Graham IC-50 -vs-IC-70 "shotgun"

Both,I,and a friend upgraded from the ic-30 to the ic-70 at the same time.The difference was a significant increase in overall performance.It was well worth the upgrade IF you have a good setup.

I agree with sirspeedy, I had the same result when I made the upgrade from the 30 to the 70. It is a superb phono cable. I never got the 50, as I am obsessive compulsive and knew that I would kick myself for getting the 50 when the 70 was out there. If you are saner than I, I hope there's someone out there who did the upgrade or compared the two. It would be difficult to compare the two in part due to setup purposes and in part because it takes a long time for these cables to fully break in.

Yes, I agree, and also with respect to break-in time. I bought the 2.2 and the IC-70 shotgun (have not heard the other) as a package. I wound up selling the 2.2 separately and used the IC-70 on a couple of other arms. I sold the IC-70, too, and wish now that I'd kept it. It is a fine cable.

This is slightly off topic, but thought you might be interested.

I used to own a IC 50. Then went to a Hovland, now a Purist Venustas (which is still breaking in).

The Graham was din to RCA. The others din to XLR. my phono stage performs a little better in my system running balanced.

Who knows if any of these cables were really broken in using my Lyra Helicon to drive it. Also, I'm using a SME 20/2 table with SME IV.Vi arm. I realize if you're using a Graham arm, you may get some better synergy given the internal arm cable is similar.

Caveats aside, I thought the Graham was wonderfully detailed, but thin in my system. The Hovland, much more warmth, slight less detail.

The Purist handily surpases both. In every area I can think of. It only has 150 hours playing time on it. It's still opening up.

If cost isn't a object consider the Purist. If you need a touch of warmth, then the Hovland. If detail is important, and your system isn't slightly thin in the mids, the Graham was good.