That is the everywhere touted and very expensive tonearm. Touted by all professional reviewers and obviously " satisfied " owners ( around 70 of them. ).
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.
The key in that statement is: " higher distortions ". I was emphatic that those higher distortions were using Löfgren A ( IEC: ) with the SAT set up parameters and against any " normal " tonearm. Those means playing with that overall alignment rules not with that tonearm custom rules.
In the other side, if " something " develops higher distortions, even if we can't detect it, then its quality level performance is an inferior one.
"Other than the very high price I never was interested on the tonearm design due that is totally out of my budget".
"..... 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 ....".
"What we can listen through the SAT is an inferior quality performance levels with higher distortions".
"I’m taking my time with the SAT because I always try to understand what is happening "down there".
"This thread is not to blame the SAT but to understand it and if I can help to the owners/audiophiles then that’s the main subject here" .
"... no I don’t have the opportunity to listen it yet and I’m not in a hurry" .
Dear friends: It's just " unique/incredible " that almost all of you but @tli and @jareko posts far away to chime of all the proved SAT design " anomalies " and professional reviewers irresponsability whay you choosed was and is try to " hit " me ( some way or other. ) even that almost all think are audiophiles/music lovers and no single of you think that the design goes against to stay truer to the recording due to its proved design faults.
So what kind of audiophiles think are you? certainly not a TEA or at least a TA not even an A.
That is what really surprise me more in this thread. Seems to me than other that the tonearm owners for all of you everything with the tonearm is great and its anomalies means " nothiing.
It's clear that other than the tonearm owners you deserves what you listen through your audio system, no matters what.
70 people on the planet have enough money to buy a $30,000 tonearm.
Irrespective of sound quality, measurements, science, test results,etc.....why is it so important to you that you make them aware that they are not true audiophiles?
Are you you like a reverse Robin Hood? Fighting a cause so the wealthy keep their money?
Think of all the time you’ve wasted “being right”.
I don’t own one haven’t heard one and will never afford one like the other 6 billion earthlings in this planet.
Put a record on the system you’ve have at home enjoy the music and move on.
Dear @lewm : Even between that tonearm null points its develops higher distortions than through standard alignments, so the designer choices were not good enough even " there ".
As I told to @tli@jareko the SAT offset angle of 26.1° is another critical bad choiced parameter because that angle does more harm to the cartridge signal than any good and affect too to the cartridge suspension/cantilever due that puts more stress ( that develops additional distortions per sé. ) to it than the 23° ( around. ) standard alignments offset angle. Even develops higher skate all over the LP grooves. How that can be a good choice?.
A friend shares this info:
" Marc ( SAT's designer. ) has set up different cartridges in his arm and determined the VTF he thought sounded the best while at the same time avoiding mistracking. So lighter weight, no mistracking, assuming coils in optimal position, less record and stylus wear. He also came with his own Atlas and tracked that at 1.5 gms; so one assumes that's where Marc felt it sounded the best. "
Any one of us can test any of our cartridges and make a VTF test with any one of those cartridges setting up a VTF that stays lower than the manufacturer VTF range specs and all of us can find out that we have no " apparent " mistraking and that the sounds is good but all those does not means is really rigth and in favor of what is in the recording because at microscopic levels exist mis-trackind that we can " see " detect as mis-tracking but part of that good sound as some kind of colorations.
That microscopic mistracking ( that's where the groove and stylus tip works. ) develops higuer wear in both sides: stylus tip and at each single LP groove. Additional to that cartridge coils are not centered, so we now are not nearer to the recording but far away from there and damaging the cartridge stylus and my LPs ! ! !
How all those can be good choices?
I understand why the tonearm owners say nothing about and could be because not only invested 30K+ in the tonearm but that all of them trusted in the tonearm designer, reviewers and tonearm distributor when all these 3 sources are wrong and were really irresponsables. Again, I'm not questioning if the owners like what they are listening through it.
I know true expert gentleman in this forum that I would like to ask what they think about those proved tonearm anomalies ?
I respect ( between others. ) these two gentlemans: @atmasphere @dgarretson . Your contribution as audiophiles and music lovers appreciated.
Dear @rauliruegas , what do I think of the "SAT's faults"? The only fault I can comment on is the price which I guess includes a ridiculous markup. I have not heard it and therefore cannot make any useful comments. I leave the designing to the designers and the listening and then judgement thereon to me. Where I cannot listen on my system or another's, the next best thing is the thoughts of someone I trust who has listened, and then a report of someone who has made a listening comparison. Speculative writing is no substitute to listening.
