I have read threads (I think) here and on Audio Asylum where people who went from the Graham to the Vector provided feedback. Maybe try a search at both sites for the Vector.
15 responses Add your response
I have both a 2.2 (remember that one 4yanx?) and a Vector Model 1 that I use on my 2500. They both offer excellant playback! I like the Vector with my Denon 103R and the 2.2 with my Benz Glider. I have tried the 103 on the 2.2 and the Glider on the Vector, but wasn't quite as impressed with these combos. Probably a mass/compliance thing.
The Vector offers exceptional performance without alot of fussing. It is pretty much set and forget, although I believe that there is something to be gained from experimenting with the level of the silicon oil. A little less than prescribed sounds better to me. The Graham 2.2 is also an excellant arm that does lend itself to all the tweaking one might care to do. It may take more tweaking on the Graham to get to the maximum that arm is capable of. I really like both arms and couldn't choose between them right now.
If you are contemplating changing to much lower compliance cartridges then the Vector might be worth trying. All in all I'd say that your Graham is giving just as good performance as a Vector might. But please keep in mind that I have not had a Vector Model 3 on my table.
Just my .02, hope it helps.
Dear Fjn04: Both tonearms are really top performers. How to choose one of them?
anyone gone from the Graham 2.2 to vecteur arm ?
I am considering the Vecteur arm as a natural match for my Basis 2500 table for increased performance... " +++++
Increased performance: this depends on the TT and the phono cartridge. I think that your TT can match to both tonearms. The most important issue is with which one you can have a better match with your cartridge and this issue is the which one that can define if you can have a performance improvement.
If your cartridge works best with the 2.2 than with the Vecteur, this fact tell us only that the cartridge has a better match with the 2.2, not that the 2.2 is a better tonearm
Like always, this is a subject about the best synergy. That's the name of the audio game.
Regards and enjoy the music.
I did exactly this about a month ago. TT is a Debut vacuum. Cart is a Benz Ruby 2.
With the Graham, I found myself constantly futzing around with all the adjustments, mostly due to sibilance that I could not eliminate by changing cartridge alignment, VTA, VTF, azimuth, etc. The first thing I noticed after changing to the Vector was that the dreaded sibilance had disappeared. Moreover, there was a significant improvement in overall resolution. I have to assume that along with sibilance, the Graham was producing (or allowing) other distortions which were obscuring what was actually in the grooves. Speaking of grooves, the Vector (with Benz Ruby 2) produces NO groove noise. To call dynamics 'explosive' would imply distortion, so suffice it to say that things now get louder and faster without any breakup. I was skeptical about the idea of "no mistracking" and "reduces record wear" but am now a true believer. It is liberating to be comfortable playing valuable/rare LP's without worrying about degrading the vinyl with every play.
Overall, the Debut/Vector combo seems to take the record itself out of the equation, letting the stylus trace the groove as perfectly as I have experienced. Many times there is no perception of hearing the vinyl record itself, only the music contained therein. Because of this, I no longer feel the need to keep 'tweaking' and can just enjoy. Yes, the Graham was more easy to adjust, but after a while the adjusting just became frustrating. I have only readjusted VTA once, and have left it alone since. Folks with non-vacuum turntables who fiddle ceaselessly with VTA adjustments are probably chasing their tails (IMHO) as no LP is truly flat, causing VTA to change constantly.
I am still puzzled by the lack of publicity this arm receives. I would postulate that if Basis were a one-trick-pony and just made Vectors, there would be just as much (if not more) buzz about the Vector as there is regarding the Graham, Schroeder, etc. Hopefully more people without Basis tables will get to try the arm on their tables too.
I too have wondered why the basis arm hasn't gotten alot of attention,what with the designer's reputation!It seems to be a fine design.
Also,it always amazes me,how well respected and proven designs(in this case the 2.2)get the quick "hook",once a newer product comes around.Here the 2.2,but in the past I've seen this with almost all types of audio products.Note how suddenly the Dartzeel solid state amp is good enough to replace the beloved "TUBES" in so many set-ups(in many cases replacing Lamms,on Kharma speakers,which was HERESY 2 years ago).Both formats(tubes,as well as solid state) are fine,in given situations,yet audiophiles,at least MANY I know, LOVE to run with the sophomoric "it must be better if it is so and so,or you can never have too many tubes,or solid state is the only way to go,to control a woofer,or only dipolars can sound real,or box speakers suck" and so on and so on.What a crock!!If you don't know what you're doing,maybe!
