Dear @headphone dreams and friends: As almost always the MF review oft he SAT TT is mainly subjective according the MF " priorities " and we have to remember that he " worked " as " marketing director " of SAT when appeared its tonearm. Thank’s to MF that tonearm success was inmediatly after his review. As I said according his " priorities ".
THat review was in " theory " about the SAT TT and the minimum responsability of any reviewer is to test that DD against other DD TTs and along that test the SAT TT with some tonearms as: Kuzma, Triplanar, Rega,Reed, SME and the like including the Cobra and if Fremer wants to test it against BD TTs and with the SAT tonearm go a head.
" he focused on four main areas: isolation from external disturbances, speed stability, rigidity, and vacuum hold-down. "
All really desired TT characteristics for any audiophile/customer. However SAT gives no single fact/measures that those targets were achieved. Thera are not measured specs as: speed stability in the short and long periods of time ( what MF did it shows that the TT has a 0.04% speed stability swing. To bad for that price. ), wow and flutter, signal to noise ratio, etc.
Tha’s the way Fremer does things because in my opinion he has the responsability as a proffesional reviewer to ask those measurements to the manufacturer and if the manufacturer has not then he must says it in the review. Is a shame that he almost never does it.
He is only a typical reviewer: " I like it and it’s the best around the world ". Maybe that could be but customers/audiophilesd need facts/proves not only: " listen it and decide ".
"" Marc Gomez seems to believe that the way to his success with these products is to price them so high that they are in the ether .""
Not exactly he trust in his marketing director.
""" The XD1 shares some sonic characteristics with Rega’s revolutionary RP10 turntable: ultrafast, clean transients throughout the audible frequency range; tight, fast bass; revealing midrange transparency; and overall sonic stability and focus. """
MF said it in his review and for me the most important issue in that review about the quality performance levels of the SAT TT.
"""" is not whether someone should be pushing the boundaries of what can be done, but whether the result should be connected to some kind of value proposition. """"
Agree because does not exist a value proposition.
""""" is an acceptable price for pushing the boundaries of what is possible with hifi and sound quality """""
Who told you that the SAT TT " pushed the boundaries of what is possible....".
The TT apports almost nothing to the TT kind of designs, exist nothing new/novelty or unique that appears for the very first time in the audio history and @antinn resumed it in his statements:
""""" this table is not breaking any new state of the art. The motor is a modified Technics; the base is a modified Minus-K isolation platform and as far as the plinth, magnesium alloy has been known for over 50 years to provide superior damping qualities """""
And @dover said he can build easily a TT and all we know that’s true.
SAT does not disclose any where and neither MF in his review to waht kind of tests were made it with the overall SAT design and build excecution.
Not only measured tests/specs but the voicing tests in different room/systems and against different TT/tonearm/cartridge combinations.
Of course that the TT will be sold as " hot bread " because exist several audiophiles that already own TTs with even higher prices and others that loves their SAT tonearm.
Some manufacturers/reviewers take advantage of the, fortunated for them, very low knowledge levels of some audiophiles and customers.
Yes, for me the SAT TT is not a matters of $$$ but about our knowledge levels in audio and MUSIC. Are we/audiophiles whom buy those kind of audio products having merits or not. Market determines the price and we all are an active and main part of that market that is the home of the corrupted AHEE.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
