Hi Peterayer,
I'm also a SME-V user (previously SME-309) on a SME 10 tt.
It was mentioned above, that the VTF spring is 'damped'. That is correct according to SME and you should feel that the dial moves VERY reluctantly -- a sure sign of the presents of heavy silicon damping.
Having said that, go feel the way the phono-plug connector at the bottom of the arm swivels. Also pretty reluctantly. The relevance?
I had to remove this connector some short while ago for some repair issue, so I could look inside ---- it is plug full loaded with silicone of the viscosity used for the damper trough. I understand the spring for VTA is filled with the same stuff.
As to your arm-weight issue, I'm familiar with this. I use a PW cart speced at 13g and actually reported to be 13.6g (I have not yet confirmed this with my own).
So, the PC 1 is ~13.5g to my recollection, which gives us a similar situation. You can get the heavier SME counter-weight at ~ 400$, or go to your local tire shop and ask for two 15g flat stick-on lead balancing weights for mag wheels (I have done this and it works fine). Stick them on the bottom of the tungsten weight (the screwed in incert), side by side the long way, so nothing will touch the arm post if you use a slightly lighter cart --- e.g. ~ 11g.
In my case the added 30g (as is the heavier SME weight) brings the counterweight into the middle of the adjustement range. I have also tried even heavier added weights to bring the counter weight just up to the pivot-post and can tell: IT MAKES ZERO in difference in my system, YMMV. So I stuck to the 2x 15g added weight, 'cause it looks more balanced to my eye. The old adage applies: What looks good, works well... YMMV.
I also have listened to a REGA 300 (with a Dorian) on a 1/2 & 1/2 static/dynamic setting ,and at least I could not hear a difference to a full dynamic setting, what so ever.
It seems a similar issue, as is with some SME arm owners encouraging to take off the arm post-bridge --- for yet more superior sound?
Tried that, been there, got the cap and the T-shirt --- it does sound slightly different but in no way any BETTER (in my system) i.e. a little bit less bass so you hear a bit more top end.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi DerTonarm,
if you read my post you will find that I have addressed the point from a sound response point of view.
I have tried counter weight as close as can be, in the middle and pretty much at the extreme end of the weight adjustment.
There is NO difference in sound between the middle and very close up. Someone with 'bats-ears' MIGHT just make a case for not using the very outer end of the adjustment (I'm sure I have said as much i.e. what looks good works good...
Here again we run into an issue of maths vs hearing.
Let me hasten to mention, that I have just done another upgrade step on my crossover and I can hear VERY DEFINITAVELY a change from a 5R6 5watt Kiwame (carbon film) resistor to a Mills MRA5 5R6 (5watt) in the tweeter resonance compensation, which is NOT in the signal path as such. So, I guess my hearing is jolly good to be able to hear this (it was the right thing to change the R BTW :-)
So, I say NO discernable difference between dynamic and non-dynamic, and also no discernable difference between middle or close to the pivot post counterweight. The maths would surely come up with something other than my hearing, so be it.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi DerTonarm,
(I feel a bit silly to keep calling you that name --- is your first name a secret, if so, so may be it. I'm surely not talking to Juergen Eggers :-)
Back to the subject on hand. I do agree, whow! with EVERYTHING you state above (must be the maths that out of the way of hearing.
In a lesser, more affordable design e.g. RB300 there are possibly other factors at work also, that make a case for using it static as a preference --- never has one so i can't tell for certain. My friend has a Thorenz 'RB250' and a J. Raeke 'RB300' both ARE dynamic designs, and in his rig a Z-3 I can not make out any difference. That said, it is actually quicker (in general) to set-up a dynamic arm, if the scale can be trusted. I do trust SME, correct me if that is wrong.
One know exception to easy set-up is the new 12" Ortofon. I think a dynamic 12" tends to be more tricky in this respect in any event though. Furthermore, not my own experience and you might be able to comment on this some more, is the preference for 12" arms to run just static ---- it's got something to do with the maths? Not that I can see it, so it might just be the set-up issue and a subsequent variability due to the much longer lever compared to a 9".