We love to spend,and feel vindicated for our particular component choices,but how many of us make choices SOLEY on what we hear,in our own set-ups,WITHOUT feedback from media,reviewers,friends,web sites.Are YOU that secure???I doubt it!!I know I'm setting myself up,for a BIG hit here,and don't care.I've felt this way for a long time,and am stating it for all of the 6 people who will probably read this,but it does make me feel better.I guess I'm self centered.I don't take myself seriously either,and everyone is entitled to their way of thinking(listening).Yet I still believe what I'm spouting.Boring as it seems.
PS--I'm not singling anyone in particular out,just a generalization,which becomes more clear to me as time,in this hobby,goes by.
The 2.2 is NOT adding any sibilence to anyone's ears.I can assure you that if this is your perception,something else is not quite right!I'm perfectly willing to take any venom,that may come from that statement,but I know it(as abnoxious as it sounds.Tough!)to be true.That doesn't mean I think it cannot be,or is bettered,but audiophiles are SO fickle.Raul happens to be correct,when he states that there are many variables at play in "correct matching" of arm/cartridge,and this will play a MAJOR role in any arm's performance.While I will most likely improve upon many parameters of performance,in my system,in time,I don't expect any new revelations to come from a new tonearm(I live,happily with a 2.2)at present.Though I won't keep it forever.Also,the 2.2 does NOT need to be fotz'd around with,constantly.It can be voiced,a hell of alot,with fluid/vta/downforce,like a rubic's cube,but if you know it well,which alot do not(let the bricks fly on that statement too)then you can set,and look elsewhere in your system,for other ways to change presentation.There are SO many OTHER choices to make.Just my 2 cents worth!Regards!
I do think there is much synergy using the Vector on a Basis table and I have no idea what the arm may sound like on another brand of TT. However, I would bet that does very well. It is such a rock solid tracker.
Like sirspeedy, I'm puzzled by the sibilance Lgraef experienced with the 2.2 and also agree that I have not had to putz around with the adjustments. The Ruby is fairly hefty at 9.6 grams and also fairly compliant. Seems like a good match with the 2.2. I won't dismiss what Lgraef reports but I will say that I have not experienced anything like it with my Graham even with a low compliant cartridge. What adjusting I have done I have chosen to do just to see if I can get more from the arm. This is something that sirspeedy has written about extensively and has really gotten my curiousity up. I'm waiting to get a little better cartridge on the 2.2 before getting serious about adjustments.
I like both of these arms so much I'm thinking of someday getting a table that will mount two arms.
Please don't think I was implying Lgraef was my target.I was,and am not.It was a generalization,on the 2.2,which happened to be Hi-Fi News and Record Review's Analog component of the year,for 2004.Sibilence?The British didn't hear it,in awarding it such a high honor.Yet,now that the inevitable (and expected) great review of the new and universally? better product appears,lets star to look at our bank accounts again.That does not mean the 2.2 can't be bettered,but Teres felt he heard a sibilence in the 2.2,when he did a comparison,and suddenly Michael Fremer,in his Phantom review,after having a 2.2 for years,and loving it,claims that he "never was really wild about it"!!Hmm???
Hey,why do the English press like said product SO much,as to single it out,only six months ago,but now a sudden sibilence appears.I'm not rationalizing that other designs may better the 2.2,but I cannot get away from the fact I run a 7 gm cartridge,have a table with vacuum,so the magna glide is more minimal here,and don't really want to put a heavier arm on my sprung suspension table.I believe that the Titan which Fremer used is 12.5 gms.Big difference,and the arm mass makes a diff,as Raul points out,which few give his correct observation credit for,but that wasn't mentioned in Fremer's review.Not that 12.5 gms isn't negotiated well on a 2.2,but I'll bet 7.5 gms is a better match.Here I may be rationalizing a bit,but I deserve to.I may be over reacting,and probably am,a bit,but these are issues I consider before allowing my hard earned monies(and carefully chosen components) to fly out of my pocket!Anyone really savvy,will jump on the 2.2's that will be going used,for probably 1500.00 bucks,fairly soon!!
In my case, I do not feel that I jumped for the 'flavor of the month.' The Vector has been out a while, in fact.
I would not have guessed that my complaint of sibilance with the Graham would have caused so much sand in people's panties. In MY experience, I could not get the Graham to make music the way I wanted to hear it. Many records were unlistenable due to mistracking. I struggled with this for over a year before I reluctantly traded in the Graham towards the Vector. My conclusion (as nothing else changed in the system) is that the Graham was the culprit.
If others love the arm, cool; maybe just works in your system (or is the Graham compensating for deficiencies in YOUR setup?. Just didn't work for me.
