What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

@dogberry 

And yet, somehow I expect a turntable bolted to the South Col of Everest would find itself on a fairly solid platform!

Yes but trying to adjust VTA accurately with frozen nuts can be difficult.

syntax or not syntax you can't win.

I don't think syntax is on your side. Its a German thing, everything must be correct.

If you think no-one else can win, you are probably the loser. 

two 3012Rs, one stock and the other(better one) with silver wire and a bronze bearing.

I don't know why anyone would use bronze for a knife edge bearing, it is too soft and will wear quickly.

The 3012R sounds livelier in a pleasing way, the 4P over-damped. 

The 3012R has a charm to the sound.

I have set up multiple cartridges on the 4Point11 and have never heard it sound over damped. It is very quick, and quite neutral. I don't use the damping troughs on the 4Point.

As always with tonearms, the results can vary depending on the actual  TT used and mounting.

@pindac @lewm 

You guys are missing the real point - to measure the groove accurately the tonearm must be "anchored" in position relative to the platter, with no differential movement.

As to whether this is achieved via a common chassis linking the arm/platter ( my preferred solution ) or an arm pod is moot - it depends on the design and implementation - there are good an bad in both formats.

On the other hand if you believe in having a rigid loop between platter, arm and cartridge then you need to throw out your TT if it has one of the maglev type bearings that are all the rage at the moment.

And of course there is the classic story of the cleaning lady that lifted the arm pod to dust the shelf underneath, without telling the owner, and he wondered why the TT sounded so bad after all those hours spent on careful set up and most of his favourite records ended up with groove damage from mis-tracking.

**** Back in the old days when the SME5 was first made, there were only three top arms; the SME5, the Graham unipivot and the Triplanar. ****

Thats a pretty myopic view of the world.

There were many others at that time  - Syrinx PU3, Alphason HR100S, Exact, Breuer, Sumiko MSC800, Naim Aro, Air Tangent, Eminent Technology to name a few.

Personally I've never rated the Graham - too much dampening in the armtube ( the early versions ) and the bearing is upside down - draining energy in the wrong direction. The Aro smokes it.

The Triplanar lacks resolution - its adjustability is both an advantage ( cartridge set up ) and disadvantge ( too many joints, loop rigidity is compromised ).

@atmasphere ​​​​   cc @frogman 

I left the ET2 out on several counts. The first being that the lateral tracking mass is a multiple of its vertical tracking mass. This makes selecting a cartridge rather difficult-

Actually you are looking at this the wrong way round. The horizontal effective mass as adjustable and the decoupling of the counterweight in the horizontal plain means that you can tune the arm to the cartridge.

Secondly, if you go to Bruces website and look at his testing results, the split effective mass in the 2 planes reduces the peak of the fundamental resonance significantly, resulting in more accurate bass and better tracking.

As an example I ran a high compliance Shure V15vxmr in the ET2 when I had a hiatus from audio for 10 years. After that time ( still with the original stylus in place and stabiliser brush removed ) the cantilever was dead straight and negligible stylus wear - so much so that someone bought the 10 year old cartridge for what I paid 10 years earlier after much examination with Lupe and micro scope.

 it uses an air bearing. If you want the cartridge to play without coloration, there can be no play between the surface of the platter and the mount of the cartridge. We know that bearing play makes a difference since you can use higher pressure pumps and hear a difference.

Yes I agree, but the upside is the removal of tracking angle distortion - removing phase and time error caused by tracking angle distortion - and unparalleled reproduction of the soundstage. The removal of phase distortions inherent in pivoted arms also improves timing and coherency. If you bought an ET2.5 and listened to your own records that you cut with the ET2.5 properly set up you would be shocked - particularly in terms of soundstage reproduction and preservation of phase.

Finally the arm mass is high enough that a decision was made to run only 4 wires rather than the traditional 5. Cartridges are balanced sources and they don’t make a lot of voltage. When the arm ground is integrated into the left channel signal, it can be noisier. 

Most ET owners rewire their arms, with no ground. Never had a noise problem, and  balanced configuration is easily attainable. With current wires from Audionote & Kondo you could run 5 wires with less resistance than the original wiring if you need to.

You can not tune that arm to any cartridge. It is physically impossible. Anything that is hung off that arm is mass that has to be accounted for. If you do not want the mass of the counterweight to affect the horizontal mass of the arm just remove it.

And there you go again with yet another uninformed comment.

The Eminent Technology ET2 comes standard with multiple counterweights so that users can adjust the effective mass as seen by the cartridge.

I understand this may be difficult for you to understand. but I point it out for other readers who can appreciate the maths and physics behind the design.

Actually the RB300 was released in 1983, the first SME V prototype was shown at audio shows in 1984.

Given that both arm tubes are cast, requiring moulds to be developed, SME must have had the arm in development before the RB300 was released.

RB 300 was as a good a match as a SME V 

That's fantasy land - I sold both in the mid 80's, RB300 was not a patch on the SME V regardless of drive type.

Again interesting how Linn, with their TOTR Tonearm of this era, was a close mimic of a Swiss Brauer Arm.

Ittok was nothing like the Breuer, and not even close on performance - again I sold and/or set up both.

As I am a long term user of Idler Drives that stretches back to the Nineties and in the Country where the Idler Revival was quite prominent

So how long have you lived in Japan ?

there is a decent amount of info’ to suggest that the RB 300 proved to be a contender has been shared in plenty of circles with an interest in such matters.

The Rega made its name because it offered good performance for the money. Audio skinflints like to delude themselves. In my shop in the 80's I often demonstrated to customers that a top arm with modest priced cartridge could easily outperform a Rega RB300 with say a Koetsu.

Belt Drives in General have Two Bearings.

One utilised to Mount and Rotate the Platter, and one to supply a Lateral Force for a Coupling (Belt ) to rotate the Platter at a required Speed.

Two Spindles in use that can’t be set into their housings, that are not making a tight fit, as this will create a friction, which will be a unwanted impediment to the desired function of the Spindles.

Two Spindles with a looseness that can create their own eccentric rotation, when rotating independent from each other.

Idler Drives and Direct Drives have lesser concerns overall, and they have developed their own fanbase for these reasons.

I thought I made it known a Idler Drive is not the only TT with Two Bearing Spindles, of which one is found in a Motor and the Other Attached to a Platter.

I’m surprised that after all those years of studying turntables, you haven’t worked out that idlers have 3 sets of bearings, platter, motor & idler wheel, most of them wonky in vintage TT’s.

By your own standards you should be using a direct drive.