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.
Dear gentlemans: Whom say is the best tonearm out there? why the whealthy audiophiles bought it?
The one that puts that " best " characteristic was M.Fremer who said that those first 70 tonearm samples were sold because of him and yes that’s why those SAT owners bought it.
Certainly is not the best tonearm in the world and certainly could be a very good tonearm as other out there tonearms.
Now, the MF SAT reviews are faulty ( and I say this with all my respect to him. ) by origen and why I said that, look:
I followed and follows for many years MF reviews ( as from other magazynes reviewers. ) and from some years now understanded how to read/understand each of his reviews. Through those years reviews I learnend that MF has not a fixed evaluation overall proccess/mhetodology to his item tests.
It does not exist there a norm/rule to use exactly the same LP tracks for the test item evaluations, he suddenly listen to a LP that he just bought it or that he listened 30 years ago and then over these kind of rule is his evaluation foundation. Makes no sense to me.
Why use the same LP tracks for overall item evaluations/comparisons?, first because through the time we will have a deep deep knowledge of those tracks even the sound/performance of its clicks/pops on those tracks. Different knowledge tracks are a necessity to make a whole evaluation because on one part of a track we could be ( example. ) evaluating transiente response when in other part of other track LP we could be evaluating dynamics or other characteristics and so on with other LP’s trcks. We choosed those different LP and different tracks because were and are the ones that can shows us the best quality level performance of that specific characteristic and sometimes too are tracks really dificult to listen to it and to be aware of that characteristic: example a tiny sound of a triangle in an orchestra symphonic climaxes where only one or two top crtridges cn shows it cn mke that I can hear it, of course tht we hve to hve in that proccess/mhetodology evluation tracks where we finally can evaluate the whole item quality performance. To long to explain it I hope you can have the idea about what I’m talking.
For me MF is way faulty and I really can’t trust in his reviews ( for what I said here and other mis-information he gives. ) and were from there were the SAT took " the best ".
Today the new SAT models goes to 48K.
In the other side what Syntax posted is rigth, many whealthy gentlemans with 500K+ room/systems in reality performs inside a so so/mediocrity for that kind of money and the problem is that those gentlemans has a very poor knowledge level not only in audio but the more important issue in how live MUSIC performs in the ner field position. Money is always important and helps a lot when we have the knowledge level to use it.
I can’t say as @harold-not-the-barrel that the SAT is for fools only but more for unknoledge level persons that could have at least the same quality performance level spending lower money through other today or even vintage tonearms. But at the end every one privilege is to spend his money as he wants.
My friend with the Caliburn/Cobra/Kiseki purchased it based on MF reviews. That was probably his best purchase in an $850K system. He also bought Ypsilon pre-amp and phono pre based on MF recommendation. Not a wise choice there (pre-amp is terrible and after installing mine in its place, he sold it and replaced it with a VIVA pre-amp).
As to my hearing, yes at 62 it is diminished whereby I have recently been tested at 2db down at 17K. Due to my prior asthmatic condition as a youth, I could hear up to the high 20K region. I was very annoyed in many stores with their high frequency humming lighting transformers. Flying was a pain. So, yes, I’ve lost some of my high frequency abilities (good riddance) but I have a fine hearing ability for music and audio equipment.
fleschler, Do you really mean to say that you (formerly) could hear frequencies up to nearly 30kHz? That's one way to interpret your term "high 20kHz". If so, maybe we should be calling you Fido. Seriously, as a doctor I can say that to be only 2db down at 17kHz at age 62, presumably in both ears, is already very unusual, in a good way. That would put you way ahead of most of us.
