SME V, Tri-Planar or Phantom B-44 ?

Hi Raul,

I read Ralph's comment about the equivalency of the Tri-Planar and the Graham Phantom in the context each arm running with a compatible cartridge. Nothing new here for us (grin).

Of course, since Ralph's main experience is with the Tri-Planar, he shared his experiences of cartridges that have worked for him with it.

I would add to this Tri-Planar compatibility list, the Dynavector XV-1s, the Benz Ebony LP (the original - I have not tried the newer incarnations), and yes ... as surprising as it sounds the Denon DL 103R (albeit a bit lower on the sonic food chain).

Indeed, the Tri-Planar and Graham Phantom are different architectures. I have not played with the Phantom, but I wouldn't be surprised that with a compatible cartridge that the two arms would be more alike than different.

In my experience (I'm repeating myself from other posts), competent designs from designers who know what music sounds like, applying differing architectures, sound more alike than different. Yes, each architecture will reveal its distinguishing characteristics, but the designs will be shockingly alike.

Why? Because good designers know what real music sounds like.

The more pieces of good gear I discover, the more I learn later that the designer is not only a solid technician, but that (s)he has at least played a musical instrument - perhaps not mastered it, but played one. Of course, there are exceptions.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

My personal ranking after a few years of using and listening.
The ranking is based on a combination from maximum Performance with different cartridges (weight, compliance ...) mounted in each Arm
Best is above

1.FR-64s, FR-66s
2.Graham Phantom, DaVinci Grandezza
3.Kuzma Airline
4.Graham 2.2, Triplanar VII, Kuzma 4P
5.SME V, Schroeder Ref., Well Tempered Ref.,
6.Hadcock, Rega

Dear Tom: +++++ " would be more alike than different. " +++++

IMHO it is obvious that any two-three top tonearms are more alike ( they are tonearms ) than different but that " different " makes the whole difference, if not every top tonearm can be the " same ".

You can make a simple test with any tonearm to understand exactly what I mean: try to change the tonearm internal wiring or to by-pass it and put a different wire ( external ) or make a change on the headshell wires.

It is the same with almost any audio item, example a TT: almost are more alike than different, of course its main targets are almost the same ( all are TT and have to spin at precise speed with stability. ), but the sum of each one " tiny/small " differences makes the whole performance difference/signature.

Well, this is only my opinion and like always I respect the other people ones.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Thanks everybody
As to raul qestion, i own the Kondo IO-M,had the SME V for
a short while ,and now im on the market again for a new ton arm,and i wish to add Scheu Taco Tonearm to my earlier qestion

Hi Raul, I've not had direct experience with the Phantom as I have a Triplanar for each of our Atma-Sphere 208s. I've seen a lot of people argue about which of arm is better and I don't doubt that there are differences in sound nor (more importantly) do I care to debate their merits.

But with all the 'goner' arguement about which is better, to me the only rational conclusion is that they must be very close, and set up issues (the room, the amps, the speakers, cables, etc., etc.) are playing enough of a role to account for the differences that taste does not. To that I add that Tri Mai's Of Triplanar tends to be very complementary of the Phantom and I know he would not say that to me if he did not mean it.

IMO the Triplanar, if not in fact the bona-fide item, is very nearly the state of the art. But earlier I tempered that opinion in an effort to allow for other's opinions as well...