 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
218.89.36.220
Which is better to use with Platine Verdier?
Follow Ups:
I have no idea which is a better arm on a Verdier. But, I do know a
Verdier dealer that likes the Morch arm, particularly the 12" arm, and has put that combination into some very, very expensive setups. I have spoken to the distributor of yet another arm who was doing a replacement of the Morch arm on a Verdier table and he actually had nice things to say about Morch, particularly at its price points.I use to have a Graham arm, the 1.8t, and it was quite a nice arm and oh so easy to set up.
I own a Platine Verdier and an Ikeda IT 407 with an Ortofon Jubilee. Do have a Koetsu and that is where the itch coming from; thinking of finding a second arm for the Koetsu Rosewood. Not in a hurry but certainly an itch. Thinking of getting a unipivot (or bipivot) for a change.Thanks for all the responses and I guess may be the best way is to see which comes up first. Let destiny make the choice. Would be nice if someone has a chrome 12" DP6 for sale.
I concur with Fretless' observations. Grahams are a paragon of machine design and ergonomics while sounding superb albeit in an unobstrusive, almost self-effacing, cool and composed manner that takes your attention off the arm. The DP6 otoh is like fragile and dainty jewelry, a little bit harder to setup compared to the typical arm - albeit not as fussy as the UP4 of course. It may not be as tonally neutral and smooth as the grahams but it is a better communicator of the music's dynamic expression for playback of emotionally charged music - especially lively "fun" music. Listening to Louis Armstrong thru the grahams one appreciates the lovely texture and timbre of his trumpet while thru the Morch, one appreciates his flashy and expressive playing instead. Either rendition is a winner but one way is better than the other if you know your taste and preferences.
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it's super easy to set up and its price on the used equipment market has become something of a bargain now that it's been replaced by the Phantom.As for the claims that it's a little bass-shy and analytical, this characteristic is no doubt system-dependent to a large degree, but I would like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.
Best regards,
Ken J.
... 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.
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...travis
It's called holographic mylar streamer. Fairly popular among the tape drive crowd.-Steve
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
It's a very well made tonearm. Every piece is machined without evidence of flaw. Largely it is made of anodized machined aluminum parts tightly fitting/fastened together. The impression given is that no expense was spared to achieve Bob Grahams' design vision. Very well executed. A masterpiece of the machinist's art. Trick eye candy.BTW if you get one of these you also need to acquire the phono cable which can get very expensive when you go top of the line.
Interchangeable armwands but I suspect there is only one weight available.
I like Fretless' comments on the comparison between 2.2 and DP-6. I suspect he nails it.
My example of the 2.2 was a substantial upgrade over my previous arm. Delivers the details galore. Mass strings well described would be one attribute of the arm. It gets into the inner details of the recording very nicely. But I sometimes think it also deletes some desireable parts of the music. That emotional edge that can raise your back neck hairs, is a bit more subdued, more refined, less emotional...! It made me aware of my cartridge's shortcomings more-so than before. So I found a different cartridge which seems to compliment the arm much more agreeably. One change leads to another. Such is life.
BTW the previous arm is/was one of the Express Machinings fully modded RB250. Naturally the Graham is an upgrade over this. My comments don't address your query about the comparison between the 2.2 and DP-6. Sorry if this appears as a waste of bandwidth. it might be worth noting that folks owning various Teres turntable models tend to prefer the DP-6 over the Graham. Also worth noting is the price of either. The 2.2 when new sells at a higher price than does the DP-6. It probably costs more to build. All that intricate machining. However the 2nd hand price on these now out-dated arms is something else to be considered. If you can get one cheap enough that might change the way we look at it.
Hope some of that is useful.
-Steve
I've never heard a Platine Verdier, but I've spent many hours listening to both a DP-6 (8g yellow-dot standard 9" wand) and a 2.2 (12g[?] ceramic wand) with a Lyra Helicon SL on a friend's well-setup Michell Orbe, though not during the same listening sessions, so break out a few salt grains.I found the Graham somewhat more detailed, analytical, airy, tightly controlled, perhaps a little too dry and "hifi," and comparatively lightweight sounding (though one could argue that these are Helicon attributes), while the Morch seemed more "organic," flowing, colorful, robust, and emotionally connective. Both were very dynamic and did the usual audiophile spacial tricks quite well, but the DP-6 produced a better illusion of layering and depth. The Graham might be more "neutral," but the Morch strikes me as much more musical and natural sounding.
I think I could live with either arm, but for my tastes, the DP-6 was more involving: The Graham made me more aware of the recording and system idiosyncrasies, both good and bad, while the Morch tended to pull my attention more directly into what the musicians were trying to communicate. My friend came to the same conclusion and the Graham has been mothballed since the Morch arrived. FWIW, the Orbe originally had an SME V, but both of us found it too lean on top, too lumpy on the bottom, and kind of emotionally detached and mechanical sounding.
The Graham is a lot less tweaky and very user friendly, while the completely uncalibrated Morch requires a bit of a learning curve to get everything dialed-in the first time around, though I wouldn't let that worry you; my UP-4 is even more quirky and I had it up and running in short order with nary a curse or tantrum : ). If you go with the Morch, a Wally Tractor is highly recommended.
The Morch's four interchangeable armwands (available with either copper or teflon-coated silver wire) allow you to vary the effective mass from around 4g up to around 13g, and it comes with an assortment of mix-and-match counterweights, so it's probably the most versatile arm out there in terms of ideal matching across a wide range of cartridges.
