New 55,000 Euro tonearm

You don’t like Technics but other than the AT 1100 has the lower friction bearing levels that any non-unipivot tonearm and not even a bat can hear that " rattling " you are talking about .

I never said I disliked the Technics. but I would not use one with a low compliance cartridge.

However if you had ever listened to the Technics EPC100's where the "fake" ruby bearings have been replaced by silicon nitride bearings, and properly adjusted, then you would know precisely what I am talking about.

@optimize 

It is good to know that we have a humble expert here that we can lean on without owning and living with a houdini or SAT cf1-09 I presume. 

We have many posters here on audiogon who are experts on products they have never heard.

They usually resort to scientific arguments - but of course they forget that scientific research and discovery should include both theory and practise (testing). I call it the new science, in the old days they would have called it speculation or in Kiwi parlance - a brain fart.

Deciding whether or not to buy the 55,000 Euro SAT CF1-09 tonearm when you buy the 150,000 Euro SAT XD1 turntable....the epitome of First World Problems.

You might be better off finding a forum for Technics 1200 turntables, the epitome of third world problems.

If you balance a stable balance arm so that it floats horizontally, lift it an inch or two, let go and it will swing up and down until it finds its stable balance point. It will find the same balance point every time. If you do this to a neutral balance arm it will stay exactly where you let go where ever you let go. 

So if a neutral balance arm gets raised by a record warp it never comes down.

Oh, wait, it has a 10 gram cartridge on the end.

And 1-2gm tracking force.

There's no such thing as neutral balance, they all come down.

Which arm do you think tracks warps better? 

How often do you play warped records ?

I thought you had a vacuum Sota - does it not work on warped records ?

I have no problem tracking warped records on any of my arms, including the Naim Aro with its low slung counterweight.

@optimize 

You are absolutely correct - the Houdini attempts to fix a problem by adding another. You can't measure the groove unless the cartridge is mounted rigidly. It's a bandaid. However when I owned an audio shop I found that many audiophiles like a mushy homogenous sound - not too challenging - its driven by needs other than audio ( high fidelity ).

I can bet you money that the first and second runs are already sold out and the waiting list is longer than a Chick-Filet line. 

Case in point - when Touraj Moghaddam launched the Vertere tonearm at US$35000 many years ago, he debuted it at the Hong Kong Hifi show and left the show with confirmed orders for at least 30 units.

The saphire Kuzma arm wand confirm what is my take about.

In the other side as you I'm not a fan of the tonearm unipivot designs....

Anyway, this unipivot looks as something to experience 

The Kuzma Safir is not a unipivot. 

Kuzma ruby choice material for its arm wand design was trying to take in count  how ruby behave with vibrations and feedback.

No - the Safir uses a sapphire arm tube.

@mijostyn 

I'm no expert but I do believe Ruby is a form of sapphire.

Sure, and diamond is a form of carbon, did you give your wife a lump of carbon for her engagement ring ?

ruby and  sapphire is the same material with same characteristics and only different color.

Sure - if you use Wikipaedia for your knowledge base.

I have seen several moving coil cartridges over the years with cantilevers made from sapphire tube.

I have never seen a cantilever with a ruby tube, only solid ruby.

Perhaps you need to look beyond wikipaedia for your knowledge base.

@larryi 

The actual bearing housing around the tube ( that rotates for horizontal motion ) is no bigger than my old Zeta tonearm which has a similar layout. The Zeta effective mass is only 14g - so as you point out the apparent bulkiness around the pivot point gives no indication of the effective mass.

However the lack of specifications on either their website or reviews is an issue for me. Two of my favourite cartridges are medium compliance and will not work optimally in a high mass arm. I would not buy the arm unless they can tell me the effective mass.

The SAT arm tube itself is a similar mass as a conventional arm tube from aluminium. 

Basically carbon fibre is lighter than aluminium.

SAT have used this attribute by using a larger and thicker cf arm tube that significantly reduces unwanted resonances compared to an aluminium arm tube of the same mass. 

This from their mouth.

However still doesn't tell us the effective mass.

@mikelavigne 

Early days, but how does it compare to the Durand Tosca - particularly in terms of transparency and overall balance.

@lewm 

@mijostyn is all over the place on effective mass and low compliance cartridges.

Here's what he said about the Kuzma Safir ( 60g effective mass )

I just wandered onto Kuzma's web site to check on the specs of one turntable only to be confronted with a $25,000 9 " sapphire tubed sorta 4 point arm. Looks like a winner to me. I think it is a better design than the SAT arms but then I thought the 4 Point 9 was a better design than the SAT arms. Next will be a diamond arm tube:-)

mijostyn04-06-2022 12:36pm

I can't see the SAT getting anywhere near 60g effective mass of the Safir.

He;s also had a turnaround on low compliance cartridges, After several posts insisting low compliance cartridges are no good, he is now buying a low compliance Mysoniclab.

mijostyn

6,225 posts

06-26-2022 at 04:42am 

@rsf507 , I am currently using a Soundsmith Voice through an Audio Research PH3-SE. I have a Channel D Seta L Plus coming which opens the door for very low impedance cartridge's like the MSL PS and the Lyra Atlas SL the two cartridges I am interested in most. It looks like I am going to get the MSL first. 

@mikelavigne 

i’m not good at ’why’. in my mind i can connect the dots and reason that a field coil assisted uni-pivot bearing has an advantage of a powered magnetic field with zero mass assisting the bearing performance.

Mike, it is simply a unipvot bearing.

The field coil is used for stabilisation - stop the wobble.

The advantage of the field coil over a magnetic field is that the field coil uses a constant current source, From their site -

The field coil, the special formed counter magnet and the CCS regulator provide the base for the stabilized unipivot bearing.
The field coil also functions as a sensor for unwanted torsional movements. The constant currency source compensates field variations in real time and keeps the magnetic field stable.

It's designed to take advantage of the unipivot, which has low bearing stiction, but address the inherent instability of an undamped unipivot. If I recall correctly Martin Colloms tested and reported that the Naim Aro had the lowest bearing stiction of any arm he had measured.

Other methods of stabilisation include having a centre of gravity below the pivot ( not ideal on warped records ),fluid damping ( examples Mayware/Moerch/Kuzma ) and magnetic fields.

@lewm

Primary Control also produce a version of the FCL arm with permanent magnets - the Gravity - at a lower price point.

With regard to the Phantom - I chose the Naim Aro over it many years ago for several reasons -

The Phantom unipivot bearing is upside down - negatively affecting energy transfer.

The Aro used only mechanical damping - weight distribution and importantly the self centering sapphire cup and radiused tip actually provide several db of mechanical damping - see Martin Colloms review.

The Phantom arm-tube had lossy material inside the arm tube - in my experience with tuning my ET2 arm-tube this does more damage than good - smearing the signal.

I have actually heard a couple of Phantoms in a top flight system with a variety of cartridges - they have a fat over exaggerated upper bass that I find detracts form the music.

Funnily enough the Aro is very stable for a unipivot - on eccentric records there is no visible roll.

And before Mr R runs another diatribe - the Aro is one of many arms I own.

No arm is perfect.

 I already said twice: an unipivot characteristic is its aliveness that in reality is higher distortion, you can’t do nothing about.

This is hilarious - the funniest comment I've seen this year.

Of course most cartridges have a cantilever that is by definition a unipivot.

Perhaps the author should stick to digital where everything is only a little bit out all of the time.

At the end is an unipivot design and all kind of developed distortions pass trhough the pivot trhough one single " point " with no real opportunity to dissipates it and the developed feedback pass trough that single " point " when in a gimball those distortions pass trhough a bearing with more than one point ( in the EPA 100 are 25 ruby balls. ) that helps to dissipates it and feedback too. 

This comment is complete nonsense and here is why -

A unipivot has a higher contact force due to the point load and mechanically is actually more rigid through that point load than gimbal bearings. With traditional bearings such as the Technics  you have multiple balls in the ball race, each rattling around, and loose. If the bearings in the Technics are not loose the arm won't work.

In terms of energy transfer - when you have 2 materials joined and send energy through that joint some energy passes through and some gets reflected back.

In the case of your Technics example the roller bearings provide a multiple paths for energy flow and multiple reflections back into the arm tube.

Properly designed the unipvot is more likely to have far superior control of energy flow through the pivot than a gimbal arm.

And please don't confuse the unipvot wobble with energy transfer - these are two different issues.

The statement quoted above shows a complete lack of understanding of basic engineering engineering principles.

@pindac 

I own many classic/vntage arms as well as modern, some modified.

The main issue with classic arms such as the FR64S/SME3012R most of the Micro Seiki arms and SAEC arms, and others of that era that are now popular are the non offset bearings. Nobody raises this issue.

As you are no doubt aware, with non offset vertical bearings, when you change VTA the azimuth changes. For those that are not aware of this issue, place the palm of your left hand over your right at an angle ( offset angle of cartridge ). Lift you right elbow up and down - you will notice that your left hand ( the cartridge ) rotates - lift your elbow up and it rotates anticlockwise, lower your right elbow and the left hand ( cartridge ) rotates clockwise.

Most modern arms now use offset vertical bearings so that when you alter VTA azimuth remains constant. 

On my FR64S for example, when dialling in VTA the soundstage moves all over the place and the azimuth has to be rechecked each time. This is a royal pain in the a**.

As far as the SAT goes, I've heard enough to know that it is an exceptional arm, whether you agree with the design choices or not. The value proposition is very simply - do you have the disposable income, and if so, does it do what you want - it's an individual choice. Why knock folk who choose to buy it - I say good luck to them, hope it works.

For me the best arm is simply what can I afford that gives the best performance for my preferred cartridge choice in the context of my total system.

The most neglected issue that most ignore when it comes to discussion of arms and cartridges, is that all arms are not perfect, all cartridges are not perfect, and arm/cartridge combination ( the combination of 2 imperfect variables ) is arguably more critical than the individual choice of arm or cartridge.

I see so often folk spending $2-5k on cartridges for arms that either don't match or are not up to a standard that will exact anything close to the full potential of the chosen cartidge, In my experience poor arm/cartridge matching results in musical dissatisfaction every time - and costs more in the long run to fix.