My real question to you, if Raul doesn't mind a brief diversion from the SAT tonearm topic, is whether you can say in some detail what your friend did not like about the Ypsilon linestage. (When you use the term "preamplifier" separate from the term "phono stage", I assume you refer to a linestage.) A very good friend and neighbor of mine just sold his VAC linestage in favor of the Ypsilon linestage; he already owns the Ypsilon phono. He tends to make these moves based purely on advice from his particular set of gurus, who are all in business to sell audio equipment. I doubt he ever had a critical listen to the Ypsilon (or the VAC, for that matter) prior to purchase. Thanks.
lewm It is common knowledge that children with bronchial diseases often have the ability (or disability) to hear very high frequencies. Hearing sounds from 20-30Khz was an annoyance when I was young. It may have helped to preserve my high frequency abilities now. Also, I have lived a very healthy lifestyle, no smoking, drinking, drugs, no processed foods since I was an early teen, whole grains, five vegis per dinner 5 days weekly for the last 30 years, wild salmon or wahoo five to six dinners weekly for the last 30 years. Also, no more smog problem in the west San Fernando Valley. No rock concerts, bar/bat mitzvahs without ear protection and no loud music (+95db) unless it is undistorted, for short periods of time.
As to the Ypsilon linestage, it was bright and blarry sounding. We started with awful sounding High Fidelity cables (which he also sold), Nordost, Schnerzinger and GroverHuffman cabling. It had bass. The sound was not cohesive sounding through his Avant Garde Trios regardless of cabling. We installed my GroverHuffman pre-amp (with 6 subminiature tubes and a voltage regulated tube design) and voila!, Smooth, cohesive sound, still with the bass depth and punch (3 pairs of Basshorns and a REL sub).
My friend is into appearances as well as sound and chose to replace the Ypsilon with a matching Viva Linea line-stage for his Viva Aurora monoblocks. My pre-amp (another was available for him) is a slight affair weighing about 5 lbs and compact in size of ordinary appearance.
As to VAC linestages, the older models I heard did not mate well with many non-VAC amps although they sounded great with VAC amps. Don’t know why. I haven’t heard the VAC linestages separate from VAC amps in the past 10 years.
an audiobuddy in Thailand has two of the original SAT 30k tonearms with AF1 and EMT 927. He now also has American Sound AS2000 table and finally removed his SAT tonearms from this table and back to the lesser AF1. He now runs 4 x SME 3012-R tonearms for his carts - Opus1, AtlasSL, Vdh Master Sig., Zyx Univ prem. The AS2000 is quite a bit better than the AF1 or EMT table.
This is what he said regarding the differences between SAT and SME 3012-R.
Sonically it is about small plus/minus comparing to SAT. SAT has the kind of absolute resolution and details that can be view as more analytical in comparison to 3012R. Whereas 3012R has more organic tone, fuller more completed tone with the kind of resolution and clarity that unless you hear them next to each other in the same system and cart you would not notice it. May be it is the difference in arm wand material and tone arm wire I don’t really know. You can come to my room, listen to my system with "SME only" and I can wow you with the clarity and resolution you cannot dispute. The difference I am talking is in degree with respect to one another, in relative term here, so don’t go about labelling SAT as cold and analytical.
I forgot to mention that Brooks Berdan replaced the tonearm cable with a Cardas tonearm cable to RCA box out and installed a closed foam shot into the armtube to eliminate the lower mid/upper bass hump present in the SME IV. My arm is thus modified to sound better than a stock tonearm (SME's tonearm and phono cable in 1989 was junk).
He also has a Kronos table and two Acoustical Systems AXion tonearms. so a total of 4 reference tables. he was using one of the SAT with Etna SL mono, but more for one of his stereo carts. You can but 4 SME 3102R's and still have change left over vs a SAT.
I have never owned or listened to an SME 3012R tonearm except perhaps briefly in other peoples systems, but I find it hard to believe that between the SAT and the 3012R there are no other competitor s that might be superior to the SME. From this I would tentatively conclude that the SAT is middle of the road. Assuming that the 3012R is indeed superior to it in an obvious way. Raul‘s criticism of Michael Fremer calls to my mind one of the positions that MF regularly takes that puzzles me. He often suggests that vertical effective mass should equal horizontal effective mass in the best designs. He is often critical of certain tone arms for not meeting that criterion. Yet everything else I know about tonearm design suggests to me that for the best bass reproduction it is desirable to have high effective mass in the horizontal plane, compared to vertical effective mass. Many fine tonearms are so constructed. This is because reproduction of bass frequencies is dependent on motion of the stylus in the horizontal plane, and damping or controlling that motion by high effective mass is desirable, so that “the tail doesn’t wag the dog”. I wonder if other people have had thoughts along these lines. On the other hand, we all owe MF a debt of gratitude for his long-term support of the vinyl hobby.