@rauliruegas is that rarest of the rare, a person who can not only tell what something sound like without hearing it but amazingly he can tell what "distortions" I like from scouring the internet and finding someone who reviewed a CD on Amazon who he thinks is me and from that CD review know what distortions I like from an arm and cartridge so as to place me accurately for the purposes of his "scientific distortion" denegration because I have had the audacity to praise products of an analog designer who he personally does not like and whose products he has never listened to.
@rauliruegas unfortunately generates his own unique distortion by denigration of equipment he does not like or that does not fit his unique "scientific" world, or a person who does not bow down to his theorizing including designers and manufacturers of some great sounding gear.
I can appreciate @passion, but I do not appreciate his arrogance of thought which will not tolerate a dissenting view to the extent of personal denigration. This type of forum bullying is not conducive to constructive exchange.
Dear @dsholl1 : """ why is it so important to you that you make them aware that they are not true audiophiles? """
Now I'm really worry about. If you can think that then the SAT owners did it too and my intentions on the whole subject are far away to " blame " directly or inderectly to all those 70 gentlemans and I never intented to make them aware " they are not audiophiles " because I know for sure they all are true audiophiles and not only whealty people.
If that is what any one or all those 70 gentlemans think when read this thread please accept my humble apologies to all of you.
Problem is that English language is not my native one and I have a lot of vocabulary and gramatical limitations. Sorry for that.
Btw, this main subjects in this thread is more a critic to one of the main parts of the AHEE where we all belongs:
the SAT " stampede " was and is under the command of the tonearm designer and I like and want to think that he did it in good shape and due to his personal believes and not only to make money. I'm not questioning his credentials he showed/writes in his site but more that he has not the expertise levels in audio analog that he showed in the other site areas and the tonearm anomalies confirms that fact.
In the other side the first and second line on that SAT " stampede " was commanded by the main parts of the AHEE that are the professional reviewers and audio sellers/distributors and here is where belongs all the responsability of the no-sense " stampede " and it's here where I'm questioning in deep way because we audiophiles/customers are the ones from all of them receives our money: all of us pay for a responsable work and all of them ( in this SAT regards. ) just falls in a dark and " corrupted " hole:
it's incredible that no single reviewer and I mean it never made it for his self ( just by curiosity ! ) the questions: which the tracking error and tracking distortions in the SAT with its dedicated kind of alignment? which anti skate level needs the tonearm for its cartridge set up? which advantages or disadvantages has that prefered designer VTF lower cartridge/tonearm set up? stylus tip wear levels? centered coils? LP grooves wear level?
because all those questions are their minimal responsabilities for a reviewer that appreciated him self as a professional reviewer. This is what I'm questioning and as an analog audio customer I have/own the rigth to ask all of them and waiting for a precise and clear answers of their " actions " or " not actions ".
As is proved in this thread and elsewhere exist several anomalies in that tonearm design and designer preferences ( that insist is not the designer culprit because he has not experience levels. ).
Again, before any cartridge mounted in the tonearm already develops higher distortions for that dedicated kind of alignment choosed and additional skating and other faults because the designer preferences on VTF set up.
The sellers/distributors? they can't talk because with his " mouth closed " is how they took the money from customers with this tonearm.
We have to remember that ignorance and mis-information is a kind of corruption and that's why I talk of " corrupted AHEE ".
Were all of them whom commanded the " stampede " and the 70 gentlemans the " victims " of that " no reasons stampede ".
Was in favor of the 70 audiophiles like @tli or @jareko that I gave my advise to make tests in their system using Löfgren alignment inside the IEC standards and with its respective P2S that's way different from the designer tonearm alignment. It has/must be to sounds/performs good not as @tli found out: " dim and flat ".
Overall that's why I losted my trust in the AHEE and that's why I always take/took my audio actions thinking " out of the box ". From some years now there is no single audio issue where any one of us can learns inside the box/AHEE.
Raul - all good and well talking theory - but have you heard an SAT?
If it's a cost/value vs performance question - I agree I think it is a waste of money. We know a 'law of demising returns' kicks in, but clearly the SAT somehow does have those further returns.
People who have the coin, having optimised everything else are always in pursuit of that tiny bit extra - I reckon things like those harmonix record pucks fall into the same category of adding those 'last touches'.
