What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

@whart , I was in the public health service for 4 years in Haleyville, Alabama, 30 miles northwest of Birmingham. I met my wife there. I never got to see the exhibit in New York but I have a beautiful hardback of it with pictures of every bike.

The Monster is still the two wheeled riot act it was back then. I have a 2022 Diavel S. It is a sport bike for old men. 

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the SME V can sound constrained, and that is a good description I hear with the Transfiguration Audio Proteus. Everything sounds on track in terms of tonal balance, it tracks well, and at the macro level dynamics and output levels are fine, but the sound lacks that bit of life that I want from the system. It is not that the sound is bad, it is very good, I just feel there is a bit more performance that can be had from the analog system. 

Does this mean an arm rewire will push the table over the hump? Does it mean a different cartridge for the SME? Or a wholesale replacement of the arm. That is the question I am trying to work out. I am still waiting on the completion of service for the Ortofon Verismo, and then I will put it on that table. I have a ZYX 4D that has gone to Australia along with my second MC2000 that I am having fit with a boron cantilever, but apparently Australia Post has lost it, or its having issues getting to customs. I sent it out on December 8th and it still has not cleared customs. My other cartridges are at a lesser level, a Shinon Red that Soundsmith retipped with one of their ruby cantilevers, and an Ortofon MC3000 II. The Ortofon MC2000 I have could go on it, but the original review by JGH showed an incompatibility when he put it on a SME V. 

So that is what I am trying to suss out, and the reason for this post. Arm pods and 12 inch arms really have nothing useful to add to the conversation as the SOTA tables can only accept 9 to 10.5 inch arms, and I am not setting a static pod on the cabinet with a table that is designed with a suspended sub chassis. 

Wise decision not to mate a SOTA with an outboard  pod, at least. My guess is any sensible change you make is going to make you happier with the SQ. It’s how we’re built. So don’t fret.

I never got to see the exhibit in New York but I have a beautiful hardback of it with pictures of every bike.

A group of us misfit bikers took the train to the Chicago and got a special showing at the Field Museum. A year or two later I went to see it again in Vegas during CES. Pretty amazing stuff!

The Transfiguration Proteus is Cart' I have shown an interest in and once was tempted to purchase, but chose to help the Vendor the Cart' find a route to resolve the issue they had with it.

I regularly keep a check on the Market to see what turns up.

The owned SME IV sounds constrained to the Tonearm I am using at present and this also being a Tonearm I see no need to change, it is a keeper and has a couple of changes awaiting that will lift its performance further.

The SME IV is directly compared to a owned Audiomods Series V, and these are much of muchness, there is little to separate the presentation. 

I have a good handle on the presentation and the perception of a constrained/excess of control during a replay.

I have regularly heard the V/12 and the OL Illustrious and can perceive the same constrained presentation.

As stated previously, if not for Rega becoming so successful as a early launched Brand and maybe not having a Watertight Protection over their Product, the Four Models referred to above will most likely not have been developed.

These are inflicted by the Geometry and Design of the Rega Adopted Methodology.

As made known as well both the IV and OL were deselected by another who was going through the motions of selecting a Tonearm.

All will successfully replay recorded music, not all from my acquired experience, are able to offer a sense of real freedom/liberty, allowing not usually revealed embedded information to form in an expansive and beyond the usual detail as the basics of the presentation. When the Envelope of  note or vocal has the perception of being tangible, Tonearms of the Rega design are quite easily Superseded for a different fundamental of a design.  

I haven’t read the whole 3ad but if it hasn’t been indicated yet I would say look at the Audiomods production as well.
Several owners indicate not to use the silicone damper of the SmeV, to proceed with an internal rewiring with pure silver wiring and replace the output cable with others of better quality always in pure silver; the improvements would be evident.

As said in previous Posts, if it weren’t for the Rega Design being so successful and sought after, there would most likely not be a SME IV, V, 309, along with a host of others that poached the Rega Geometry and Design.

Sorry to contradict you but Rega with the RB300 and Sme with the V were both marketed the same year (1985/86)
Unless there was industrial espionage, no one copied from the other.

@best-groove I get it, Just Like Linn never used the Ariston Design 🤔

The RB300 was a sale item in 1983, it was receiving rave reviews in 1983/84 and selling by the Shedload, taking away sales from other Brands who did not know how to get a lookin.

The SME V Debuted as a Prototype in 1984 andwas not a sale item, it was a shot across the bow to Rega showing the Market a Up Market Rega was in the making.

The explanation for the delay of the launch, was that supply chain materials were being tested.

