Lyra Titan i on Basis Vector 4 experience?

Dan,my friend may be interested in a Vector.Did you find "it's" fluid usage to be as critical as the 2.2,in terms of how it affects tonal shadings?

Some time ago,I was personally contacted by a fellow who designed turntables.He was quite knowledgeable,and "loved" the Vector!He had some interesting "takes" on many of the popular arms we all like to talk about,but the guy LOVED the Vector.

The business of fluid addition,as it relates to "arm voicing" obviously interests me,but I do have a knowledgeable group of audio pals who are adamant about the "ultimate" lowering of sound quality,if an arm uses fluid.Be it in the bearing,or in a well,with both affecting performance differently....Personally,I'm on the fence with that issue!

I know my Phantom prefers less fluid than the finicky(but I loved it) 2.2,but I'm hearing good things about the latest Vector...

Hence feedback on "it's" fluid/performance impact could be interesting.

Also,doesn't it have a new assembly that allows for easy VTA?

Best.

Dan,

Thanks for the response and sharing your experience and opinion. Don't worry about the post moving in another direction. If we check most posts on the forum, we will notice this happens regularly. I've accepted it as Internet forum protocol.

As far as the Titan i goes, I'm only getting responses for information on the cart/arm combo at this point. I'm not ready to pull the trigger just yet.

I own the Skala and really enjoy what it does with the very variable music I listen to. So, a Cartridge that is more chameleon (or even handed) with varying types of music is my preference. The Skala, in the Vector, allows me to enjoy everything I listen to. Which is the reason for this post: To find out if The Titan i can add more oneness with the music and not take away from what I'm currently enjoying. I guess you can call it trying to satisfy a curiosity.

Dre

I have a Titan on a Vector 3, a friend has one on a Vector 4 and the combination works very well. I talked to someone in the know a few years back (I think it was A.J. Conti of Vector) and he said that the Titan transfers a tremendous amount of vibrational energy to the tonearm. The Vector is designed to handle that type of cartridge by dissipating such energy instead of reflecting it back to the headshell and the cartridge.

All that said, the Titan works well in a number of tonearms. I've heard it in the latest Graham, as well as in an SME arm. The basic requirement of this cartridge for optimum performance is a very rigid arm/bearing that will allow the vibrational energy to be transferred to the turntable plinth or armboard. A.J. Conti of Vector hates cantilevered armboards for that reason-- they are not rigid and so they start to vibrate like a diving springboard from such energy.

Sirspeedy,

The amount of damping fluid in the Vector is very important. I leave the term "critical" for the 2.2 and to give an idea of how I think the difference between the two arms is in regard to this. The idea with the Vector is to add enough fluid to the trough to tighten the base. Too little and the bass becomes muddy. Too much and you start to squash HF and dynamics. This is no different than the 2.2. But I think the 2.2 is much more sensitive. As you posted a while back, even an amount the size of the head of a pin can adversely effect the performance on the 2.2. With the Vector I find that I can stay to about 1/2 cc of silicon and get the level right. In short I don't find the fluid level to be as touchy as with the Vector, but it is certainly very important.

I would say that the micrometer option for VTA measuring does make minute VTA changes easier than not having it. As A.J. says, it is not a VTA adjuster, it is just a way to measure. It should not be touching the plinth while the stylus is playing.

Larryi,

that is exactly what I and others have found about the Vector. It can handle those cartridges that transmit a lot of energy into the arm. I think this is another reason why the 2.2 did not perform as well for me as the Vector. I have not calculated it, but the PSI value at the pivot bearing must be enormous. Another point that the Vector has over the 2.2 is the horizontal stabilization of that little bearing controlling azimuth.

Yes, I know A.J. doesn't like cantilevered armboards, on the fly VTA, and non-suspended tables. Just to name a few things. However, there are examples of such implementations that address his concerns and work extremely well.

Dan,thanks for the quite interesting input....

Actually,my friend has asked me to call him this evening,regarding a choice between the Vector,TRI-P,Copperhead(he might be leaning to "this" the most),and the Davinci.....

THOSE are the ones "he" likes,so I am simply going to discuss "these" exact choices with him!!....His tastes to cater to,so I just go with it,in case the obvious question comes up(there "are" reasons,btw).

Anyway,thanks for responding....The input will be put to good use.

Best