I have never owned or listened to an SME 3012R tonearm except perhaps briefly in other peoples systems, but I find it hard to believe that between the SAT and the 3012R there are no other competitor s that might be superior to the SME. From this I would tentatively conclude that the SAT is middle of the road. Assuming that the 3012R is indeed superior to it in an obvious way. Raul‘s criticism of Michael Fremer calls to my mind one of the positions that MF regularly takes that puzzles me. He often suggests that vertical effective mass should equal horizontal effective mass in the best designs. He is often critical of certain tone arms for not meeting that criterion. Yet everything else I know about tonearm design suggests to me that for the best bass reproduction it is desirable to have high effective mass in the horizontal plane, compared to vertical effective mass. Many fine tonearms are so constructed. This is because reproduction of bass frequencies is dependent on motion of the stylus in the horizontal plane, and damping or controlling that motion by high effective mass is desirable, so that “the tail doesn’t wag the dog”. I wonder if other people have had thoughts along these lines. On the other hand, we all owe MF a debt of gratitude for his long-term support of the vinyl hobby.
Dear @fleschler : """
My friend with the Caliburn/Cobra/Kiseki purchased it based on MF reviews """
Many gentlemans bought because MF reviews.
That Caliburn/Cobra review is a good example of what I posted on MF: the true and real star in that TT/tonearm combination belongs to the Cobra tonearm not to the Caliburn/platform. MF just listening/reviews what he like it but with out a fixed methodology/proccess for serious audio evaluation items in reality he does not know what to look for with precise and specific detail/knowledge. Normally the differences in between top audio items are truly elusive and several audiophiles and reviewers gone for what " I like it " and not on which one performs nearer to the recording that's is way different.
If we know what to look for and our room/system were " builded " with tha evaluation fixed proccess then you never make or pay more attention on that " I like it " as the " truer to the recording " that means truer to what the recording microphones pick-up that along means to stay nearer to the live MUSIC/event. MF is just out of that real audio game.
The foundation of a home room/system MUSIC quality performance belongs to the bass frequency range and if we own passive speakers always we need to have at least two self powered subwoofers integrated in true stereo fashion ( the passive main speakers working with a high pass filter. ).
MF owns passive speakers with out those subs and I think he does not has it because his speakers goes to 20hx and feeels is done when it's not done. Nothing can compare to a good subs design against a full range passive speakers handled by top amplifiers that where designed for use it as a " universal " way with different passive speakers when the subs the amplifiers where designed to fulfill the subs drivers needs/characteristics. This makes a huge differences for the better not only in the bass range but in the overall room/system frequency range.
Dear @fleschler : The problem with reviewers as MF is that.
Other example of MF no evaluation bullet proof methodology is this:
Technics sended to him for review one of its new TT/tonearm designs and they send it with a top Ortofon LOMC cartridge with the alignment made it by Technics for that review.
What was the first step in that MF review?, with out listened a single note through the Technics set up he changed it.
What happened with the SAT review?, instead to change nothing he tested following the manufacturer advise. Different approach with no single reason/common sense to do it that way and not only that: the SAT is a stand alone after market tonearm so the owner/reviewer can use it with the manufacturer alignment advise but IMHO and for 30K the reviewer has the responsability and I can say the obligation to test the tonearm to a standard alignment as the IEC Löfgren A or B where the reviewer must have to change the P2S to the new alignment parameters and MF just did not. MF not even ask why that dedicated SAT alignment? how will performs with a different alignment vs the dedicated one?
Very untrusty reviewer ( in reality he has not a system that he use it as his " reference " because several times he took electronics/cables/cartridges/TT/etc etc that he has at hand to review it and is the way he made his reviews. ) and it’s not the only one, all the other reviewers of magazynes or through the internet made it almost the same ! ! ! I know ( first hand experiences with. ) that some of them have a misunderstood/unknowledge deep levels on the tonearm whole alignment issues.
