|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.71.59.95
In Reply to: Which is a better arm, Graham 2.2 or Morch DP 6? posted by Sea Monster on September 17, 2006 at 08:41:15:
I've never heard a Moerch, but I've owned a Graham 2.2 for several years, and I agree with the other comments in this thread saying it's super easy to set up and its price on the used equipment market has become something of a bargain now that it's been replaced by the Phantom.As for the claims that it's a little bass-shy and analytical, this characteristic is no doubt system-dependent to a large degree, but I would like to point out something that I don't think has been mentioned too often regarding this arm.
Specifically, many (if not all) of them were shipped with a bolt-on addition to the stock counterweight to accommodate heavier cartridges. From what I'd heard in the past from many tonearm manufacturers and aftermarket tweakers, I'd always believed that it was preferable to use a heavier counterweight if possible, in order to get it closer to the pivot and reduce the tonearm's moment of inertia (and consequently reduce its effective mass).
Thus, when I first installed the Graham, I used the extra weight with my MC cartridge (a Transfiguration Spirit LOMC at the time) just because I could, and listened to it that way for at least a year. Compared to my previous tonearm (a Rega RB600), the Graham was a vast improvement, so I never suspected that the heavier counterweight might not be giving me the best performance possible from that arm/cartridge combination.
However, I later went through a period when I was comparing several different cartridges of various weights and compliances, and I removed the counterweight addition at one point, to accommodate a lighter MM cartridge. When switching back to the Spirit MC, I left if off out of sheer laziness. To my surprise (at the time), it sounded far better with the lighter counterweight sitting farther away from the pivot. Not only was the bass deeper and tighter, the tracking was also superior in the upper mids (especially in the sibilance region) and highs.
Of course, I now realize that the lighter counterweight, farther from the pivot point, slightly increased the effective mass of the tonearm, as compared to the heavier counterweight, closer to the pivot, which decreased it. And since the effective mass of the Graham 2.2 isn't that high in the first place (11.5 g, if I recall correctly), it's not such a good idea, when using typical MC cartridges, to reduce it further by increasing the mass of the counterweight. This is because most MC cartridges, at least when compared to MMs and MIs, have relatively low compliance, and therefore benefit from being installed in tonearms with higher effective mass.
No doubt this post will be pushed into obscurity by all the "What's Spinning," "Pic of the Day," and "Look What I Found in the Dumpster This Week" posts before anyone has a chance to read it, but perhaps it will help future VA archive searchers trying to decide whether or not to buy a used Graham 2.2.
Follow Ups:
... thanks on behalf of all potential future users of the Graham 2.2 (myself included). I think that comment might apply for a lot of arms out there...[in addition, I just wanted to do my part in keeping this thread closer to the top of the e-threads page :^)]
Yes, my experience follows yours in that when first confronted with the arm I chose to use the add-on to the counterweight as a means to reduce effective mass simply because the user manual recommended it "when possible". Later I tried the same cartridge without the added counterweight. In this case the difference heard was slight but I did prefer it without the add-on. Now, with a different heavier cartridge (Jubilee) the add-on weight becomes a necessity just to balance the arm.Btw this is one of the easiest, most convenient arms to set up that I've had the pleasure to use.
I've yet to experiment with different damping fluid levels. I simply injected the recommended amount. I guess I've been more interested in listening to the music than tweaking with the hardware of late. That should say something.
Some describe the sound of the 2.2 as analytical and lacking in emotion. I think people who say this over-state things a bit. I find the sound off this arm to be very musical in a way that can really draw me in. Lush in the inner details. Explosive in the dynamics. Rhythmic drive. Total immersion. In truth I've been putting off writing a review about the Jubilee cartridge I'm using now simply because every time I play an Lp I'm just more interested in enjoying the music rather than trying to analyze the sound of it. Or maybe it might be the ADD getting the upper hand....... again. Who knows.