The general consensus is the Rega was interrogated to the point a Lawsuit was not in the making. When the legal side was no longer a concern the SME V was launched in 1985.

SME got away with it and so followed the early upgrade options for the Rega from Third Party Suppliers, which evolved into more Rega Type Arms.

I am not disputing the amount of Brands with Rega Type Arms, much Joy and Pride f Ownership has been attained.

I am a SME IV user 'no more', who was wed to this arm for many years.

Also I am a Audiomods Series Five user 'no more', but could not really differentiate the IV and Series Five.

These arms are a design that from my evaluation are able to create a perception of constraint and a excess of control on a replay.

It is the perception of this control and how it has become repellent, no longer attractive that has been the motivation for me to make the change. 

As these designs are varied across the Brands, in the methodologies to produce them with serious considerations for the methods used to upgrade, it is off interest to me why there is so much of a muchness detected across the Arm Design in use.

A friend has been doing Freelance work for a Company that is producing Tonearms to compete with the Rega Design Arms and has had a option on all arms in the line, after having use of them on their Home System, they have not adopted one of these arms in place of their other Tonearm options, of which one is the design I use now.

In my simplistic world, I associate this with the Rega Design Effect.

 

@pindac Never written that Linn didn’t have an Ariston design, Linn started with Ariston turntables design; do you have a reliable source (magazine or other) to prove that the RB 300 was already produced in 1983?

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.

SME with the Companies inherent engineering prowess from the day, could identify and produce a mimic in days once a few designs with dimensions were on paper.

As Pattern Makers, Milling a Wand from any material to create a Part to be shown on a Prototype will have been a job for a apprentice.

@best-groove No need for me to supply anything, the Dates are the History and these are recorded very well.

A Search should even reveal that the RB 300 has a Gross of a estimated 400 000 sales, of which a substantial amount of sales were accumulated in 1983,84,85 (Shedloads)

As for Magazines, when SME were finally getting reviews of the launched V Tonearm in the Mid-Nineties, there is seemingly the usual influence from a Manufacturer, where the only reference to a Competitor Arm (RB300) is where the strengths are made known as improved on the competitor and how these are claimed to be better. No A/B Arm Comparisons allowed in any form of a Description.

The Idler Drive Community did that, and pretty much made it known the RB 300 was as a good a match as a SME V or IV when used with this Motor Drive.

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

Was the SME IV and later 309 produced as a cheaper V, to give a more affordable entry, or as a Model to tempt more customers away from Rega's continuing success in creating sales to SME? 

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.

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.

Exactly

The magnesium arms were made raw on behalf of SME to a specialized company in Chicago, magnesium is a dangerous material that ignites easily and companies specialized in treating this metal are needed and then returned to SME which worked, finished and varnished them.
I very much doubt that after seeing the Rega 300 in the space of a few months SME designed an entire tonearm from scratch, looked for components from external companies that they could not produce inside the factory, and finally put the V on the market, so in my opinion it was just a coincidence that Rega was the first to bring a one-piece tonearm to market.
The project certainly started a few years earlier, an arm like the V cannot be improvised in just one year, not even for a bet.
This is to say that it was not copied from the RB300 at all (unless there was industrial espionage)

The dispute has evolved into the challenging of reports to be found on Comparative Performance on a Certain Drive Type of TT.

The dates of Launch are well recorded in History, and I see no further dispute on this matter.

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, 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.

With all the Mod’s evolving and being offered for the RB 300, I’m sure the Gap closed for the V/300 comparison to ’beaten by a nose’, more than, ’beaten by a length’.

As said, I adopted the SME IV, and did not compare Rega Design Arm Options during the 90’s. With Hind Sight being the Best Manager, Common Sense will have led me to the RB 300, but the 'Ego' and Power of Marketing proved different as a influence.  

The Rega Design Arms referred to by myself in this Thread, have been compared quite extensively over the past Seven years. The result being that during this period the Arms of this Design are no longer ’in use’ as the main Tonearm. As still owned Tonearms the Rega Design Models are kept for Demo’ purposes and as loan items.

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.

 

@atmasphere , I am extremely jealous. I would feel a lot better if I had my amps:-)

@pindac , Not Ariston, AR XA.