You said that you find it hard to believe that there are no other competitor that is superior to the SME 3012R. There are loads of great tonearms that are far superior to the old ’war horse’ SME! ( SME themselves have stated that the old design is superseded and surpassed by all of their new arms). On another forum, there is a major love fest for this arm...because one of their ’guru’s’ has stated that it is the best, LOL. I used to own this arm,and I can tell you it is nothing special at all! Currently, the only thing going for it is the price it can be had for on the used market..and with good reason. The arm chatters on its knife bearing, it looses information at the arm/headshell junction and the cabling and connections are a joke. Take all of this and compare it to one of todays current top arms...like a Basis Superarm...and the old ’war horse’ SME 3012R heads straight for the bin.
@downunder
That friend of yours who owns the AS 2000...does he happen to get a little advise from this very same ’guru’, LOL...or does he just use his own ears...hmmm.LMAO.
Davey, that was precisely my point. Although perhaps you make the point much better than I did. The point is if the 3012R can outperform the SAT, those who pay $30,000 for the SAT are making a big mistake. There are likely many many other tone arms In between the SAT and the 3012R that can outperform the 3012R and therefore would crush the SAT. I agree in principle with the list of the flaws in the 3012R that you have offered. On the other hand, I never owned any SME tonearm.
The SAT designer has his own merit to manufacture the tonearm and his privilege to go from 30K to today 48K in the new model.
The problem there was the reviewer that from the start he did not compared apples vs apples because he compared tonearms where the alignment set up was way different.
A fair comparisons/tests are to align all non-SAT tonearms and the SAT with the same alignment set up: first taking the parameters manipulation that the SAT designer did it with the most outer and most inner groove and calculating L¨fgren A with those parameters and second evaluation is to align the SAT and the other tonearms taking same Löfgren A with IEC standard. Obviously using same system, same cartridges and same LP tracks.
Till today no single " professional " reviewer did it. So all of them are reviewing and from where they said is the " best "? where are the proofs/facts that gives certainty to that " false " opinions.
Whom win there and whom losted there?. That's why I said and speak of that corrupted AHEE where all we belongs.
indeed there are a number of disciples on that forum. Many of them have never even heard the SME3012R arm, but that doesn’t stop them from wanting it, lol. A’philes are well known for buying with their eyes vs their ears. Or better still, if some guru tells them it’s great...well then why bother listening for oneself!
There is a supposition being made here...and that is the user who reports that the SAT is less satisfying than his SME3012R arm is actually listening to the SAT on an appropriate platform and with the correct set up of the SAT arm. Somehow, I seriously doubt it!
The SAT has far more going for it in the area of engineering than the old ‘war horse’ SME. That, plus the fact that the SAT arm has fresh cabling and connections...and I think you can see that to say you prefer the SME...would indicate that something is seriously wrong with your SAT set up!
i recently heard a great new arm from Durand...looked a lot like the SAT arm, and it was exemplary. Not saying the Durand is designed with the same flaws as perhaps the SAT incorporates, but the Durand was certainly in a totally different league than the old SME!
I've noted that the SME IV can be improved upon with new wiring and armtube foam resonance control. It is extremely likely that the SME 3012R can also be improved, particularly in it's wiring. Stock SME wiring was "crap" in its day. Add was the SME DIN wire I got in 1989 which was inferior to my other arms cabling from Cardas and Audio Source. I can imagine that the SAT should sound better even with the noted tracking distortions.
Dear @fleschler : The real problems with the 3012-R even with today re-wiring are that knife bearing type and not very well damped design.
I own Sao Win top LOMC cartridge and his advise in the operation manual says: don't mount the cartridge with knife bearing tonearm designs. I owned SAEC knife bearing design tonearms and Sao Win is rigth, that kind of bearing is not for top LOMC cartridges.
That's why from some yers now SME just left to use tht type of bering in its tonerm models.
Perhaps an advantage of the 3012 as any other removble headshell tonearm design be eactly this: removable headshell.
