In Search Of The Final Tonearm
Roger S. Gordon & Panel

Let The Quest Begin!

It is the best of times — it is the worst of times for analogue lovers. Cartridges, tone arms, turntables, and phono stages have reached a level of performance that was only dreamed of twenty years ago. The quality and quantity of new and reissued vinyl available is overwhelming. And yet in this seemingly wonderful vinyl world, it is difficult to make purchase decisions concerning analogue hardware. While vinyl records and analogue hardware are actively traded, the market is very thin. Many high end audio stores no longer carry analogue equipment. And the stores that do carry analogue equipment usually only carry a few different lines. Thus, it is hard to listen to several different cartridges or several different turntables before making a purchase decision. I live in the ninth largest metropolitan statistical area in the USA. In that area there are only three retail stores that carry analogue equipment and between those three stores they only sell two of the four tone arms reviewed in this article. Conversations with other audiophiles around the country indicated that this scarcity of analogue equipment is fairly common.

This article, and hopefully, a following one on external phono stages is an attempt to provide you with listening comparisons that you might not be able to do on your own.

Now, you might ask, why are there only four tone arms included in this review? There are quite a few more tone arms sold in the USA than just four. Well, the criteria for inclusion in the review were as follows:

1) The tone arms had to be of sufficient quality to interest an audiophile wishing to buy that ‘one last tone arm’.

2) The tone arms could not be too expensive (though the tone arms covered here range in price from $2,000 to $3,550 — not what you would consider cheap, but definitely not the most expensive tone arms available).

3) A significant number of the tone arms had to be sold separate from the manufacturer’s turntable; i.e. you rarely see a Linn tone arm except on a Linn turntable. 4) The tone arm had to have reasonable distribution; i.e. an active distributor and at least five dealers in the USA. Believe it or not, to the best of our knowledge, only five tone arms satisfied these criteria. The one tone arm of these five that is not included in this review was the new VPI JMW Memorial Tone Arm. That arm is in extremely short supply, and we could not get a review sample in time for this article.

In doing equipment reviews you want to keep the number of variables as low as possible — one being the preferred number of variables. By only varying one component at a time it should be easier to isolate the sound of that particular component. Of course, at some time during the review you would like to try the component in different systems in different listening environments to see if there are any compatibility problems with the component or any beneficial synergies.

When this article was in the initial planning stage it was originally intended that there would be two VPI TNT Mk III turntables with identical cartridges set up side by side playing identical pressings. By swapping the interconnects back and forth it would be easy to do A/B comparisons between the different tone arms. The logistics of setting everything up necessitated that this be more than just a one person project. Several friends, who are also members of the San Diego Music and Audio Guild, offered to help with this review (see sidebar on the Positive Feedback Listening Panel).

As the project got further along, however, it became impossible to get all the tone arms in one place for an extended period of time. In fact for a while it looked like we might have to scratch the whole review. However, with perseverance and help from senior editor Brian Hartsell we were able to get four tone arms for a six week period (which was later extended another month). Because of the short time deadlines and the fact that we had to make arm boards for the arms, the idea of using two TNT turntables was abandoned and the much simpler plan of using my VPI Mk. IV turntable for all listening was adopted. This change meant that fewer bodies were needed to handle the logistics. However, the idea of multiple listeners recording their observations (A Listening Panel) made a lot of sense. I had used a listening panel before to evaluate the differences (old vinyl formula versus new, 45 rpm versus 33 1/3 rpm) between the Classic Records test pressings that I had brought back from the 1996 CES in Las Vegas. I was struck by the fact that the listeners noted different things on each playing. By discussing these sounds we could all eventually hear them on replayings. From these discussions — replay — discuss — replay we could usually arrive at a consensus opinion. Had I just been listening to these recordings by myself I would have missed a number of salient points. If the old adage about two heads being better than one is true, then three or four pairs of audiophile ears are better than one pair. Thus, I decided to use a form of listening panel.