During the time that I lived with the Ruby/Graham combo, I experienced two periods of mistracking with the Ruby both of which were eliminated. The first was caused by too much damping fluid in the well. Once I got the damping tuned (less than the recommended amount), that took care of things for quite a while.
The second occurrence happened when dust had built up on the cantilever unknown to me. I clean the stylus regularly but never looked at the cantilever. It wasn't until I was switching cartridges and had the wand off the arm that I noticed the build up. I cleaned the cantilever before proceeding with the switch and that took care of the mistracking I was experiencing.
Thanks for all your comments. I was listening earlier to the Johnny Hartman/John Coltrane album and I definitely heard the sibilance in Hartmans voice during louder singing passages. I just read MF' s review of the Phantom b-44 in stereophile and can relate to some of his findings w/ the 2.2. Then of course he went on to talk about how the Phantom improves on the 2.2 in all the areas where it (the 2.2) may be lacking. I believe he called the 2.2 a little medicinal and mechanical sounding next to the Phantom and for that matter next to his Immedia RPM-2 tonearm. Not to rock anyones boat, but We all have different systems and I am quite sure the 2.2 may complement ones particular system. However , I am only looking to improve my sound based only on my own personal preferences. I am awaiting a new Benz ruby 3H and when it arrives I may just ride on in to the sunset w/ the 2.2 guiding the way. I will make it a point to report my findings at that time if any are interested. Hopefully when I play the Stairway to heaven 45 rpm w/ the benz tracking, things wont kind of fall apart just when Jimmy Page really lets loose. I just cant have that. Next up, the Phantom vs. the Vecteur. Dont change that channel.
I ADMIT that I must seem like a bit of a fanatic,and obnoxious in some of my posts.Sorry!That being said,it is correct that we all just want to find our own concept of musical reality,whether digital/analog/I-pod/car radio etc.
Obviously some systems will sound better with certain combinations.Some will vary,and I've seen some of my own friends' systems where a product worked in one,and not another,so I respect all of you guys' findings,and opinions.
I will add that I have NEVER (and both of my friends with the same arm) had any mistracking with my 2.2!If I had mistracking,I would certainly not think it was the 2.2 that,itself,was the culprit.As with the rediculous claim of any kind of sibilent nature to the 2.2,these can easily be attributed to other dial in parameters,or the set-up person themselves.Best regards.
First off, there was no dust on the cantilever. I am religious about stylus cleaning.
And yes, I tortured myself with the damping fluid issue to no avail. One could argue that the need to be so precise with damping fluid indicates a design flaw (I'm ducking while writing this). Ironically, the Speakers Corner Coltrane/Hartman was one of the LP's that had annoying sibilance with Graham but none with the Vector. I have focused on this issue (as it was the one that bothered me the most) but would say that the Vector has been an overall improvement, making great Lp's greater and making previously bad-sounding Lp's sound much better.
I do find it annoying that components are constatnly "upgraded." However, if one respects the designer of a component, they should at least consider that the new product is an improvement. Does anyone really debate whether the 2.2 is an improvement over the 1.5? I have seen the 2.2 criticized long before the Phantom was even being developed, so not all of the criticism is new or related directly to the availability of a newer product. If one believes in the design of a product and designer himself feels that the new product is better, it may not be all hype.
When I spoke with AJ Conti, he told me that the Vector was one of his crowning achievements. As I am completely satisfied with the Debut TT, I decided to trust him on this issue and am completely satisfied with the arm. Incidentally, I have sent an unsolicited copy of my initial posting to AJ to include on his website.
My initial response was not intended to trash a particular product; the initial post asked for feedback from people who switched from the 2.2 to the Vector, and I feel that I have duly answered the question.
Lgraef,You are a true, quality citizen,and nobody I know would doubt it.I admit to trying to bait some folks,but haven't gotten the responses I thought I'd get.Though a brick did come through my window,yesterday.The getaway car had an audio mag's logo on it.
Of course many products,by reliable mfgrs are considered superior to previous designs,and in this case,the Phantom does look like a winner.Graham has a great track record,so I have no doubt as to it's attributes,as well as for the seemingly fine design,of the Vector.My only complaint(my own problem)is the issue of Sibilence in the 2.2,which ain't there.I suspect anyone(including MF,in his review)of not maxing out that design's potential,if a claim of a "mechanical/sibilent" nature exists.Of that I'm quite secure,as I had a subtle resonant characteristic for quite some time,before learning to "eliminate" it.It is way too easy to just give up,and in this hobby,dump more money into another design.It's a cycle I've had way too much exposure to,and am getting a grip on,myself.