If I was in the market for a cost no object tonearm it would have to be a parallel tracker - Schroeder LT, Thales, Kuzma Airline... As much as I love vinyl - the geometry issue is an achilles heal with nearly all tangential arms
LOL - brain fade typing moment - yes - you have guessed right - pivoted arms
I only have pivoted arms - my only parallel arm is on a B and O 4002 that I am restoring to put in my wifes' downstairs AV system - I know I digress from the OP thread about the SAT arm, but Tim Jarman at HiFi News explained that the B & O carts unlike any other cartridges were designed to go into a parallel tracking arm, and contrary to snobish Audiophile beliefs the B&O's were in fact superb turntables that really were a 'complete approach' that delivered a very good sound.
"""
clearly the SAT somehow does have those further returns. People who have the coin, having optimised everything else are always in pursuit of that tiny bit extra - """
everything has that " returns ". The main subject here is that even if we like what we are lisetning through an item like this what we like is something that's " severe " faulty by design. As if was made in on purpose. Why something " faulty " could makes that we like it?.
Well, first because is a new listening experience that sounds different of what we are more or less accustom to. Second, because we already bougth it and with a so high price tag we have to convince our self that is excellent. Third, because all ignorant reviewers said is excellent, so it " has to be ". Fourth, whatever you want to say.
The real issue here is not if we like it or not but that the SAT alignment is totally wrong about the distortions generated against almost any other pivoted tonearm, even against Stevenson A alignment.
What is incredible and bording in the ridicolous is that in all the reviews made it in the audio magazines made it by in " theory " proffesional analog experts no one of them made it what a gentleman here who is a SAT's owner did it: he tested with a different kind of alignment.
That gentleman is @tli . He posted that did not like it what he listen and the main reason was ( maybe I'm wrong. @tli can tell us. ) because he made the different alignment tests with the same P2S distance. That's why I recomended him and other owners to intent new tests with the rigth different alignment parameters and I gave to all of them.
If the SAT is so good pivoted tonearm then makes no sense that with way lower tracking error and distortion levels with the different alignment can't performs way better. One thing is for sure can't performs bad.
Btw, one of those professional reviewers ( and that's why I speak of corrupted AHEE. ) followed with the SAT a different " protocol " that what he showed with other tonearms under review.
One of his latest reviews was a TT that comes designed with its own tonearm and he received with a top LOMC cartridge mounted and previously aligned. Well, before he test it as the manufacturer gave to him his first move was ( with out reason. ) to change the cartridge/tonearm alignment ! ! ! and through his SAT review time he never did it. Even he bougth the SAT and did not do it as @tli did it whom is not a " professional reviewer but an audiophile as you or me ! !
Not only that, those reviewers already know the SAT alignment " problem " and no one of them made it till now any comment to their readers but neither the SAT manufacturer or its dealers.
Dear friends/owners: In other thread a gentleman ( @perkri ) who made a reference to this SAT thread posted:
""
Music, live or reproduced, is not about math. It is about ART ""
Yes, MUSIC is ART ( btw, has implicit maths. ) and as ART we like to preserve its integrity. It's like a paint and original one of say Goya.
What is what a museum or an owner has as main target and responsability?: to preserve ( over the time. ) the paint integrity in all posible ways.
With MUSIC is not different and we have the same responsabilities about and to preserve that cartridge signal integrity or at least mantain at minimum its degradation the tonearm/cartridge/TT alignment is absolutely essential doing that alignment not only with accuracy but choosing the alignment that overall can gives the lower tracking error and lower tracking distortion levels, That is a sen equa non condition when we are talking to play LPs.
Today all know that the dedicated SAT alignment is totally away from those premises and far away to preserve the ART.
I have no doubt that the SAT is a very good quality performer to accomplish that if we don't use its dedicated alignment parameters.
If your audio system/room target is to preserve that cartridge signal integrity ( ART . ) to stay nearer to the recording then you can ( at least ) try the advices here.
