2. analog
  3. 134929-245

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
jperry
2,448 posts
 
@rauliruegas ,

Have you listened to the tonearm?
invictus005
597 posts
 
@bdp24 Except that in this case they will have something far from the very best. I listened to one and fondled it at a show. Meh.

I’ll stick to SME. Makers of the real very best tonearm.

SME does 100,000 more engineering, machining, finishing, and fitting of their products. And all for a fraction of the cost of SAT.
jareko
5 posts
 
This is another kind of "theoretical" discussion. Do the people that criticize the SAT arm design actually had the arm in their system ? Did they compare the SAT arm sound with other well known and respectable arms in their own system ? I did. I bought it, because it is as much free of distortions as could hear, the sound is so clean and performance is beyond of anything I have heard. The design and quality looks fantastic, I have not seen this kind of precision and quality in any other arm I have had in my hands.

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,788 posts
 
I’m curious as to the makeup of the systems into which a $30,000 tonearm is added. I wonder what tables the arm is being mounted onto, and what pickups are being mounted onto the arm. What system can justify an expenditure of $30,000 for an arm alone? jareko, care to share the details of your system?
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,052 posts
 
Dear @tli : Scientist?, not me either. As you first than all I'm a music lover. Tonearm alignment is not rocket science. It's extremely simple, almost a kinder-garden game.

The SAT comes with its dedicated protractor and the critical subject is your post that helps in some ways to put some ligth about the designer choosed higher distortions through the dedicated alignment in the SAT where you said that with other kind of normal alignment you said: " thesound was not as good.Dim and flat...". Let me to think in " loud voice ":

the SAT comes with a non-standard knows aligngment by design. J.Ellison says: """  most tonearm manufacturers don't understand pivotal tonearm geometry! "" and I can add that  reviewers neither.

It's obvious that the SAT designer dis not likes what he listened with any of the standard alignments ( Löfgren A, Löfgrens B or Stevenson A. ) and he made it calculations for a dedicated alignment where he likes what he listened ( I don't know in how many different audio systems he tested/voiced the tonearm and certainly with which different cartridges. Certainly too no one of us know the tonearm designer priorities in audio/music and his targets/goals to fulfill those personal priorities. ). Exist no mathematic models that can tell me what will likes me or not so he had to do it my test & error till he found out what he likes it.

All the reviewers and owners ( like you ) are in love with and you said: 
"""  You may call it as distortion, but to me it is a distortion in a good sense. """

sorry but for you or for any one and especially in analog audio there are no distortions " in the good sense ". Distortions at any level and everywhere always are not welcomed even if we like it and are not welcomed because are something added through the audio room/system that does not comes in the recording, it's an added coloration but even if we like these " colorations " all of them are a bad thing are wrong. Our target always must be to have all kind of distortions at minimum to stay truer to the recording that's where MUSIC BELONGS .

We can like those " new " SAT distortions and I can't argue against what all of you SAT owners or lovers like but what I can say for sure is that are wrong.

In the other side, if with a standard tonearm alignment the sound comes flat it can says at least: lower distortions . and this fact is incontrovertible because calculations says the dedicated alignment has higher distortions over the LP surface. @lewm the area between SAT null point is only 46mm against 56mm in Löfgren A but even in between the SAT has higher than with Löfgren A or B.

@tli , you like those " new " distortions and as the other owners can't be in other way because all of you already paid 30K+. So you have to like it.

The designer knews very well what I posted in the MF thread because he showed he read my posts through his answer to my mail and I'm sure he knows the existence of this thread and I think is a clear opportunity for him and all SAT owners that he can comes here or at MF thread and give an explanation why he is rigth on what he did it and why I'm totally wrong.

I think that's the minimum responsability he has ( like it or not. ) with all those in good faith gentlemans that gave those big dollars to him. They all deserves an explanation even if they are not asking for.

In the other side those reviewers have the same responsability to disclose those information in their respective magazines. Which is the each one reviewer explanation on that SAT alignment subject?  with facts why they like what they listen trhough other that that no sense subjective: " I like it what I listen " that has no real value against " to be truer to the recording ".

@tli , """   Listening is believing . """, wrong. That's what the AHEE teach every one of us but it's absolutely wrong. Welcomed to that " corruption " where all of us belongs.
That's what we learned, what they on purpose teached but unfortunatelly for us is totally wrong. What you learned trhough is why you like the SAT .

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.




More to discover