SME V, Tri-Planar or Phantom B-44

I've not heard the Phantom, but I've heard a Lyra Olympos on both an SME V and on my TriPlanar. Different systems, but the preamps and amps were identical and I've heard the SME owner's system with a variety of cartridges, so comparisons aren't totally invalid. It was the same Olympos both times, set up by its long-time owner (and he owns both SME and TriPlanar arms himself, so the setups were probably good).

To all ears, including the Lyra owners', the TriPlanar was a much better match. More life, more snap, much more low level detail. It let the Olympos sound like what it is, one of the world's top cartridges, with just a fine hint of warmth taking it away from today's more neutral or even slightly cool Lyra sound.

On the SME, the same cartridge sounded grey, staid, reserved almost to the point of being dull. For whatever reason, far less information was getting through.

My experience, FWIW.

With the SME V, the Ebony sounded closed in and lifeless compared to either VPI's. Of course, I tried various VTA settings, dampings, etc. If you have nothing to compare it to, the SME sounded fine...only in comparison to the VPI's were the problems revealed.

The issue with the SME V is colorations due to mid and high frequency resonance. That is in fact why the 'Analog Survival Kit' was devised by Sumiko years ago. The arm wrap was very useful in reducing colorations that are common with the SME V. The result had to be heard to be believed: the arm wrap was a necessity.

The problem was that the arm warp added to the effective mass, making the cartridge choice more difficult.

By contrast both the Triplanar and the Graham have effective arm-tube-resonance damping systems, rendering the arm wrap obsolete.

If anything, I would say this is the main issue with the SME V that makes it a distant 3rd choice in this thread. Secondary: the Triplanar is considerably easier to set VTA, which can be done on the fly. You can sort of do this with the SME, but you can only go up, not down, and you have to loosen the arm to do it, which is audible. It is also easier to make micro-weight adjustments on the Triplanar, as it has a secondary weight that makes tenths of a gram changes easy.

The Graham and the SME both have output connectors at their base into which inserts the interconnect cable. This is nice for flexibility, as you can easily run the arm balanced or single ended by changing the cable. The Triplanar has the cable exit at the base of the arm, and is one continuous run from the cartridge, with no extra connections right to the input of the preamp. It too can be balanced or single-ended, ordered that way. It can be changed over in the field without too much difficulty, if you know what you are doing. Overall I favor this approach, as any additional connectors are always audible with signal levels as low as they are in a tone arm.

I do believe that the SME also has damping in the arm tube itself..as do others.

Tim,

I own the Raven AC - 1 motor table. I have heard the Tri-Planar, Phantom, and Dynavector arms mounted on the TW - AC 3 motor version at Hi-Water Sound in NYC, all in one listening session. All had different cartridges mounted. There is no telling how much my impression was influenced by arm/cartridge set-up. Jeff Catalano and I did not adjust VTA settings for different records. All arm/cart combos worked beautifully. The Dynavector was stunning using a Dynavector 1 Mono cart. playing mono records. A true mono presentation which I have never heard before. The Phantom/Myabi was very transparent but perhaps a bit uninvolving with a somewhat distant front/back soundtage and a somewhat narrow left/right field. The Tri-Planar/Zyx was excellent, more dynamic than the Phantom with a wider L/R presentation and a somewhat flatter F/B soundstage and a bit less transparnet than the Phantom. All were more than acceptable. I chose the Tr-Planar and I am currently using my old Benz-Micro Ruby-2 Cart. I am very happy with the choice which I made partly on sound demo and partly on ease of set-up and easily calibrated VTA settings which you can make on the fly. I find this feature paramount for optimum vinyl playback. The Dynavector, while in mono mode for this demo, was impressive. Erector Set ugly to be sure, but I was impressed by the performance. I would not discount this arm in making your selection. Jeff C. said it is probably the easiest of the three to set up and maintain. Again, I cannot account for impressions made by the cartridges used and cartridge mountings. These were impressions based upon 2.5 hours of listening to a variety of recordings, none of audiophile quality purposely for real world listening. Whichever you chose, don't forget that you will not be making a comparison in your home unless you outfit the Raven for multiple arms. Best of luck and enjoy this marvelous table!