Since having four pairs of ears present at the listening sessions was cumbersome — there was only one chair in the sweet spot — the members of the listening panel came to my house one at a time. They sat in the sweet spot and I sat on the sofa recording their observations as they played the LPs that they had brought with them (See sidebar that contains a diagram of my listening room). My system sounded very different from theirs. However, using LPs that they knew well, the listeners were able to discern differences as I swapped the different tone arms into the system. After each listener was through listening to all four tone arms with their own LPs, I would mention to them the comments of the previous listeners. This usually lead to a discussion and the replaying of certain LPs paying particular attention to certain sounds. This follow-up discussion and listening I found particularly illuminating. Based on the positive experiences that I have had with two listening panels, I would highly recommend the listening panel approach to all equipment reviewers.

The ET tone arm has been around for many years and has gone through numerous upgrades to arrive at its current 2.5 configuration. The arm is a linear tracking, air bearing tone arm. Much has been written over the years about the theoretical superiority of the linear tracking arms versus the pivoted arms. The linear tracking arms, because they move in a straight line (they are not turning on a pivot), always keep the cartridge/headshell tangent to the record groove. The cartridge/headshells of pivoted arms are approximately tangent to the grooves as they traverse an arc across the record. However, they are never precisely tangent as with a linear tracking arm. On a theoretical basis, the linear tracking arms should be more accurate. In the real world, the debate goes on.

The central feature on most linear tracking arms is the air bearing. On the ET 2.5 a high pressure (20psi), low air flow WISA air pump supplies high pressure air to a cylindrical manifold in which is inserted the arm bearing tube. Air flowing from holes drilled in the manifold cause a cushion of air to build up between the manifold and the bearing tube. The bearing tube is thus completely supported on a cushion of air. Due to the air escaping from the bearing, the air pressure in the bearing is only about 7 1/2 psi. However, since the rigidity of the bearing goes up by the square of the air pressure, the bearing is quite rigid.

The tone arm that was supplied for review was the $2,000 version which includes the high pressure manifold, the WISA high pressure air pump, surge tank, and the latest magnesium arm wand, the Mg II.1 The tone arm supplied did not come with the optional damper trough. Since the damper trough does make a noticeable difference in sound quality, I did not use the review sample, but instead used my own ET tone arm. My tone arm started life as a ET 2.0 and has been upgraded to the current 2.5 version. Thus, for this review the ET 2.5 utilizes the WISA high pressure air pump, my home-built surge tank, and the build-it-yourself air pressure regulator reviewed in PF Vol. 5, No. 5. The arm wiring was the standard three section configuration with the first section from the cartridge to the connector at the end of the arm wand, the second section from the arm wand end of the bearing to the terminal block, and the third section being user supplied interconnects from the terminal block to the preamp. As an upgrade option, ET can supply the arm wire as either two section (cartridge to terminal block to preamp) or one section (cartridge to preamp). Either of these options obviously make switching arm wands a difficult task. However, unless you like to switch back and forth between cartridges of different compliance this should not be a problem.

The Graham 1.5t is a unipivot arm — which is sort of like saying that Miss Universe is a woman — a true statement, but one that does not really describe the situation. From a fundamental design standpoint, the 1.5t is a very conventional unipivot arm. However, what sets this arm apart from other unipivots is the unique execution. The designer, Bob Graham, set out to design an arm that not only sounded good, but which was also easy to set up. He succeeded admirably.