As always in audio exist trade-offs but in the case of removable headshells designs this trade-off is for the better:
a removable headshell designs makes a lot more easy to match the cartridge needs with the tonearm due that we can choose different headshells with different builded materials ( that resonates and with control of those resonances different too. ), different shapes and different weigths. So we can find out the rigth headshell for any cartrige can shows it at its best, something that in a fixed headshell designs can't do it and not only that but due that we can choose a headshell with different weigths we can stay always inside the ideal cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency range. Other very important advantage of a removable headshell design is that we are not " married " with the signature sound that always exist in a fixed headshell designs. Only if the fixed headshell tonearm design is " dead neutral " that non-ideal signature could disappears but the trde offs in a fixed designs are worse than the trade offs in a removable headshell designs.
Agreed, with the SME3012R, the main problem does lie with the chatter induced by the Knife edged bearing. However, the removable headshell does present problems. While it allows for more flexibility with cartridge selection and experimentation with different headshell materials.IME, it also introduces some fairly severe losses at the arm to headshell junction. This, along with the bearing problem,means that it is a tonearm that has long since been superseded by numerous other designs. Too bad that some a’philes are going down this old SME path and not hearing the severe negative impact that it is having on their systems.
you are assuming something....that something is that the fellow who is using the SAT and comparing it to his his SME3012R is using the SAT on the Air Force One...
'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......🤗
I don't assume, I know. Below is a link to a picture of his turntables. And guess what, the SAT is on his Airforce one. So let's try this again Davey, what is a better platform for the SAT....a Linn? Haha
Dear @daveyf : I posted that always exist trade offs and that the ones in a fxed headshell design are worse than in a well designed removable headshel tonearm.
I agree with @halcro in that audio regards and as him I owned/own both kind of designs and the fixed one has no single advantage you can be aware vs a removable headshel design.
I remember that Da Vinci very well regarded and expensive tonearm design was not only with fixed headshell but with out the possibility to change AZ, this last trade off makes no sense to any one and not for a tonearm manufacturer.
Guess what?, after many critics everywhere in the net including in this Agon forum about those two trade offs they changed for the better and the tonearm comes with AZ mechanism and removable headshell.
Makes no sense to stay " married " with a signature sound in a fixed headshell tonearm designs. The SAT is the same because you only can use its dedicated headshells.
Btw, In that WTBF are many whealty gentlemans, some audiophile/music lover experts and a lot of very low knowledge levels/high ignorance levels in MUSIC/audio. That's why the fest for that 3012 and many other kind of audio items including the SAT and I'm not saying that the SAT is a bad tonearm because it's not but is not " perfect ", nothing is in audio.
And any one of you can post my post down that forum and you will read every kind of reactions that can confirm about.
Raul, no one has stated that there are no good removable headshell designs...however, if all else is equal, the loss at the removable headshell junction to the arm is going to be a factor vs. the one piece headshell with no wiring junction at that point. Ideally, the cabling should go all the way from the cartridge to the phono stage...with no breaks. What I am discussing here is the old war horse SME 3012R headshell design...not other far more sophisticated designs. The DaVinci made some extra effort to minimize this problem....the old SME design did not.
Dear @daveyf : Ideally by whom. The headshell junction makes and changes the vibration/resonances/noise/distortion frequency that helps about. Yes, a non wiring junction could be better por the signal but as I pointed out in the other posts has a trade off or maybe many: additional to that tonearm fixed design resonance signature in its self tonearm you will have a for ever signature for that continuosly wiring that you really can't know if that wiring is in true the best out there.
We have to choose the best trade offs and if for you the fixed headshell designs is the choice just live in peace with.
The cartridge/tonearm is full of trade offs depending each one choices.
In a room/audio system the overall quality level performnce depends only in each one of us good judgement for the trade offs we choosed. Nothing comes at random.
Each one of our choices depends only on two factors: our knowledge levels in MUSIC and our knowledge levels in audio. Ignorance levels is the name of the overall game.
With all respect to the one that posted that and that's an " industry expert " and to the system owner I have to sy that both have very high unknowledge overall MUSIC/audio levels and not only because the 3012's but becuse is full of those terrible tubes electronics and to many horns drivers.
A " whealty "/$$$$ system means almost nothing other than is $$$$$.
and the system owner posted that he will change one SAT for the terrible double knife bearing design SAEC 506/30 that I owned. This is double knife when the 3012 is knife/gimball.
