Sme arm "Bridge Removal"

I HOPE you're talking about the "finger lift" and not the bridge across the main bearing!!

It's true there are some who assert better performance w/o the fingerlift. "But ask yourself this *punk, are ya feelin' lucky!?" (I say be nice to your cartridge's cantilever ;-)

* reference to Clint Eastwood in "Dirty Harry". No offense intended, just couldn't resist ;-)
.

Hartmut -- could you please explain what 'preload' means (in terms of the mechanism itself.) Sounds interesting.
.

After reading all the discussion I could find on AA, the overwhelming consensus seem to fall into the "no difference" or "very little difference" results. Maybe different cartridges respond to the alteration differently? Personally, I prefer to avoid that twilight zone ;-)

I also find the "totally cosmetic" response from SME confusing: if it's totally cosmetic, why so much caution about getting the torque on the bolts just right, etc.?

I wish I could understand better the relationship between this 'bridge' and the vertical(?) bearing (would that be the one that sits crosswise and allows the arm to move up and down?) before I try this tweak; perhaps SME would issue proper instructions for this procedure if requested?
.

Could someone explain to me what "loading" the bearing means? And how having the bridge in place, or not, affects that "loading"?

Yesterday, I removed the bridge on my SME V, and to me, it looks simply bolted to the main tonearm yoke casting. The attachment bolts themselves do not appear to do anything more than simply hold the bridge in place (they do not hold the bearing in place!) -- and tightening them wouldn't do anything more than hold the bridge tighter and tighter until you snap the bolts! There does not appear any way that tightening (or loosening) these bolts affects the the tonearm's vertical bearing, which is already press-fit into the main yoke casting and would not be affected by the presence or absence of the bridge.

Having the bridge in place completes the gimbel design look of the mechanism, and IN THEORY would keep the top of the main casting from spreading apart, perhaps with slight variations in temperature; but such microscopic changes are, it seems to me of little consequence, and in any case, do not affect the built-in "tightness" of the bearing (if that's what is meant by loading?)

Sme10 - I did not hear any of the changes you and others have reported. Frankly, if I did, I would would be more alarmed than pleased. But I'm still very anxious to understand what this "loading" terminology refers to, and hope someone will explain it.

Thanks.

Neil
.