As far as ease of use is concerned, the 1.5t is in a class by itself. With the simple jigs and tools supplied setting up and precisely aligning the arm and cartridge is a snap. The interchangeable arm wands (aluminum, titanium, or ceramic) insert into the arm base and are locked into place with a threaded nut. Overhang is adjusted by dropping a hard plastic nipple over the turntable spindle. Turning a threaded screw at the bottom of the arm base moves the base closer or further away from the spindle. The correct overhang (distance from arm base to spindle) is achieved when a hole drilled in the headshell (which is an integral part of the arm wand) drops over the tip of the nipple. The tip of the nipple and the hole in the headshell are machined to a very close tolerance. Thus, the overhang has to be set precisely before the hole in the headshell will mate with the tip of the nipple. Once the overhang is set the arm wand is detached from the arm base and the cartridge loosely attached to the headshell. The head shell/arm wand is placed with the bottom side of the headshell face up in the base of an L shaped jig. Two precision machined pegs protruding from the jig match with two holes in the head shell to precisely lock the headshell to the jig. A clear plastic flap flips over onto the headshell and rests on the cartridge needle (with a force on the needle of approximately 1.5 grams). Etched in the plastic are lines that indicate where the needle should be centered. There are also parallel lines between which the cantilever should be centered. With reference to the lines it is possible to quickly position the needle in the headshell so that the overhang is precise and to also align the cantilever parallel to the headshell and in the middle of the headshell (many cantilevers are mounted a few degrees off of parallel to the sides of the cartridge body). After tightening the cartridge screws, the arm wand is then inserted into the arm base. Overhang and cartridge alignment are now completed. Adjust the tracking force, azimuth, and VTA, all very simple tasks, and you are ready to listen to music. Nothing could be easier. This setup procedure, which takes less than ten minutes on the 1.5t took considerably longer with the other arms. In fact, finding the precise position of the cartridge within the headshell can take hours of listening — adjusting — listening, ad infinitum. 2

The Graham 1.5t reviewed is the latest version with the ceramic arm wand and tungsten weights ($3,000). The cable from the tone arm to the preamp was the optional $550 Graham silver cable. For comparison purposes we also listened to the titanium arm wand (the ceramic arm wand is a $800 upgrade from the titanium arm wand) and to a generic 5 pin DIN tone arm to preamp cable ($15).

The Wheaton Tri-planar IVi is the latest version of this dual pivot arm. The primary difference in the IVi over the IV is the use of Discovery wire instead of Cardas wire. The sample that I received was a pre-production tone arm. The production IVi is going to have certain parts anodized in an attempt to improve the looks of the arm. This is in response to criticisms that previous Tri-Planars have been too utilitarian in appearance. Since I am more concerned with sound than looks, the lack of anodizing did not bother me. The arm comes with a captive cable that connects directly to the preamp.

At first glance the Tri-Planar looks like a very complicated and fussy arm. The arm is complicated, with many little parts. However, once you get to know how the arm works, you realize that each of those little parts is necessary. If the Graham 1.5t is a statement in design simplicity, the Tri-Planar is a statement of solid engineering. Each of the known problems of tone arm design has been addressed in a well engineered solution.

Because everything is designed to be adjustable, the arm is the ultimate tweaker’s arm. For example, those of you that like to set the Vertical Tracking Angle (VTA) for each of your records, the Tri-Planar is the tone arm for you. With a large knurled knob and an easy to read gauge, you can easily set the VTA precisely to any predetermined position. Azimuth can also be set to predetermined positions.

The Wilson-Benesch tone arm is a new arrival, coming to us from England. The one piece headshell/arm tube is constructed of pre-preg, resin-injected, triple layer woven carbon fiber. The arm tube has a tapered (sub hyperbolic) shape to minimize resonances. Inside the hollow arm are three baffles to dampen longitudinal waves within the tone arm. If you tap the arm, you realize that this is one dead arm. The arm is a unipivot, but it is unlike all previous unipivots. All previous unipivots had a bearing coming up from below to support the arm. In the Wilson-Benesch the bearing is attached to the arm and is pointed downward. The bearing rests in the middle of the intersection of three other bearings held in a triangle formation in a ball race. Thus, the main bearing is in contact with and held in position by the three bearings. With three points bearing the weight of the tone arm, the wear on the bearing surface is less. In addition, the position of the bearing is more secure. Like other unipivots, the lateral weights are slung below the pivot point, thus making for a stable pivot. The arm comes with a detachable five pin DIN cable that connects the arm directly to the preamp.