Both arms are beautifully finished and solidly constructed; the Graham is a bit more sturdy and camera-like, while the Morch is comparatively delicate and elegant.
Good luck.
q
.
q
Aren't you glad you asked? Look at the responses from all of the experts here. Unless you are inquiring about old Thorens turntables, Denon 103 cartridges, the VPI Scout/arm, cheap Technics turntables, or an endless series of tweeks that in the execution rob you of listening time, you're not likely to get much help, especially if your question involves a product priced under several hundred dollars. But then we all know by now, don't we, that anything above that price level is a complete waste of money.
Neither Garth, nor I, gave an opinion. What we were trying to do was counter those who generate the very complaints that you have about content here. It is true that the endless posts about low-end equipment and unqualified comments about one thing, or the other, have masked any posts that involve what is considered to be high-end audio, but he did get at least one qualified opinion that was based on personal experience. I suppose that is worth something.
You didn't answer either.The question although perhaps innocent enough was not really very meaningful.
So what's better Ford or Chevy?
Coors or Budweiser?
Graham or Mørch.
I have met and talked with both men and Mørch is a good bit taller than Graham.
I didn't answer because, although I use-and love-a Moerch UP-4, I've never seen or heard a Graham in use and therefore am unqualified to offer an opinion. My comment was directed more at the bickering that broke out.
You are right, of course, but I read into the question that he was perhaps looking for a preference sort of answer. If, for example, twenty people came forward who had heard the Graham, and fifteen said that it seemed to present music in a bright way, he would have some feeling about the tonearm. That information coupled with similar kinds of information on the Mørch might be helpful to him when making his decision.Maybe it's a stretch, but that's how I saw it.
I've owned a Graham 1.5, 1.5 t, 1.5t/c, 2.0 basic, 2.0 deluxe and 2.2.I've never touched a Mørch.
What could I possibly say that would be helpful? The Mørch looks gawdy or is it gaudy? :-)
And then "better"?
I suppose you could offer an opinion as to your experience with those tonearms. Maybe he could find others to confirm those opinions. Then, he may be able to find some opinions on the Mørch. In the end, he would have a bunch of opinions. They might be useful when combined, but still, they would be only opinions. I see your point.
I don't have any experience with the Graham, but I have heard the 12" DP-6 on a Platine Verdier a number of times at my dealer's, paired with a variety of cartridges. This is a definitely a good combination and provides a flexible match to many cartridges.I have used a 12" DP-6 on a Galibier Gavia for the past couple years, and have been very pleased.
drink them out of a glass.
FWIW, I have a friend that upgraded from a 2.2 to a 12" DP-6 Precision. He has a TNTI have a DP-6 (not precision) but I have not mounted it yet.
cheers,
Close to the Edge, down by the river....
-Ray
"I have a friend that upgraded from a 2.2 to a 12" DP-6 Precision"Hey, me too (except for the 12" precision wand and the clunky ol' TNT, heh heh)...that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt: The Morch triumphs over the Graham! ; )
When are you going to get yours up and running already?
I don't have the patience to DIY another TNT armboard. Working with Glass-filled acrylic is a bitch.
So it will get installed once "Project Oye" is up and running.Hopefully in a month or so :-)
Close to the Edge, down by the river....
-Ray
nt
there are "jazz" tonearms and "classic" tonearms and "rock'n'roll" tonearms and on and on?So now I have to change the tonearm everytime I listen to a different type of music? This is going to get expensive and time consuming.
Agreed. We get this all the time, however. It is like the person asking owns both tonearms along with every other piece of equipment made. I own neither tonearm, so I can't voice an opinion. I would say, however, that it is possible, or even likely, that the original poster is looking for some qualified impressions of what characteristics each tonearm exhibits. It seems like a fair question to me, and not one that would require a grocery list of other equipment and preferences.
What if he's asking about speakers but doesn't tell you that he has a .75 watt 45 SET amp? More info about his system the better.
People who have Platine Verdier turntables have good other equipment. It is a no-brainer. It is also a given that he is using a nice cartridge. Do you own either tonearm or a Platine Verdier? If not, how can you possibly give any opinion that remotely resembles a qualified one? You can't.That said, one could state an opinion that he has gathered from listening to the pieces, or he could relay subjective information that he may have read elsewhere. If that is the case, it should be pointed out, however.
That's my 2¢ on the subject.
Knowing what he listens to is helpful with cartridge choices. That leads to tonearm recomendations. Knowing the whole system and type of room it's in is better still.I never said that I was qualified to discuss either arm. I only asked the poster to provide more information so that anyone could help. Other than my question all other posts are nothing but wise-cracks.
You said "It's a no brainer" because his TT is expensive. OK. Then just tell the guy that the more expensive arm is the one he should buy. You already know the rest of his system is "good".
I just saying that he is more qualified to ask the question than you are to nitpick it.
What did I nitpik? Why is it better not to know anything about the guys system? And ONE MORE TIME...I never said that I would provide the answer to the guys question. And what have you and Garth done so far to help? Zip..zero..nada..
First, I don't know what a tred is. (How's that for nitpicking?) Second, I apologize for spamming the original poster's thread. All I was trying to do was get you to stop spamming threads with inane nitpicking and unqualified opinions. You and a few others know how to spam up a board. That's for sure.
And you can tell him that as a result of your vast experience with these two tonearms...assuming you have one of those "nice" cartridges too.
asking about the price of coal and you are booked on the next space shuttle flight.
What's your problem today?
nt
.
Arm recommendations usually are more helpful if they're paired with a recommended cartridge.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]