@neonknight , It the V is not sounding excellent then the problem is more likely with set up. First. check your resonance frequency with a test record like the Hi Hi News Analog Test Record. Ideally it should be around 8-10 Hz. I try to push it as close to 8 as I can. Then go over the geometry. The Wally Reference tools are a great a place to start. All of the high end cartridges I have examined are right on the money in terms of azimuth and VTA which means the Wally Reference is hands down the most accurate way of adjusting your arm. I must say that I have never examined one of your cartridges. The Wallyskater is expensive but it is the best way to set antiskating by a country mile. I use Lofgren B to align the cartridge. It results in the overall lowest distortion across the record excepting at the very inside grooves where modern records usually don't go. Next would be a worn stylus. How old is your cartridge?

The best way to do a second tonearm with a Sota is just have a second tonearm board made, mount it and adjust it with your second cartridge. Then it is only a matter of a few minutes to swap tonearms, much less than it takes to adjust a new cartridge. I am thinking about doing this for 78s. You can absolutely not use an outboard pod with a suspended turntable. One little bump will send the tonearm flying and I do mean flying. The only suspended turntable I know of that takes two arms is the Dohmann Helix 1. As he has not yet released a vacuum plater for it you are better off staying where you are. Mark Dohmann himself related that the best turntable for the money on the market is the Sota Cosmos. 

“All of the high end cartridges I have examined are right on the money for VTA and azimuth.” What does that mean? There is another parameter to be accounted for, and that is “zenith”, which we define as rotation or lack thereof of the stylus with respect to the cantilever. I scoffed at the idea it’s important once, but I was wrong. 

we all love gadgets, but spending on aWallyskater which is a nifty gadget is an extravagance when AS is never perfect by definition and is as well set by ear.

The Turntable that is the Predecessor to the Linn Design Deck id the Ariston RD11.

Castle Engineering produced Parts that were critical to the function of the Ariston RD11 

The change occurred following the British Patent, published as BP1394611.

Linn was formed as a Company shortly after the Patent and was to be closely associated with Castle Engineering.

I visited numerous HiFi Retailers throughout the Late 80's and well into the 90's.

It was soon learned that a HiFi retail outlet did not give fair lore to all on demonstration, as a result of this I had a few retailers I trusted above the plentiful ones available from this era, ultimately ending up having Bespoke Equipment Produced to bypass the salivating sales person looking to have ones hard earned put their way.

Rega Designed and had Produced their RB 300, as it was a cutting edge design and use of technology. The Product proved to be such a successful design, it is the Copycat Design of Four Decades.

 

Thank you, Dover.  Reading recent posts I have been mystified by the suggestion that the RB300 could be considered to offer performance on a par with, or even close to that of the SME 5  I have owned both and the Rega, while offering good performance for the money (as you state) is not in the same league.  The one area where I think some might argue that the Rega is “better” is bass performance.  In spite of its generally excellent performance, my experience with the SME in my system and the several systems that I have heard it in has been of an overblown bass frequency range.  According to my tastes and my idea of accurate, of course.  More bass is not necessarily better bass.  

Much of what was posted by Frogman, Dover and Lewm are in agreement with my experience that I resisted posting.

I’m going to make a few comments that are guaranteed to generate pushback.   SME V12 and perhaps other SME versions use Van Den Hul silver wire and if the stock tonearm (DIN/RCA) cable is replaced with better quality, it’s quite a good combination.   The small fine internal tonearm Van Den Hul cable does not sound like their interconnect cable.  I don’t know why but this applies to many companies that build interconnect and internal wire too.

Kuzma can be ordered with several kinds of wire, I choose  Crystal Cable silver gold and instead of Bullet RCA connectors I opted for the new Furutech Nano Crystal version ($200.00 per connector).

To steer off even further, in my opinion the drive system of the turntable can effect dynamics and bass almost as much as the tonearm.   Add turntable mat and you come more near covering all the factors that effect end result.

In my experience mats that are soft are not as dynamic and belt drive systems are often less dynamic than best idler wheel and direct drive systems. Like all sweeping statements there are exceptions.   For instance Rockport belt drive was equal or surpass most idler and direct drive but the Rockport direct drive and other top tier direct drives are added performance.

I know these are sweeping statements and I’m sure there are exceptions but in my experience, testing here with as many as three turntables set up at once and auditioned by  dozens of people for nearly a year, arrived at the combination I use now.

Best  results were stainless steel mat and stainless steel center weight, filled with oil.   Second best was Micro Seiki CU320, third best was Micro Seiki CU180.   With each of these end result could be substantially changed with choice of center weight.  

Turntables I can remember, not in order.