Unlike the other four tone arms in this review the Vertical Tracking Angle (VTA) of the Wilson-Benesch can not be adjusted during play. To adjust the VTA you have to hold the arm with one hand while you unscrew an Allen bolt on the collar. With the bolt loosened you can raise or lower the arm by hand using your eyeball as a gauge. This is a very primitive method that makes making small adjustments difficult. It is also impossible to reset the VTA with any precision. I discussed this problem with the US distributor, Brian Tucker of Pro Audio. Brian said that he had mentioned the lack of VTA to the designers. There is discussion of another, more expensive, arm that would include VTA adjustment while playing. However, for now what you get with the ACT II is a cardboard mat. You adjust your VTA to a thick 180 or 200 gram LP and then when you play a thin 100 — 110 gram LP you put the cardboard mat under the LP to act as a shim. Aarrggghhh! The ACT II is the current representative of a long line of wonderful British tone arms that have either totally lacked VTA adjustment or had primitive VTA adjustment. According to Brian Tucker, the British are just not as fanatical about set up as Americans are. Thus, the British manufacturers do not see the need for easy and precise VTA adjustment.

Despite what the British manufacturers think, proper setup of an analogue system is essential if you are going to get the best from your cartridge/arm/turntable. This point was brought home loud and clear during this review. As the tone arms arrived I familiarized myself with their operation, made arm boards for three of them, and learned how to quickly install cartridges in the arms and to install the arms on my VPI Mk IV turntable. After I was familiar with the arms and fairly proficient at swapping them in and out of my system, I had two audiophile friends come over, one at a time, with their favorite LPs to listen to the arms as I swapped them into the system. I then wrote down their comments, as well as my own, as they listened to their LPs played on each of the four tone arms.3 After this first round of listening I then spent time making small adjustments to each arm trying to alleviate some of the perceived problems revealed during the first listening sessions. Once I was through adjusting, one of my friends returned for further listening. When he arrived he had with him all of the alignment jigs that Graham supplies with their tone arms (he has a two year old Graham 1.5t). The Graham tone arm that I had received had arrived minus all of its alignment jigs, tools, and instructions. I had set up the Graham using the protractor and mirror that I used for setting up the other arms. After listening to a couple of records on the Graham tone arm as I had set it up, we then realigned it using the Graham jigs. Wow. On replaying the same LPs the difference was like night and day. There was more detail, a wider soundstage, and the instruments and vocalists now had fully formed, three dimensional bodies. The improvement was stunning. What had we changed that could cause such a difference? After retracing our alignment steps the only significant change that we had made was to the cartridge alignment. Using the Graham cartridge alignment jig revealed that the cantilever on my Benz Micro MC-3 cartridge ($1,750, now discontinued) was not parallel to the body. With the Graham jig I was able to twist the cartridge slightly in the headshell so that the cantilever was parallel to the sides of the headshell and precisely in the middle of the headshell. It was this small change that made that the huge difference in sound. After listening to a few more LPs, we removed the MC-3 cartridge and put in my friend’s Benz Micro Reference cartridge ($2,750). The Reference cantilever was again not parallel to the cartridge body. With the Graham jig, however, it was a relatively simple matter to align the cartridge with the cantilever parallel to the headshell sides and precisely in the middle of the headshell. After my friend left I put my ET 2.5 tone arm back into the system. I played the same LPs that we had just played on the Graham. I then started changing the cartridge alignment, trying to duplicate the slight skew of the cartridge vis a vis the headshell that had made such a difference on the Graham. After much time and a significant increase in my blood pressure, I got it right. The sound of the ET 2.5 snapped into focus just like the Graham had. Without the Graham jig to tell me what the problem was and how to correct it, I might never have been able to properly align the cartridge in the ET 2.5. Question? Is the Graham’s reputation as a superior tone arm attributable to the fact that it is so easy to precisely align the cartridge and thereby get the best out of the cartridge/tone arm combination? Or in other words, do people perceive the Graham as sounding better than other tone arms, not because the Graham tone arm is better, but because it is so easy to precisely set the tone arm/cartridge combination in their best alignment?