Furthermore, I found that having used a Technics analogue VTF force gauge, that it was not as accurate as I would have liked it, and in particular when having to set-up 2.6g as is required according to spec. for a PW.
Best,
Axel |
Hallo Dertonarm,
you have a point I guess, so that said --- I use damping and had arms that had no facility for damping, so how to prove the point?
What I can say, in my current set-up when I use damping, it is WITH GREAT CAUTION, lest you kill the top end 'air'. In my experience, and corroborated by some reviewer's findings (not in your highest esteem) it is often LESS than 1/8 turn that can 'make it, or break it'.
Personally I like to have an option. Lift the pin out of the fluid, or ever so little place it in the silicone will tell you with a reasonably resolved system what works best for your arm cart combination.
There are some marvellous carts that will just sound more 'right' by using a little damping with a given arm. If you like such a cart e.g. AirTight PC-1, Windfeld, and then some, then according to your take, you would have to purchase a different arm or not listen to this type of cart?
In my experience it is the heavier carts (~13g) that become a bit 'mismatched' as you would call it i.e. in need of some damping with a midium mass arm 10~11g.
The funny thing is, that they are in no way mismatched according to the maths!
How about that now?! Wasn't it the maths that tells it all? If your cart/arm is in a resonance-band between 8Hz to 12Hz all is fine --- according to the maths, right?
Some like a more tight a tolerance of 8.5Hz to 10Hz, so if that still works, AND the cart still likes a little damping?
Still going to buy another arm or chuck your cart form some other item?
As for myself, I don't think so.
(If the tires on your car dont work for you, get other tires first and dont buy another car, I say)
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi Raul,
>>> Usually when the cartridge does not " wiggle&jump " that cartridge/tonearm set-up performs extremely well. <<<
I couldn't agree more!
What I describe is just my finding, and agreed like always --- there's yet something else...
Note:
Ockham Razor "The explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory"
:-) Ah, so...
Greetings,
Axel
PS: Mine doesn't 'wiggle&jump' currently ---- most all of the time |
Daniel,
thanks great information, all make a lot of sense to me.
Axel |
Hi DerTonarm,
cart compliance is a major input parameter in the calculation of arm / cart resonance, yes?
So, I'm trying to figure were we are regards the maths part of it.
Unless you are saying, a medium mass arm with a higher weight cart becomes a (sort of) higher mass arm. If that is so, then we are actually making things better, considering a medium compliance (12 ~ 16CU), or?
If, as you suggest the cart is heavy (stone body etc.) and the compliance is high (24 ~ 36CU) than the maths should again show, that resonance is out of the acceptable band as mentioned earlier (7.5Hz ~ 12Hz). Or do we have here the first case were the maths/facts do not tell the full story?
Interesting is, to my current understanding and assuming a 'reasonable' cart weight (5.5 ~ 8.5g), a high compliance cart with a light-mass arm, such as was the rave was in the 80s for a while, actually creates lesser IGD issues, YMMV.
There are of course other factors why compliance 'generally' has moved back from that dizzy height (very soft) of e.g. 36CU, to something in between to the other extreme, the VERY stiff (low compliance SPU, DECCA, EMT, etc.) of the 60s.
Now, will the maths tell it, or not?
If not, we all would be relinquished to try lots of different arms, or as I also said, not be able to listen to some marvellous carts.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi Daniel,
let me get used to this now --- and welcome once again "In der Loewengrube"
>>> A stone-bodied Koetsu <<<
Yes, I hope you'll survive that one. I get your point, and if only for one reason: the other end of that spectrum the DL-103 i.e. a light body with a very low compliance.
This will need some heavy mass arm, end of story.
But now go to the resonance calculation it will confirm this (I bloody well hope so!)
Daniel do us a favour, go check: http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html
and let us know if you're findings will be different. And if so - why?
>>> Usually you are better off, if your cartridge is a good "tracker". <<<
Well, right on the money I say --- BUT trackability was the very reason why folks like vdH went to the extreme of 36CU, right? And the Shure V15's (I owned one ages ago) also. Yet again a BUT, the problem I recall was, the EXTREMLY low VTF used in order not to bottom it out in the first place!