Thorens TD 121
Thorens TD 124
Thorens TD 124 MK2
Thorens TD 125
Thorens TD 125 MK2
Luxman PD-121
Win Labs
Oracle Delphi
Oracle Premier
VPI 19
Well Tempered
Linn Sondek
Townsend Rock
Versa Dynamics
Basis Debut Gold MK4
Basis Debut Gold MK5
Walker Proscenium Black Diamond
Lenco L75
Garrard 301
Technics SP10 MK2
Technics SP10 MK3
NVS Wave Kinetics
Grand Prix Monaco

Tonearms I can remember, not in order.

Ortofon RMG 212
Ortofon RMG 309
Infinity Black Widow
Fidelity Research FR66
SME 3012
SME 312S
SME V12
Graham
Wheaton
Triplanar
Durand Talea
Air Tangent 10B
Micro Seiki Max
Reed
Breuer Dynamic
Exclusive Pioneer
Primary Control
Audiocraft AC4400
Kuzma 4 point 9”
Kuzma 4 point 14”

Last, the speed accuracy of the turntable has huge effect on dynamics and bass.  The drive system is important but so is the accuracy of that system.   At one time I was testing all turntable with a Sutherland laser and watched for error as an LP rotated.   The best result was the ability of the turntable to lock the laser into precisely the same spot on the wall (16 feet away) regardless if 33 or 45 RPM and regardless of dynamics of the LP.

I had one turntable here that actually caused the laser spot to appear to run backward, then catch up with itself, while rotating at wrong speed along with these dynamic errors.

So many things to consider in addition to the very important tonearm but sometimes a tonearm is mounted on a lower performance table with a lower performance mat and weight and it gets blamed for total results.

@lewm , I guess my ears are not as good as yours. Yes, you are wrong again. Zenith is critically important. It is vital for phase coherence and syncopation not to mention constipation. May I suggest a jar of Citrucel?

@albertporter , You are for more experienced than myself and lewm put together however, I would like to point out the speed variability of even a mediocre modern turntable is far superior to that achieved by your typical somewhat less than flat and concentric record. You will have to look elsewhere for pitch consistency besides drive type. 

@lewm , It means that the stylus is perfectly vertical as seen from the front and has the correct 92 degree SRA when loaded at the recommended tracking force. 

“@albertporter , You are for more experienced than myself and lewm put together however, I would like to point out the speed variability of even a mediocre modern turntable is far superior to that achieved by your typical somewhat less than flat and concentric record. You will have to look elsewhere for pitch consistency besides drive type.“

Even considering the factors you mention, if two or three turntables are set up and the same LP used in testing, results were as I described and quite audible.  In fact after equating the less desirable sound with what the laser displayed it made it obvious which error was causing which problem.

For instance, slurred bass or bass that momentarily seemed to be deep but lacked definition was due to micro slowing of the LP due to error in drive system.   A couple of the most expensive turntables had serious speed problems, playing demanding LP such as Massive Attack with huge bass lines caused the laser to dance with the music.

Put the same LP on a table with superior drive system and speed accuracy and the bass error was solved.   It helps to be able to see and hear what causes what. 

It’s impossible to have a library with 100% perfect LPs, but if you can put together a turntable that does not add to that issue you are far better off.

Mijostyn, I’m used to Raul misinterpreting my English. After all, it’s his second language. But what I said or certainly meant to convey is that zenith IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. Problem is that what we’re talking about is not strictly defined by the term “zenith”. Zenith, defined as the relationship of the long axis of the stylus tip to the groove, is very very important. The two companies that make all the cantilevers in the world have a +/-5% tolerance for mounting styli on them. A5% error in zenith is not good enough to get the most out of the cartridge. We have no argument about the importance of zenith for lowest distortion.

Citrucel? Nah, we need big guns here.

I used to like the apocryphal advert with the slogan "If the bottom falls out of your world, take Dulcolax and let the world fall out of your bottom."

@albertporter Albert's list of TTs and arms that he remembers using/owning kind of cracks me up. So glad to see you contributing here Albert. 

The rest of yas, love you too. :)

After reading through the thread, @mijostyn post struck a nerve with me. Truth be told I overlooked an important point. As a bit of history, I should say I am a hobbyist of modest means, and while I appreciate audio gear, I must be creative and opportunistic on how I spend money to build a system. In this world of connectivity and Paypal I am blessed to have the opportunity to own gear above what I could afford if buying from just new at a retail store. I am fortunate to own what I do, and it requires that I be a careful shopper. Within my system the SOTA Cosmos Eclipse was bought new, and I bought a Scheu Audio Laufwerk No 2 as a dealer demo. My JBL 4365 were less than a year old when bought. Everything else has come off the used market, such as an Esoteric E-03 phono stage, a pair of Classe Omega monoblock amps, and a Trinov Amethyst pre-amplifier.