After learning how to adjust the cartridge on the ET 2.5 I proceeded to do the same with the Tri-Planar and the Wilson-Benesch arms. The adjusting of the cartridge alignment improved the sound of these two arms as well. Further attempts to find additional tweaks to improve the sound did not yield any significant sound improvements. Thus, we were ready to start the third and final phase of listening.

A summary of our collective observations after the third round of critical listening were as follows:

For whatever reason, some tone arms seem to reduce surface noise. The music appears out of a blacker background. The Wilson-Benesch had this quality which the others did not.

The Wilson-Benesch, Graham and Tri-Planar all threw wide — speaker to speaker — soundstages. On certain recordings, the Wilson-Benesch’s sound stage was noticeably wider than the other arms. The ET 2.5 had a noticeably narrower soundstage. However, the depth of the ET 2.5’s soundstage was far greater than that of the other arms.

The Wilson-Benesch and the Tri-Planar had the most effortless and free flowing sound. The Graham and ET tied for third.

On initial hearing the Wilson-Benesch arm appeared to be extracting incredible amounts of detail from each recording. We all heard things on our favorite albums that we had never heard before while using the Wilson-Benesch arm. However, a careful comparison of details heard with each of the tone arms revealed that the Wilson-Benesch arm was not extracting more information. What it appeared to be doing was damping out certain sounds/frequencies that allowed other sounds to become more prominent. The greater prominence of these sounds gave the impression of more detail. After careful listening and comparison of individual sounds on certain album tracks we concluded that the Tri-Planar was able to extract more information from the grooves than the other arms. The Graham was a close second.

This category encompasses tonal balance, three dimensionality, aura, and other qualities. But what this term really boils down to is "does the reproduced music sound like live music?" The Graham arm was number one in this category, but the other three tone arms were not far behind.4

These terms try to describe a subjective quality — does the music want to make you tap our feet — are you emotionally involved with the music or just listening to it? The ET 2.5 was the leader, with the Tri-Planar and the Graham tied for second.

This category looks at each arm from the standpoint of taking the arm out of the box, installing it on an arm board, installing a cartridge, adjusting overhang and azimuth, and setting initial VTA. The Graham is the easiest to set up. It comes with excellent directions and some nifty tools and jigs. The Wheaton Tri-Planar is also easy to set up. The precise way you can dial in azimuth is especially appreciated as is the fact that it is very easy to rotate the arm wand 180 degrees so that installing the cartridge and connecting the tiny wires is a snap.

This category considers how easy the tone arm is to use in playing records. If you are a "set it once and forget about it" person, all of these tone arms will be easy for you to live with. The only exception might be the Wilson-Benesch. The tone arm lift lever, whether moving the arm up or down, always moves the arm towards the rest position. This is fine if you are lifting the arm from the runout groove. However, there are times when I want to play an inner track on a record. To avoid dropping the arm onto the record and causing damage I like to position the needle directly above the start of the track with the arm held up by the lift lever. Once positioned I then lower the lift lever and let the mechanism slowly drop the needle onto the record. You cannot do this with the Wilson-Benesch.

If you adjust VTA before you play every record the Wheaton Tri-Planar is the easiest and the most precise. The ET 2.5 is a close second with the Graham not far behind.