Now lets look at some of the low compliance carts. There is not a single ONE, that can claim better than 60µm, yes? Which is a pretty poor showing --- just looking at the maths :-)
Now one more BUT, they also use humongous VTF! 4g and more! If that needle (almost all had a round type, conical stylus then) dropped on the vinyl it made some sizeable pit mark. So it didn't track too badly because it used VTF like a ton of bricks.
So lets have your take on that resonance-calculator's findings please. And we'll watch out for those lions not get us chewed up over Koetsu and Denon...
Greetings,
Axel
|
Thanks Daniel,
now what about that D-103 I mentioned?
Lightweight body 4.8g , Low compliance ~5CU in a 'modern' medium-mass arm?
Axel |
Hi Peterayer
>>> The biggest problem with the SME V design is the difficulty of adjusting height. Every time I try it, the arm column moves slightly out of vertical because the VTA screw is off centre and I have to recheck azimuth <<<
My solution:
Make some hardwood spacers (small oblong blocks) fit between armrest and clamping assembly, loosen the bolts press down on the pivot bearing-bridge. The arm will ALWAYS be level with the spacer block. I have made these according to VTA requirement. I started somewhere from 1/2" which fits for a Windfeld. If the PC-1 is by X taller this must be added.
You can achieve quite easily the small differences Raul is talking about --- AND HE IS RIGHT THERE --- a 0.3mm difference can just make that difference to be more pleasing.
Greetings,
Axel |
|
Hi all,
one thing came to mind when reading about silicone damping being considered a 'crutch' to make up for lack of arm to cart matching ---- but wait, there are arms that use 'damping' a their required part of operation!
Well Tempered (now a golf ball! in silicon), Schroeder uses a magnet, just to mention two. Others consider it an 'option' but actually seem to sound more 'right' with juice in their various bowls, I'm thinking of uni-pivoted designs.
Are these all aberrations to some 'true teaching' , I can not see that, honestly.
Back to the V damping trough, (an option with the less expensive IV, IV.vi, and 300 series). If you have a V, and feel like some purists, and want to remove it --- it leaves the arm with a rather unbalanced looking uncovered left side horizontal pivot bearing...
I listened with that 'hard wear' on and off --- ZERO difference.
I might mention it is not quite that easy to take it off in the first place, since it it VERY solidly bolted on, with some part catching under some other cover. Just before you get the idea.
Axel |
Hi Peterayer
:-) nice to hear you are not A -purist- :-)
I think you got it pretty well down, in my estimate, by your comment:
>>> I wonder if this is about relative cantilever movement between low versus high compliance cartridges and the stability of the arm moving across the LP. <<<
Some notion I will share:
Look what your stylus is doing when being lowered into the start groove ---- pop - and wiggle, sometimes jumping quite nastily into the first music groove, ever had that?
Well, I do. Now the lower the compliance the less this seems to be the case. Why? Well, that another subject I guess.
Your PC-1 has 10CU compliance, I had a Dorian (now my son's) with 12CU, but I also had a Jubilee, and now Windfeld both 16CU.
The higher the compliance the more wiggle and jump, at least so far as to my experience.
Now, use just the smallest amount of damping you will find that this sort of disturbing effect is much reduced.
But now what about the sound?
Well, with a higher compliance cart it seems to be beneficial preventing some treble 'overshoot'. Do too much, the cart will very quickly sound kind of dull. The difference in my (and other's experience) is often not more than 1/8 turn up or down.
Want to call that a fix for a mismatch, fine by me. But I think it's just an additional tuning facility you either decide works for a cart or not, so you just deactivate it.
Same as to the varying levels of anti-skate.
So go ahead, tell me, that if I need anti-skate it's due to a arm/cart mismatch?! well I'm honestly not on that side, I simply use it, BUT with discretion.
It's a bit like the down-haul tension on a sail. There is no one tension fits all, now is there, ever?
So far my thoughts on the subject.
Greetings,
Axel |
