Graham Phantom Supreme?

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.

Size is not everything. Short done right can have some advantages ....

10-29-11: Dertonarm
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.

I wonder if the new adjustable jig is configured for each tonearm length ? The plastic alignment plate is now fully ajustable so that no matter the cart height, you can get the alignment plate parallel like a record surface. Also using the ring, wavy records are not an issue. 99% of mine are flat using the ring. I suppose with the greater effective mass, there will be better performance with low compliance carts like the Allnic Puritas (Which I am considering).

The 9-incher works fine with the ring, I just have to be careful. And since my days (and nights) of staggering to the 'table to flip a record are long past, being careful isn't much of a challenge anymore. ;)

I only use the alignment jig to get started, then fine-tune with a Wally or Dentonarm's UNI-Pro, so that wouldn't dissuade me from the 10-inch wand. I might pick one up just to check it out.

Dertonarm: "As I said: look careful to the off-set of the headshell mounting area. It is correct only for the original 9" version."

I think what you meant is that the offset angle at the BEARING was originally designed for a 9" armwand. Matching bearing angle to headshell offset angle is to avoid VTA affecting azimuth. I assume the Supreme's bearing was angled at 23.431°, according to spec, to match 9" wand's headshell angle. I can't imagine they would make three different bearing housings for each wand length. It's probably too minute to bother most buyers but perhaps not a perfectionist like Dertonarm. :)

______