Please note that while there are distinct differences between the sound of each of the tone arms, the difference between them is not earth shattering. Substituting my friend’s Benz Micro Reference cartridge in place of my Benz Micro MC-3 made a bigger change in the sound of my system than did switching between these four tone arms. With that caveat:

If there were any surprises in our collective opinions of these four tone arms, the ET 2.5 was the most pleasant surprise. Pre-listening discussions indicated that the panelists thought the Graham and Wheaton would end up closely tied for first place, with the ET 2.5 a distant third. Since no one had heard the Wilson-Benesch, no one had any idea of how it would place. Well, when the smoke had cleared and all the listening was done, the ET 2.5 still ended up in third place, but the sonic distance between it and the Graham and the Tri-Planar were very close. The shortcomings of the ET 2.5 in comparison with the other arms was that it did not extract the most detail from the records, the soundstage was not as wide as that thrown by the other arms, and the sound was not as smooth, as refined as the other arms. On the plus side, the ET 2.5 had the deepest soundstage by far. The ET 2.5 was also the arm that was the most fun to listen to — not the most accurate — but the most fun.

The Graham 1.5t got one of four votes as the best of the four tone arms (the one vote came from the panelist who owns a Graham). In its fully optioned configuration ($3,550) it gives an exciting, detailed sound. Its ease of set up is a model which all manufacturers should follow.

We also tried listening to the 1.5t in essentially its Model 1996 ($1996) configuration. This stripped down version omits the $800 ceramic arm wand, some of the setup tools, the tungsten arm weights, and the silver phono cable. The difference in sound between the standard and the ceramic arm wand is most noticeable in the midrange. With the standard arm wand, the sound has a slight coarseness to it. You would not notice it unless you compared it directly to the sound of the ceramic arm wand. In A-B comparisons, the midrange of the ceramic arm was silkier, smoother — more like live sound. Is the difference in sound worth $800? To my ears and pocketbook, no. Our panelist who owns a Graham, but not the ceramic arm wand, is probably going to upgrade. The difference between the $15 and $550 phono cable is more problematic. From the upper bass on up there is no comparison between the silver cable and the generic. However, in the mid and lower bass the $15 cable is the clear winner. The $15 cable has more bass, more dynamic bass, though not necessarily more tuneful bass. Rather than buy the $550 silver cable, I would experiment with different cables to see if I could find one that combines the bass of the $15 cable with the refinement of the $550.5

The Wheaton Tri-Planar IVi got three of the four votes as best of the four arms. The Tri-Planar sounds very much like the Graham. However, the Tri-Planar does reveal more detail than the Graham. In addition, the sound is slightly smoother than the Graham.

The Wilson-Benesch ACT 2 is a frustrating tone arm. Its designers are obviously on to something as the arm can sound incredibly good on certain records. On other records its magic disappears. As an example, one evening after the other panelists had gone home, I sat down to listen just for fun. The Wilson-Benesch arm was mounted on the turntable so I used it. I first played the entire Side one of Famous Blue Raincoat (rather than just track 2 that we had been listening to during the critical listening). The sound was wonderful. I then played all of side 2 of Watermark instead of just the first and second tracks that we had been listening to. Again the music was wonderful. I thought, I have just got to buy this tone arm. The music does not get any better than this. Then, without changing anything (other than removing the cardboard shim to adjust for VTA), I put on a third record, the Mobile Fidelity reissue of The Fantasy Film Music of Bernard Herrmann (Mobile Fidelity MFSL 1-240). The music was detailed, but boring. I fell asleep. Not believing that I could fall asleep listening to Herrmann’s exciting music I put on one of my favorite toe-tapper records, Respighi’s Ancient Airs and Dances. (Mercury Golden Imports SR75009)6 Again I was bored with the sound. After that I shut down the system and went to bed.

The next evening I tried everything I could to make the Herrmann and the Respighi come alive with the Wilson-Benesch. Adjusting VTA and cartridge alignment made small improvements, but these LPs just did not sound as alive/as involving as they did when played using the other tone arms. The Wilson-Benesch is an incredibly well damped arm. Is it possible that the arm is over damped.7 There have been comments in the audiophile press lately about using too many dampers (red rollers, marigo dots, room tunes, etc.) and sucking the vitality out of the music. Could this be the problem with the Wilson-Benesch? Too much damping?