@advanced101 thanks for the link, here is a part of the article about alignment from Marc Gomez of SAT:
The alignment that I use for the SAT arms is based on the Löfgren equations conventionally used by many other manufacturers. Although most manufacturers calculate their geometry based on different recording association standards for values of the groove innermost and outermost radii, I opted for another set of values that better represents the vast majority of real-world 12” LP records produced, based on my own measurements. The values given by the standards are limit values and most recordings never go that far Page 4 of 8 into the record. I specified the outer radius to be 143mm and the inner radius 75mm. This gives a somewhat higher angular error at the portion of records with musical content from 75mm and inwards, and at the same time, a consistently lower angular error than with other traditional alignments in the area between the led-in groove and 75mm. This is a conscious choice to enjoy a lower angular error than with most traditional alignments in all but a few tracks of a typical record collection. The null points for the SAT arms are located at 80 and 126mm. Ultimately, this was a choice of enjoying a consistently higher level of fidelity for 95% of the time over having less angular error on 5% of the tracks. - Marc Gomez
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".
Dear @advanced101: Well, what SAT did it was a paremeters manipulation choosing stays out of IEC,DIN or JIS standards. SAT says that those standards parameters almost never happen but I measured 20 LPs and I found out no one that even the SAT numbers ( two of them are shorter. ).
So, that manipulation seems to me that more to be for practial terms is more for better measurements that almost never happens. But always exist trade offs and one of them in the SAT is longer linear offset.
Nothing is for free. If we want better distortion/tracking numbers than the SAT ones we can have it changing from 75mm to 76mm ( inner groove ) and from 143mm to 144mm ( outer groove. Former numbers are the SAT ones. ).
The numbers that I posted way before in this thread and as I stated were trhough IEC standard with out any manipulation.
Any one of us always can change any or all the input parameters/values with Löfgren equations/calculations.
@invictus005, yes you are rigth and problem with that is that because the parameters where out of the standards the length at what you said " inner grooves " is an extended length from normal: almost 20mm.
Well that's the SAT choosed and dedicated alignment.
I think that 3 days after this thread started I ask to one of the SAT owners to try Löfgren alignment according IEC standard and I gave the new parameters including the new P2S distance, unfortunatelly and even that he posted here he did not tell us if he tested in that way or not and what find out. He said ( before. ) that he tested a normal alignment and did not likes but I think was because he did not change the P2S distance but stays with the original SAT one.
@halcro , very good point.
Anyway, good that SAT disclose its alignment parameters.
SAT says: """
higher level of fidelity for 95% of the time over having less angular error on 5% of the tracks. """
that's a tricky statement with foundation in a non true premise that the most inner groove is at 75mm when it's not. SAT says that made it its own measurements:
"""
values that better represents the vast majority of real-world 12” LP records produced.... """
I don't know from where found out that 75mm instead 60mm. As I said I made a quich research with around 20 LPs an today I made a new measurements with these LPs:
Dire Straits ( Love over Gold. Vertigo ), Witches?Brew ( LSC ), Berlioz Fanthastic Symph. ( Reference Recording. ), Folk Singer. MoFi ( this was the only that is over 70mm. ), Claire Marlo ( Sheffield ), Rebeca Pidgeon ( Chesky ), P.Barber ( Modern Cool ) and Lyn Stanley ( Potions. ).
All but the MoFi are inside the IEC standard and totally out those SAT 75mm. I checked at random too some London, Decca, Mercury and Vanguard and happens the same.
So the former statement is untrue because at least around 25% is out of that 95% SAT talks.
Now, I'm not against what were the SAT alignment parameters choices but in what SAT said and write as an advantage when it's not the way SAT says.
In the link for @advanced101 SAT speaks of the importance to resonances control/ stifness, moment's inertia and the like and as they showed in the past when every customer has the rigth to know the specs tonearm specs SAT always not does it like the alignment subject that after more than 2 years that started to sell the tonearm finally disclose but again even that's an important parameter for the customer and with all the SAT explanation on the 9" vs 12" tonearm length SAT still does not disclose the 9" and 12" effective mass ! It's nowhere its site.
I think that problem is that customers just do not cares about but if I want to buy a 30K+ tonearm I need to know, especially after read all what SAT says.
Measured a bunch of my favorite records I've been listening to for the past month. 33's, 45's, 180g, 200g, new, old, etc. I listen primarily to 60's/70's rock (Stones, Queen, Beatles, Floyd, etc.), movie soundtracks, 80's pop such as Jackson, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream, and many others.
On average, the last track ends exactly 65mm from the spindle. I mostly prefer Lofgren B, but also on occasion listen to Lofgren A. I find Stevenson to be completely worthless and audibly worse. I guess the measurements confirm that!
At 80mm null, SAT will not be adequate for my music collection.
Guys, stick with Lofgren A/B. It's the best alignment as has been proven over many decades. Why this discussion continues is beyond my comprehension.
Any new new inventions in tonearm geometry are immediately inferior.
Dear @invictus005: """
At 80mm null, SAT will not be adequate for my music collection. """
Problem is that in general is not adequated to any music collection. Manufacturer numbers does not disclose the reality behind it.
"""
Why this discussion continues is beyond my comprehension. """
Only one reason: worth 30K+? with out ask or knowing what is happening down there?
I know that customers are happy and reviewers seems that too: no one ask but me because " curiosity " on a so expensive item where the manufacturer just decided not disclose customer's critical subjects, even today no tonearm effective mass spec.
Anyone can hear "the SAT sound" on their own turntable, if the tonearm is 9". Just realign your cartridge to the SAT null-points, and add 3° to your offset angle. If the SAT is mechanically superior, as it claims, that will affect the results a bit, but if your arm is a good mechanical design, that effect won’t be much, and won't obscure the effects of the new alignment and offset angle.
Dear @bimasta: Not exactly as you said. Any one can listen and align any pivoted tonearm taking SAT parameters, independent if the effective length is 9", 10" or 12", por calculations.
SAT calculations uses Löfgren A, so instead to use IEC standard just changing it for: 75mm and 143mm.
The calculation will point out the NEW alignment parameters for the specific efective length tonearm: P2S distance, offset angle and overhang. All 3 parameters are NEW ones and you can have to change all of them according the new calculation.
It does not matters the efefctive length the null points always be: 80.6 mm and 126.1mm that are the exact null points for that kind of alignment.
As always, accuracy on the set up parameters is the name of the game.
I have just learnt that both the original 9" SAT and the new 12" SAT have exactly the same offset angle. There is therefore no other conclusion than the one you have come to in your original post that the designer of this greatly overpriced arm (given the materials) does not understand tonearm geometry. This arm represents what is greatly harming our hobby, ridiculous pricing for bad designs.
bluewolf
PS My apologies to those owners of SAT's that will take offense to my post. It is not my intention to offend, but for a designer to have the same arm but for different lengths with the same offset angle is a fact that speaks for itself.
Has anyone ever shown how tracking angle error really truly equates with distortion of the audio signal? So far as I know the custom is to calculate the audio signal distortion caused by tracking angle error, using an equation originally put forward by either Baerwald or Lofgren in 1941. At that point in history, stereo reproduction was only dreamed of. All cartridges were monophonic. As we know, the stereo signal is reproduced physically in a manner that differs from reproduction of a true Monophonic signal from a mono LP, actually a 78 rpm shellac disc in 1941. Therefore it is probably dangerous to assume that the equation from 1941 is valid for stereo LPs. So my question really is has anyone done measurements in the modern era?
Yep Lew, Max Townshend (Townshend Audio) did back in the 1990’s. Fremer discussed Max’s alignment protractor and the theory behind it in the November 1997 issue of Stereophile. It is based on minimizing distortion, rather than pure alignment geometry. The two are related, obviously.
Where did the information on the offset angle of the 12" arm come from? The side-by-side drawing on Fremer's Analogue Planet of the 9" and 12" arm shows that the slots cut in the headshells of the two arms differ; as to be expected, there is less offset angle to the slots for the 12" arm.
Re the Townshend Alignment Gauge. It looks to me as though the "beef" is missing from his analysis. (Found a treatise on Vinyl Engine.) His gauge in essence declares what the distortion will be for a given tracking angle error. What I was after is some data to show that "for X degrees of error we measured Y amount of distortion" (of a pure sine wave, for example, and the type of distortion would have to be specified, e.g., harmonic or IM). I recognize that the results would vary according to stylus shape and would probably be frequency-dependent, besides also depending upon radius from the spindle and velocity of the stylus, but you've got to start somewhere. Anyway, I will try to understand the Townshend theory in the meantime.
Chayro, you and Raul should go out for coffee together. You have much in common. Tubes per se are as linear or even more linear then any solid state devices. What’s more, they are as low or lower in distortion. I am referring to the inherent properties of tubes. Tube amplifiers that are coupled to speakers via Transformers, especially if single-ended at the outputs, often have relatively high measured amounts of distortion, which is usually due to the transformer.
It is a better value than $47,000 Dreamplay CD player that is on the cover of this month’s Stereophile for a number of reason! However, I still would not purchase one even if I had Bezos’ money.
Fascinating topic. I'm a neophyte in the mathematical/geometrical matters of TT's parts designs for playback. But I'm pretty sure that the only way to one's satisfaction is by listening and judging by themselves. If it sound good, to one's ears, regardless of cost, say, $20 or $200,000, that's all it matter in the end. By the way can anyone tell me what AHEE is? I google it and all I get back is a jewelry store.
Does anyone know if SAT announced specifications and pricing for the latest series of more modestly price tonearms rumored to be released soon? Comparisons between siblings may prove interesting...
Academic arguments. When discussing different tangential curves in relationship to fixed arm + cart tracing arcs, all have distortions between the null points. Analog playback is fundamentally flawed, and yet it's a wonderful medium.
I have heard the Caliburn/Cobra combination many times as well as many other high ends designs. The Cobra and Graham Phantom Elite I’ve heard costs $12-13K. I’ve been using an SME IV for 29 years. I’d like to hear a Thales Simplicity II tangential tracking/pivoted arm which costs about $9.5K. I like the concept and can afford it. I’ve heard the Kronos Black Beauty at $8.5K many times and would consider that with it’s Kronos turntable mate. These are high end tonearms. Does someone think they are too inexpensive to be high end?
At $30K, the SAT is not in my wheelhouse and it won’t be. I will never purchase a cartridge for more than $7.5K in current dollars either (I have a Benz Ruby III still). There’s a limit to what I will spend to get the best sound and the SAT does not look like it and cartridges that cost $15K that have a limited lifespan are also off the table. Plus, the SAT does not look like a $30K design (many posters appear to agree with that statement with engineering details).
My friends' Caliburn/Cobra system cost over $200K. He has 15K LPs and is an analogophile. I can understand getting the best when one can afford it and restrict themselves to one medium only. MF’s livelihood is as an analogophile. He probably paid 50% retail for his SAT arm which makes it closer to the above arms.
I’ll second the opinion that B&O made a great turntable/arm/cartridge combo 30+ years ago. I own one (not in use) and thought it was very superior to my old Dual, Connoisseur and Empire turntables). It tracked beautifully/faithfully and lacked resolution and bass of my current tables but was great for the price.
These prices are simply outrageous. I can get better sound for less money by hiring pro's to play in my house...and put the left over money in Fidelity.
With 25,000+ LPs, the cost of playing them in high fidelity is going to cost $1000s. How many $1000s depends on the fidelity quality. When I was a teenager, it was about $500. In my 20s it was about $1500, In my 30's it went up to $4000 (VPI 19-IV and SME IV). At 50, I paid for a VPI TNT VI upgraded, kept the SME on it and added the Townsend sink and Benz Ruby 3 at a cost of $10K. So, with the SME, my cost today about as much as a high end tonearm. Now at 62, I'm looking forward to a Thales or Kronos setup.
I recognize your timeline. It's unfortunate that while one's monetary abilities usually increase with age, one's hearing abilities decrease without mercy.
At 58 I'm still able to detect the sonic differences between one cartridge and the next, but I'm aware this is deteriorating fast and will only continue to do so. There's just no turning back, unless medical science comes up with some nifty 'hearing upgrades'. Sometimes I wish I could 'borrow' my 50 years younger ears and hear what my current system actually sounds like.
We shouldn't take all this too seriously. A well-heeled pensionado sitting in front of his $500k audio rig (an easily reached sum these days) is a bit like that 'distinguished looking gentleman with snowwhite hair' sitting behind the wheel of a 'screaming yellow' Lamborghini. While both situations can offer much enjoyment (provided you're still able to get inside the vehicle), it does look a bit silly......
For audio fools only. I know it´s not the best TA produced, not even close. For that money I can buy another truly superb High Fidelity stereo system and lots of great vintage albums, in great condition too.
Each his own about "the best" See it from a different point of view... when someone would be able to make the real best tonearm AND sales price would be 3K...do you really think it would get the merits from all audiophiles???? Forget it. Some want to spend big money...how much is not important One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. You won’t find much wealthy audiophiles who really do sonic comparisons. Of course, most do a kind of comparison but it is more or less the sonic flavor of the month because they do not understand what they hear and why there are differences. It is game money. A toy store for adults.
Of course there are some better designs out there for whatever price but you’ll also find way more sonic inferior/average products for high prices.
Important are only 2 details: He has it and you don’t and He got it for a good price
Forget the sentence "I love music"....I did listen to countless expensive Systems which sound so horrible, it has nothing to do with High End reproduction. Real music does not serve ear cancer ...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
