .....
Cheers,
D.

Well Rockitman, I guess we all can agree, that even the very best connection do sport at least 2 solder joints and a composite of different material (solder, brass, nickel, phosphor bronze, coating) won't better a bare silver wire which runs undisrupted.
This is a simple picture I guess.
I had the Graham Phantom II Supreme here at my place for 3 days this past weekend.
It is a great tonearm with very good connectors.
The fact that it is that good, doesn't say it won't be better with less connectors interrupting/degrading the electrical flow of a very tiny signal.
If it were mine and if I would keep it for a very long time on my table, I would definitely provide an all-through-direct wiring from cartridge tags to phono input.
The point here is, that this is the start of the chain with a VERY small signal hub (0.2 mV with most LOMCs). Here the signal is the most vulnerable.
After the preamp the signal is 500x to 1000x "larger".
Would wish Bob Graham would consider offering a "hot rod" version of his Supreme with non-detachable arm wand and all-through wiring.
I bet our eyes and ears would pop in amazement of the sonic improvement.
Just as I have had the experience with a handful of other tonearms before.