Which kind of advisors has Tango and some of the other gentlemans posting there?
You are a complete idiot.....I'm sorry but I have to say it. You know Tang moved the SAT off the AS-2000 so now it's just on the AF1. The pic you posted is from 2 months ago, I posted the recent pic with no SAT on the AS-2000.
So what are you trying to attempt on this forum after you were chased off of the analog forums at WB? Unbelievable.
@jeff1225 If anyone is a complete idiot it’s you...you couldn’t even figure out how to scroll down the page! Tango compared his SAT to his SME on his AS 2000 table, not on his Air Force One! This is when he came to the conclusion that he liked his SME better...on the AS 2000 table...That is the photo that you are looking at ...if..you could figure out how to scroll down the page, lol. Get a clue guy...and get with the picture, and stop trolling!
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 byDaveyF
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 wasclearly 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 leasttwicethat 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 aMoment Connectionin Structural Engineering. This means that all Bending Stresses, Shear Stresses and Deflectionsat the jointare transferredwithout loss. In fact....this form of structural coupling is morerigidthan 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 aMoment Connection.
As you say Raul...... our "ignorance" levels rarely prevent us from posting 🤪
Stop trolling yourself. You know we have had the discussion before...and you are dead wrong. I asked a mech/ structural engineer about the “moment connection” of a solid one piece headshell vs a two piece removable headshell...and as you will find out, the structural integrity of the one piece headshell is superior....in all instances,. Go and ask a mech/structural engineer this question, as I am certain that you are not one...after your ‘bs’ response above, and on the other forum.
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.
So Halcro you are an architect...or maybe just a ‘draftsman’...lol.. Your understanding of structural engineering tells me everything I need to know,... i think you need to go back to school...and ask the teacher about this subject...and be prepared to learn it...and not just google stuff..
Henry, Sorry, but in my opinion, you and John Ellison are wrong. "Wrong" in the sense that your and his analysis is very incomplete. "Signal loss" due to R is not the only thing to consider when comparing transmission along a single piece of wire from A to B to transmission of the same signal across several different pieces of wire, interrupted by several physical connectors along the way from A to B.
First, your analysis, and John’s, assumes that resistance across a connector is zero. Of course, it is not zero; it is some number of Ohms that would and should be added to your and his calculation of total resistance. This will be different for every connector along the way and also dependent upon its cleanliness, the use of contact enhancers, etc. (And by the way, do you also mean to say that all connectors sound the same and that all connectors are tonally neutral?)
Second, at each physical connection in the interconnected second circuit there is introduced a capacitance and an inductance that would be expected to affect the signal in (admittedly) tiny ways. And finally, I would predict that the pure effect of wire R must not be so audible as perhaps are connectors per se. To support my contention, I would point out that many audio circuits deliberately introduce much larger values of R in series with the signal, in the form of physical resistors to prevent oscillation. In tube circuits, this is called a "grid-stop"resistor. Tubes with very high transconductance typically require a grid-stop resistance of at least 100 ohms. In many phono stages, there is a 100-ohm or higher value grid-stop resistor right after the input connection to the first gain device (tube or transistor). Transistors have much higher transconductance than tubes, typically, and also require "gate-stoppers". The value of these Rs, which are also in series with the signal, is many thousands of times the resistance of the wire. You might argue that if we could get away with removing these latter physical resistors, we might hear the difference, but we cannot do that, and their value in Ohms completely swamps R of the wires and any connectors as well.
As to audibility, I have come to the conclusion for my own purposes that high quality headshells with cleaned and contact-enhanced connectors have no detectable negative effect as compared to a straight shot from cartridge to phono input, for MM or MI cartridges. But I have heard faint differences between the two alternatives, in favor of the straight through connection, for very LOMC cartridges. So, for my LOMCs, I try to use either one of my two tonearms that provide the direct wire connection, my Triplanar and my Reed. Surely, you cannot demand scientific proof that someone other than yourself is hearing a small difference in a situation such as this. It is equally OK then to ask you for "scientific proof" that the use of headshells and a plethora of connections is superior. 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.
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.