Bass shy? No way. I heard an increase in bass authority when I installed this arm. I think it was the early iterations of the Graham arm that suffered that criticism. And even then it was arguable. Or perhaps if one makes a comparison between the now obsolete 2.2 versus its successor, the Phantom. But who cares! The 2.2 makes a very lovely 2nd-hand tonearm for budget-conscious audiophools such as me. However if someone else chooses to go with the DP-6 fitted with a 12 inch armwand, it's cool...;-)
-Steve
> Some describe the sound of the 2.2 as analytical and lacking in emotion. I think people who say this over-state things a bit. I find the sound off this arm to be very musical in a way that can really draw me in.Same here. But I think it can take a step or two towards a more clinical/analytical sound if one uses the counterweight add-on when it is not needed--and, as Paul mentions, if the damping fluid level is not optimized for the cartridge.
> Bass shy? No way. I heard an increase in bass authority when I installed this arm. I think it was the early iterations of the Graham arm that suffered that criticism. And even then it was arguable. Or perhaps if one makes a comparison between the now obsolete 2.2 versus its successor, the Phantom.
Or if one compares it to something like an SME V, which is considered by many to have a little too much of a good thing in the bass department (at least on certain turntables).
> But who cares! The 2.2 makes a very lovely 2nd-hand tonearm for budget-conscious audiophools such as me.
Can't argue with you there. I bought mine when it was still in production and commanding prices close to full list, but I still feel it was worth every penny.
Ken J may well be right with his general observations about the heavier counterweight - but the lower effective mass probably suits the Ortofon Jubilee better as it's compliance is a bit higher than the norm at 16cu.
Certainly both the vertical and horizontal resonances are about ideal - in the 10-12hz range.The Jubilee sure is a terrific sounding cartridge Steve - and sounds superb in the Graham.....open, alive, dynamic, superbly defined with a robust realism to the sound. Absolute super tracker too. I've gotta get around to writing a review myself!
I like to have my arm damping set a bit below half-way on the dipstick. There seems to be a particular spot where it sounds just right in my setup. I suspect people who claim the Graham is too sterile, may well have heard the arm used with excessive damping at the pivot.
Also, I don't think the Graham was designed to 'juice up' the sound - rather to try and deliver what's on the record. It certainly sounds ultra expressive with the Jubilee....or the Denon 103R for that matter.
System Details
> Ken J may well be right with his general observations about the heavier counterweight - but the lower effective mass probably suits the Ortofon Jubilee better as it's compliance is a bit higher than the norm at 16cu.
Certainly both the vertical and horizontal resonances are about ideal - in the 10-12hz range.I only meant that one should not automatically use the heavier counterweight just because one can. With heavier cartridges like your Jubilee, you don't have a choice. OTOH, the heavier cart increases the effective mass of the arm, so decreasing it slightly by using the heavier counterweight is probably a good thing.
> I like to have my arm damping set a bit below half-way on the dipstick. There seems to be a particular spot where it sounds just right in my setup. I suspect people who claim the Graham is too sterile, may well have heard the arm used with excessive damping at the pivot.
Good point. I've played around with the damping fluid level quite a bit myself, and have found that it can really make a significant difference to the sound of a given cartridge. IMO, my OC9 ML II and Spirit MCs need a bit more damping to sound their best (2/3 to 3/4 up the "dipstick"), while the Shure V15 VMR and VxMR sound very closed-in and unexciting until most of the fluid is removed (i.e., maybe 1 or 2 mm showing on the "dipstick").
Ken J.
looks like pearlescent mylar, if there is such a thing...
It's called holographic mylar streamer. Fairly popular among the tape drive crowd.
how wide it is (gotta check against my motor spindle) and could you let me know where I would go to look for some? I expect to have my tape drive TT set up again in abt 6wks and I am looking to put all the pieces together... thanks, travis
It is slightly wider than the specified 1/2 inch. Closer to 9/16. Link below to the source that I know of. I think this establishment is getting some steady business from the Teres, Galibier, Redpoint owners.-Steve
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: