SAT 30K+$$ TONEARM: W O R T H T O H A V E I T ?


http://www.swedishat.com/

That is the everywhere touted and very expensive tonearm. Touted by all professional reviewers and obviously " satisfied " owners ( around 70 of them. ).

Here some reviews:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2014/06/sat-swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm.html

http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/AirForce%20III_SAT_HiFi+_0817.pdf

and you can look elsewhere the TAS one and others.

Obviously that the proudly owners started to buy the tonearm because those reviews and trhough audio shows but mainly for the " great " reviews.

It was ranked class A in Stereophile and I know are coming two new models that inludes a 12" tonearm.

Other than the very high price I never was interested on the tonearm design due that is totally out of my budget. Its price cost what a decent whole audio system cost.

Anyway, a few months ago in an other analog forum and through a TT review the SAT appeared in that discussion thread and was here when I decided to analize this regarded tonearm design where I found out that those 30K+ dollars are a true money lost and does not matters of what reviewers and owners think about where there are not clear facts all of them are extremely satisfied with the SAT.



Let me explain a little why I said that through my post to MF:


"""""""

from your Stereophile review the SAT specs are as follows: P2S: 212.2mm, overhang: 22.8mm, offset angle 26.10° with an effective length: 235mm.


Those numbers tell us that you are listening ( with any cartridge. ) way higher distortion levels, that you just do not detected even today, against almost any other tonearm/cartridge combination.


Obviously that the SAT needs a dedicated protractor to make the cartridge/tonearm set up but we have to analize what those specs/numbers has to say:

the SAT maximum traking error is a really high: 3.09° when in a normal ( Jelco or Ortofon. ) 235m Effective Length tonearm Löfgren A alignment ( IEC standard. ) is only: 1.84°

the SAT maximum distortion % level is: 2.67 when in that normal tonearm only 0.633

the SAT average RMS % distortion is: 0.616 when in normal tonearm only :
0.412 ( Löfgren B even lower: 0.37 ).

All those makes that the linnear offset in the SAT be 10mm longer than in a normal tonearm ! !

All those are facts and you or Mr. Gomez can’t do nothing to change it. Pure mathematics reality.

You posted in that review: """ Marc Gomez has chosen null points of 80 and 126mm instead of the more commonly used 66 and 121mm. """

that’s a deep misunderstood on tonearm/cartridge alignment input/output calulations in the overall equations used for that alignment:

NULL POINTS WERE NOT CHOOSED BY MR. GOMEZ BUT ARE PART OF THE OUTPUT DATA ON THOSE ALIGNMENTS CALCULATIONS.

In the same is not true your statement: """ the more commonly used 66 and 121mm. """

that " commonly " just does not exist and only depends of the standard choosed for the calculations.

There are several other things in that SAT design that not only are not orthodox but that has a negative influence in what we are listening it:

he said that the tonearm owner can change the bearing friction levels and this characteristics could tell to you that’s a " good thing " but it’s not but all the way the opposite because makes not a fully 100% steady bearings.

Ask you a question?: why the best top cartridges use cantilevers of boron and not carbon fiber, it does not matters that laminated carbon fiber the SAT has.

Carbon fiber is way resonant no matter what. In the past existed cartridges with CF cantilever and sounds inferior to the boron ones. ....................................................................................................................................................................... the designer was and is proud that the tonearm self resonance happens at around 2.8khz, go figure ! ! !. It happens way inside the human been frequency range instead to stays out of that frequency range. """"



Dear friends and owners of the SAT: way before the mounted cartridge on it hits the very first LP groove and against any other vintage or today tonearm you have way higher distortions that per sé preclude you can listen a real and true top quality level performance and does not matters the audio system you own.


What we can listen through the SAT is an inferior quality performance levels with higher distortions. Obviously that all reviewers and owners like those heavy distortions but that does not means they are rigth because and with all respect all of them are wrong.


Some one send the link of what I posted to the SAT designer and latter on ( I do not knew he read my post. ) I ask for him for the information about the effective mass of the SAT. He gave me a " rude " answer and did not disclose that information that in reallity was not important in that moment.



I have to say that at least two professional reviewers bougth the SAT tonearm., both with the Continnum/Cobra TT/tonearm. At least one of them say the SAT outperforms the Cobra one ( maybe both, who knows why bougth it the other reviewer. )

The credentials of the SAT designer are impecable and really impressive ones but no single of those credentials speaks about audio and certainly not on analog audio.

He is a true " roockie " enthusiast ( and I say it with respect.) and obviously that is welcomed in the high-end " arena/area/ring " where all of us are learning at each single day. Any one that’s marketing an audio item has a true merit and this is not under discussion: SAT designer has his own merit for that.

You that are reading this thread permit me to ask: what do you think, overall, about?, at the end audiophiles are the ones that has the last " word " or should be that way.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.






Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

Showing 9 responses by halcro

Well it may be true that Marc Gomez has a Mechanical Engineering Degree and studied materials science....but reading his 'explanations' for the 9" preferred tonearm length.... he seems to lack the necessary Structural Engineering qualifications to complete the picture...?

He includes a diagram titled "Effect of length in vibration amplitude and frequency" and shows a diagram (and speaks of) a cantilevered "ruler" of a short length compared to a longer length.
Now on the face of it, this all seems reasonable and is certainly true of a pure cantilever.....
But a tonearm with the cartridge resting on the record is NOT a pure cantilever.
It is a PROPPED cantilever and all the Bending Moments, Shear Stresses and Deflections are entirely different (and change with the degree of VTF on the stylus) to that of a pure cantilever.
So the SAT arm has been designed by Marc Gomez as a tapered tube (from pivot to cartridge) which mirrors the stresses of a pure cantilever much like other tonearm designers like SME have also done.

Continuum Audio Labs with their Cobra and Copperhead tonearms utilised a team of qualified University Experts with access to advanced software and technology to model the arms using NASTRAN, PATRAN and DYSTRAN finalising in the complex process of Gradient Shape Optimisation using Reshape.
THIS is the true shape of the stresses involved in a 'Propped Cantilever' and the true shape for maximum RIGIDITY for that application.
The SAT tapered tube is NOT the correct shape for maximum rigidity of a propped cantilever whether it's 9" or 12".
it also introduces some fairly severe losses at the arm to headshell junction. 

Strong statement.....?
I presume you have the technical evidence to share with us?
daveyf,
I can't hear the differences......
And neither can you 😎

It's so easy in this wonderful hobby of ours, for anyone to claim anything without proof, reason, logic or science.

Oh...and I can hear from 15Hz to 22.8KHz 👅
'Technical evidence' must be a mystical term to you....?
obvious to anyone once they hear the losses with this set up

I've had over twenty tonearms (7 with fixed headshells) and have 6 currently mounted (1 with fixed headshell).
There are no losses between any of the removable headshell arms compared to the fixed.....nor is it "obvious" to you (or anyone else) if you can't prove it, describe it and repeat it.
And you can't......🤗
Raul,

In our naivety.....we have always believed that the extra connections involved in interchangeable headshells, DIN plugs, SUTs etc MUST cause 'losses' in the signal chain compared to an unbroken single cable from cartridge to phonostage.....
Then I read the statement by John Elison (which was posted on Vinyl Asylum) proving that the 'signal losses' involved in 'connectors' were a fraction of the signal losses caused by the increased length of phono cable....as 'signal loss' was proportional ONLY to Resistance....🤗

Here is what I posted on WTBF in reply to the 'Troll' DaveyF:-
 
Originally Posted by DaveyF 
The ability to change cartridges easily is not the reason most manufacturer's went away from the removable headshell. The reason is that the signal loss at the headshell junction to the arm was clearly heard by a'philes as their systems gained in resolution.
Add to that the increase in rigidity of the fixed headshell vs. the removable headshell and the result is that the removable headshell design became a thing of the past...
SME themselves were one of the first manufacturer's to go this route. ( and for VERY good reason, IMHO).
I've never seen nor heard 'proof' of this...?
Audiophiles can easily 'convince' themselves of 'imagined' differences...as we all know too well 
The maximum possible resistance of a single gold-plated connector is 0.01-ohm whereas the resistance of 4-feet of 33-gauge wire is 1.0436-ohms. The resistance of 1-foot of 33-gauge wire plus 3-feet of heavier 26-gauge interconnect wire and 6 gold plated connectors is 0.2609 + 0.12243 + 6 x 0.01 = 0.44333-ohms. Signal loss is proportional to resistance; therefore, the continuous 33-gauge wire has over twice the signal loss as the combination of wire with 6 connectors. 

Signal loss is proportional to resistance only. In other words, the small voltage and current of a phono cartridge signal has no greater impact to the signal loss as would a much larger voltage and current. This is why having some formal education in electrical theory helps. It might seem like the minuscule voltage and current from a phono cartridge will be more susceptible to signal loss than higher line level voltages and currents, but that's not the case. Signal loss is proportional to resistance, only. 

Best regards, 
John Elison
In other words....the 'signal loss' with your continuous, unbroken 4 feet of tonearm cable to phono-stage, is at least twice that of a tonearm with interchangeable headshell.

Some education in Structural Engineering would also be helpful before making assumptions on 'rigidity'.
The 'bayonet and locking collar' arrangement standardised for removable headshells, creates what is called a Moment Connection in Structural Engineering.
This means that all Bending Stresses, Shear Stresses and Deflections at the joint are transferred without loss.
In fact....this form of structural coupling is more rigid than many 'fixed' headshells....especially those connecting metal shells to wood tonearm bodies.
Most fixed headshells are secured by 1 or 2 screws which have little ability in creating a Moment Connection.

As you say Raul...... our "ignorance" levels rarely prevent us from posting 🤪
I asked a mech/ structural engineer about the “moment connection”

mech/structural engineer.....?
I've not heard of one of these....
Do you mean he did a 4-5 year Mechanical Engineering course at University and then did a 4-5 year Structural Engineering course as well?
Please tell us his 'name' and repeat what he told you about 'Moment Connections' since you apparently haven't the understanding to Google it yourself.....

Oh.....and I studied Structural Engineering for 6 years as part of my Architectural Degree at University.
Hey Shane,
I haven’t seen any comparisons by you on the SME 3012R compared to your other arms.....particularly your beloved Thales Simplicity...? 👀

Regards
Henry
Sorry Lew....but I don't think you've read John Elison's quote correctly.
He never said that "the resistance across a connector is zero".
He said:-
The maximum possible resistance of a single gold-plated connector is 0.01-ohm whereas the resistance of 4-feet of 33-gauge wire is 1.0436-ohms. The resistance of 1-foot of 33-gauge wire plus 3-feet of heavier 26-gauge interconnect wire and 6 gold plated connectors is 0.2609 + 0.12243 + 6 x 0.01 = 0.44333-ohms.

In regards to his claim that Resistance ALONE is responsible for 'signal loss'....you offer no technical evidence to refute that.
You merely offer speculative 'mumbo jumbo'....

In a choice between your electrical qualifications and John's......I'm afraid you don't offer enough substance 🤗

Incidentally....from the subjective point of view....unless you have the same cartridges mounted in an arm with fixed headshell and an arm with detachable headshell all mounted on the same turntable with the same phono cable connected to the same phonostage.....you are not qualified to make a statement regarding 'sound differences'.
I have identical Signet TK-7LCa MM cartridges installed on my Copperhead arm (fixed shell) and Fidelity Research FR-66s (detachable shell) on my Raven AC 2 turntable and can testify that if anything....the FR-66s offers more detail, resolution, transparency and 'magic' than the fixed shell of the Copperhead.
And the Copperhead is one the best arms I have heard....
I'm kind of surprised, not to say "shocked; shocked I tell you", that apparently most of this group seem to agree with John Ellison, that minimizing resistance is more important than minimizing the number of connectors, especially in a phono circuit.  
....John Ellison and the fact that I happen to disagree with his conclusion, which is after all an opinion.

John Ellison is not stating his "opinion".....he is stating the electrical 'facts' as he knows it and offers calculated figures to support these 'facts'.
If you disagree with these 'facts' as 
proffered by John.....you must have the electrical theory to prove him wrong...?
C'mon.....it can't be hard to tell us what else (other than Resistance) is responsible for 'Signal Loss"....?
capacitance and an inductance that would be expected to affect the signal in (admittedly) tiny ways.
 
"Would be expected to affect....."
This is just not a scientific nor convincing answer (as your science background should tell you).
I am sure that the small difference I hear is measurable, but I have no idea how to measure it. It does not seem to be so simple as an effect on frequency response.

And you really expect this answer to counter John's.....?
That's what I meant about substance......
I don't have the facts to argue on John's side....but you don't appear to have the facts to debunk his proposition,,,and neither does (it appears) any other electrical engineers on these Forums?
Does a soldered connection result in 'signal loss' in your opinion?
Does a cartridge clip result in 'signal loss' in your opinion?
Unless you are able to state what is responsible for 'signal loss' with figures and formulas....you are simply not on the same plane as John Elison on this subject.
Sorry.....