Graham Phantom vs Triplaner


Wondering about the sonic traits of both these arms compared to each other.

- which one has deeper bass,
- which one has the warmer (relative) balance
- which one is compatible with more cartridges
- which one has the better more organic midrange
- which one has the greater treble detail.
- which one plays music better ( yes this is a more subjective question ).
- which one goes better with say the TW acoustic raven TT.
downunder
A long time ago I compared - at home - three arms wih an Ortofon SPU (which had been rebuilt). The arms were the 1.5 graham, a Triplanar (the first Mk with a fat arm-tube) and an early Breuer 9" (with damping trough).
Now I know that this is not experience directly related to your question as the arms were much earlier than contemporary arms: also the cartridge was not - probably - what you have in mind. But here are some points which you may like to bear in mind.

The Graham was not suitable with a high-energy low compliance cartridge...everything was wrong.

The Breuer was excellent however it only worked at its best - especially in the bass region - with some damping applied.

The Wheaton was a better all round cartridge in my opinion. It performed with gusto and greater musical ability, though the Breuer was pretty close. I bought the Wheaton.....and then my troubles began!!

Both were excellent within ALL the specific areas which interest you.

As I have said the SPU is a very high energy cartridge and thus puts enormous strain on the bearings. It was not long before I heard the sound quality roll off, and after much exploration I found that the bearings were loose and damaged.

I still had the Breuer and by now it shone out as the better arm. A little work by fitting a carbon shaped platform (to house the non-flat top surface of the SPU) obviously increased its mass. This really turned a very good arm into a superb arm. I had the Wheaton rebuilt and sold it (along with the Graham)

Most of the problems with the Wheaton have been solved in the contemporary version and I am sure that I would like to try the new one as even the Mk11 sounded sublime. The Graham was simply a mismatch in my case and the Breuer was a compromised, but effective solution.

I would also like to try the Ikeda arm as I replaced the Breuer with a Fidelity Research 64S. This was the absolute best in my system.

You will probably be using a totally different type of cartridge and thus will find most of this inapplicable.
Can't help but hope you get an answer. I'm getting a Raven AC and am putting a 12" Ortofon AS-309s on first and will be adding another arm in the fall. I'm leaning towards a Phantom but am curious about the Tri-Planar myself.
Downunder,I know you are an experienced 'phile,so I am going to give my personal opinion.If you actually believe one is "across the board better",with the criteria you give here,than I am simply at a loss for words.
Based on the latest improvements made to both(classic) arms I'd be happy with either one!So would you!!
Yes,the cartridge will determine which is the best choice,but I have to assume you already know this.
I am pretty convinced that a thread asking which particular cartridge would maxx out "your" particular system/music preferrences(a pretty good set-up,as I can see)would be far more meaningful.
I think you already know the scoop,but what the heck,let's see what comes up,on this thread.-:)
Best.
Gents

to clarify, all I am asking is one's personal view of both arm's relative to each other if they have indeed heard both, as they are both SOTA. Understand there is no such thing as best in this obsessive world of hifi.

My preference is for a slightly organic, warmer tone compared to my current table, the HRX while maintaining great dynamics and bass.

I believe that may be the triplaner, however I know the phantom is a lot differenmt beast to earlier versions and I have not heard either in my system.

my cartridges are dyna XV-1, koetsau rosewood, denon 103r, ortofon jubilee, clearaudio concerto, audio tec OC9.

cheers