The Wilson-Benesch is fresh, new, exciting approach to tone arm design. I urge anyone interested in tone arms to give it a listen. However, before you plunk your money down, do some A-B comparisons with another quality tone arm. Then draw your own conclusions.

The above comments ignored one key factor.

Money.

If these tone arms all cost the same amount of money, most of us would probably purchase a Wheaton Tri-Planar arm. I know I would. However, there is quite a range in price between these different arms: ET 2.5 $2,250 with WISA air pump, surge tank, damper trough, and self-constructed pressure regulator, Wilson-Benesch $2,695, Wheaton Tri-Planar $2,795, and Graham $3,550. Is the incremental improvement in sound quality of the Graham over the ET 2.5 worth an extra $1,300? In my view, no. However, one of our panelists not only says yes, but put his money where his mouth is by trading in his ET arm for a Graham 1.5t two years ago.

For myself, it does not appear that the cost of replacing my ET 2.5 tone arm with a Wheaton Tri-Planar would be justified by the incremental improvement in sound quality. Thus, I am going to concentrate my efforts on external phonostages and cartridges. Perhaps, these will yield a bigger bang for the buck.

So where does this leave you, the reader? Well, if you are looking to buy that one last tone arm you need to consider price and which qualities are important to you; i.e. depth, detail, musicality, ease of use, etc. Once you have done that, you may as well take the plunge and buy one of these arms. They are all good and none of them will disappoint you.8

1 My review of the previous version of the magnesium arm wand, the Mg I, appeared in Positive Feedback Vol. 5, No. 5. Mg II is a much heavier arm wand than its predecessor by 10-15 grams. The Mg II arm wand’s center of gravity is also located much closer to the bearing. In separate listening tests I found the effect of the greater mass of the Mg II to be a subtle, but clearly discernible improvement in dynamic, low frequency passages. The high mass of the Mg II means that it can only be used with low compliance cartridges that need a massive tone arm.

2 In a telephone conversation with Bruce Thigpen of Eminent Technology I asked why he did not make a cartridge alignment jig similar to the Graham jig. Bruce said that he admired the engineering behind the jig. However, getting the cantilever precisely centered and parallel to the headshell may not be the best position because sometimes the cartridge motor is not mounted parallel to the sides. In addition, he has found through listening tests that perfectly positioning the cartridge at the mathematically correct point does not always give the best sound. He says, based on his experience, the only way to the get the best sound from a cartridge is the old trial and error method of listen and adjust, listen and adjust.

3 What amazed me was that the four of us were all concerned with different aspects of the sound. None of us heard the tone arms in the same way. Actually, this should not be surprising. Human hearing differs substantially from individual to individual. In addition, the various aspects of recorded sound have differing importance to different individuals. I learned a lot from hearing my friends’ comments.

4 One of the reasons the panelists liked the sound of the Graham was that the leading transients on cymbals, triangles and other high midrange/lower high range sounds were very sharp and clear. There was a clear difference in the leading edge sound of the Graham versus the other arms. I also noticed that female vocalists seemed a little more forward on the soundstage than the other tone arms. Is the Graham more accurate on the leading transients or does the Graham have an upper midrange resonance that adds a euphonic sizzle to leading edge transients? An interesting question to which I do not have an answer. My suspicion, though, is that there is a resonance.

5 Making your own phono cable would not be prohibitively expensive or that difficult. A while back I priced out the cost of making a 12 meter cartridge to preamp cable using Van den Hul mono crystal silver wire with premium connectors and the cost was about $220.

6 I have the original Mercury SR90199 in an FR-1/FR-1 pressing. I find the sound of the original to be a little too bright for my taste. Thus, I listen to the Golden Imports reissue which is warmer and darker if not as detailed.

