Graham Phantom vs. Phantom II

Well, when I would be a Dealer I would write the same.
And when I would be a customer, who has money but no idea, I would agree.
Most Audiophiles WANT to spend money, they don't want to KNOW what the unit really does. They "like" it or not. Or. they read something in a magazine and save a few lines in their memory and after a while it is transformed to "Knowledge".
But to be fair, only new products makes the money go round. And when something is really better (or clever made) than others, and cheaper, and limited...then it can be dangerous. The goal is the "Balance".
It is the way it is.

It appears that we have a "clever" audiophile in our midst. You are so transcendent in your thought...

Oh sage please,through a few pearls of wisdom to the swine that surround you, i want to "KNOW" the secrets that i have been denying for so long as i through my fortunes to the wind...Just kidding, of course!

So many words, but nothing is said,

tell us, what makes your words any more credible, or better yet, what makes your judgement/knowledge any more credible than "most audiophiles" or "dealers" that you condescend to.
So far it has remained unseen.

One who chooses to confront his fellow music lover hiding behind oblique comments and explaining them all as the unwashed masses, rarely does any good except to feed his own ego. We have a word for that on these threads, it's called a troll.

i prefer the honesty of sharing and helping my Hifi friends, and on occasion showing my ignorance.

Happy Listening! Come in here dear boy, have a cigar, your going to go far...

And when I would be a customer, who has money but no idea, I would agree.

I think a read of Syntax's System would reveal the veracity of this statement?

But to be fair, only new products makes the money go round.

Are we not talking about the NEW Phantom compared the OLD Phantom?
Methinks his confusion overwhelms him?

What make Syntax' comments more worthwhile and valuable than most (.... not all...) others?

First he has absolutely no financial interests in promoting either component and has tried most in discussion here in his home system.
Furthermore - as I do know him quite well and will visit him again tomorrow - he tries to make as little compromise as possible and does judge any component (and through his hands and system went a hell of a lot of components with really serious price tags the past years...) by its performance only and not by hype, fellowship or price tag.

Honestly - this alone is rarely seen.

Add to this an open mind which includes and shows some affection for logical chains, conclusions and enough stamina to make a stand against any crowd.

On the negative side he has quite a vein for teasing lesser minds and making harsh statements.
And he has some friends around which are even worse .......... one being me.

But then - no one of us is really perfect..........

BTW - Syntax is certainly no Troll. I have seen 2 Trolls in 1986 in the very northern part of Finlandia (close to Kilpisjärvi - permafrost area). They do behave different....

Maybe it would be a bit smarter to take some of Syntax's comments more serious and not seeing an instant insult in any of his posts.
He is much more serious than most of you imagine.

In general (.... I like this phrase...) a good TT should indeed be a good TT independent of the particular tonearm mounted.
In other words - the TT has to spin the record and should provide a stable base for the tonearm to be mounted.
If a TT designer chooses to built his entire design on a theoretical base which sees from the start problems with certain tonearm bearings, it is of course his choice.
I for one believe in designs, which are independent in their display of quality from certain design features of associated components which - first in line - do not have anything to do with the pure physical function of the TT itself.
There are similar demands in many respects to a high-class TT and the base of an electron microscope - both do deal with an isolation from outside vibration and both do need to supply most stable and continuos foundation for the performance of components mounted on them (cart/tonearm on one and electron-microscope on the other).
Yes, I know - the base of the microscope doesn't revolve with 33 1/3 rpm.....
Anyway - I guess this is a common place and something everyone (.... even if a general agreement might well be impossible in Audio society ...) can agree upon.
A TT trying to meet the pure mechanical demands resulting from the real world requirements to give the stylus the chance to extract each and every detail from the groove will always have some certain features.
It will be immensely heavy, suspended on below 1 hz frequency, sport a platter with relatively high mass (30 lbs ++) and thus can't come cheap.
Please note that I have not mentioned any bearing type or drive to be preferred.
These are pure mechanical requirements which do result direct out of the physical mass and the special behavior of the stylus and the record.

Back to the initial quest.
The Graham Phantom II is an extremely well designed tonearm.
While I am certainly not an admirer of unipivot tonearms, I have high regards for the Graham Phantom II.
An excellent basic design which features now many clever details which do further add to the excellent sonic performance and does so with a wide bandwidth of cartridges.

If I would today look for a new tonearm it would be one of my prime choices.