7 My review notes on the Wilson-Benesch note the following:

1) On the Alexander Nevsky performance, the sound of the hall using the Wilson-Benesch tone arm was noticeably less than when using the other three arms. Note that the feeling of being in a hall was not less, just the perception of the loudness of the reflected hall sound.

2) On the Enya: Evening Falls track the lyrics were clearer — more distinct — than with any of the other tone arms. With the Wilson-Benesch you could hear every single word because the background sound did not obscure the words as it did in certain places on the track when the other tone arms were used.

3) On Enya: Orinoco Flow there is a lot of reverb and other artificial phasing added to the recording. At certain places the Wilson-Benesch’s soundstage expanded beyond the outer edges of the speakers. The soundstage never expanded beyond the speakers using the other tone arms.

4) On Jennifer Warnes’ Bird on a Wire her voice just hung out in space with the accompaniment and backup group further behind her and detached from her. The aura or the illusion of a three dimensional body being present between the speakers was less effective than with the other tone arms even though the sound appeared to be clearer and more disctinct.

5) When the listening panel listened for specific detailed background sounds that these sounds were noticably diminished or absent when compared to the other three arms.

The behavior noted in the first four observations could be explained by a number of different mechanisms. However, when the first four observations are combined with the fifth observation that the Wilson-Benesch does not pass as much detail through to the listener as do the other tone arms, that leads me to conclude that the Wilson-Benesch is damping out certain frequencies or perhaps over damping all frequencies. The fact that the Wilson-Benesch has acquired a reputation for being a laid-back sounding arm would support the latter hypothesis.

8 What, you say you don’t have $2,000+ to plunk down on a new tone arm? Well, don’t despair. You can do what I did and buy a used ET 2 for $600. As you get the cash you can gradually upgrade it.

Upgrades
High pressure manifold $450
WISA high pressure air pump $350
Self constructed air tank $50
Mg II arm wand $200

Optional extras
Damper trough $95
Build-it-yourself pressure regulator $150

Note: When you buy your upgrade manifold or arm wand ask about wiring options. Eminent Technology has various wiring options that include choice of wire (copper versus silver) and choice of number of sections of wire; i.e. eliminate the terminal block by taking the wire directly from the arm wand end of the bearing to the preamp (two sections) or taking the wire directly from the cartridge to the preamp (one section).

Canteloube: Songs of the Auvergne, tracks 1 and 2 Side 1, Analogue Productions APC 002

Miles Davis: Someday My Prince Will Come, title cut, Mobile Fidelity MFSL 1-177

Enya: Watermark, Orinoco Flow and Evening Falls on Side 2, WEA Records WX 199

Frankie Goes to Hollywood: War, Side 1 (45 rpm), ZTT XATAS 3

Gregorio Moroder: Cat People soundtrack, title track, Backstreet Records BSR-6107

Ennio Morricone: The Mission, soundtrack, Side 2 tracks 2 and 3, Virgin 90567-1

Prokofiev: Alexander Nevsky, "Battle on the Ice" track, Athena ALSY-10003

Paul Simon: Graceland, title track, Warner Brothers 25447

Jennifer Warnes: Famous Blue Raincoat, "Bird on a Wire" track, Cypress Records 661 111-1

Kurt Weill: 3 Penny Opera, Nonesuch H-71281

The Strayaway Child, tracks one and two Side 1, Song of the Wood 7811

Eminent Technology
225 East Palmer Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 575-5655
Fax (604) 224-5999

Graham Engineering, Inc.
6 Kimball Court, Suite 113
Wolburn, MA 01801
(617) 932-8777
FAX (617) 932-8782

Wheaton Tri-Planar
8 Saddlebrook Court
Silver Springs, MD 20906
(301) 949-8392

Wilson-Benesch
Pro Audio
111 South Drive
Barrington, IL 60010
(847) 526-1660

POSITIVE FEEDBACK ONLINE © 2002 - HOME