The Transfiguration Proteus came from a dealer as a customer trade in. I knew the hours on it, and I sent it to VAS for service after about 6 months. At this time Matsudairasan had already passed and there were limited options for service. I removed the cartridge from the table and sent it in, and the table sat while I waited for a new diamond. When the cartridge came back i reinstalled it and verified settings and began playing music. That was a mistake, because the differences in diamond and mounting apparently are significant enough to cause issues.

 

Last night I reset overhang. Of course the previous setting is remarkably close and once you loosen the sled then all bets are off, its really a reset. Even though the SME headshell is not slotted, it allows for the slightest adjustments in offset. I worked with that, reset VTA, and dialed tracking force down a couple tenths of a gram.

The result is a significantly more immediate sound with improved attack and presence. Dynamic contrasts are improved, and bass response is not overblown and has improved timing. All around a better sound. The lesson I learned is treat a refurbished cartridge as a new installation no matter what.

What does that mean moving forward? Well it buys me time for one. I can be more introspective and deliberate on a choice of different arm. Before I make any decisions, I am going to wait and hear what the Ortofon Verismo sounds like as it is just being finished up. Once I hear this arm with both cartridges, then I can make a decision on where I might go. Sometimes I wonder about consolidating all my analog goodies, and a sale of the Scheu and both Dynavector arms could allow me to purchase a top end arm for the SOTA. But I am not sure I can live with one cartridge, as I do value being able to have a cartridge for casual listening and not fret about burning up stylus hours.

All in all this is not a bad place to be. One thing the Classe amps have taught me is that upper tier gear made in the last 10 to 15 years is still remarkable, and capable of holding its own with many other fine audio components. So what I chose for a replacement arm does not have to be the current darling, but it does need to be a superior product with above average engineering and craftsmanship.

When considering a change for the better to my Analogue Set Up. I was confident the most benefit was to be had from having the Phonostage in place that offered the most to meet my needs.

To get the best handle on this idea, I have a few thousand+ road mile journeys behind me, and have received demo's of numerous phonostages.

After having experienced the most typical circuitry and maybe a few more not so typical, where demo' Models have had a Value of up to £10K, I was Wed to the Valve Phon', not the Rich in Tone Designs, the Lean End of the Scale, was where I found my preference.

I was quite sure work done to the owned SME IV Tonearm was able to lift it to a level to be ideal for my Phonostage ambition. I certainly felt sure I had done the footwork and was to get the results to talk about and share with others in use.

Not as such, at a home event arranged by a forum member, I was given a unexpected and surprise invite.

At this social gathering I encountered a group made up of EE's, EE Minded and Trained Mechanical Engineers and Enthusiast Mechanical Engineers.

All present I had come to learn were known for having created a design for Analogue Source that had recognised to have been very beneficial.

I was informed I was invited as the host thought I might enjoy experiencing some the equipment brought along for demo'. The host made the right call about myself.

For weeks after this event, I was in wonderment about one Demo' probably the 'Show Stopper' and all who were present were very appraising of the work undertaken to get to the presentation on offer. 

The Demo' that was captivating was produced by a Tonearm. I made inquiries and arranged for a further Demo' at the producers home.

On a Solid State System, with Cabinet Speakers ( I don't do either as a full system), I was once more introduced to the Vinyl Source I was captivated by.

The introduction was a little educational as well, as the producer thought I would like to be shown how the Working Prototypes produced over a period of time sounded and compared. 

I had been given descriptions of how the design evolved and had been introduced to the use of modern materials within the evolving design.

I know of materials that are selected to be used today that are with inherent properties that far outperform common used materials selected for most Brands past and present Tonearm Designs.

The stability of these materials have enabled a whole new R&D in relation to machining tolerances and friction control.

Reduced Machining Tolerances have resulted, with improved dimensions to further  minimise movement. The Modern Materials of a certain type, have allowed for no increase in friction as a result of materials remaining so stable when used in the environment chosen for them.

I was on this first experience with the Tonearm Producer, demonstrated the Tonearm Design as Three Different Assemblies, from a period of R&D.

The differences were materials used to interface with the bearings.

One with a typical selected material, with the parts produced to the tightest usable tolerance.  One with a early adopted Modern Material for the R&D stages, that was claimed to be very good, much improved over the Typical choice, but had a stability that was prone to increase a impact of friction at times, so machining tolerances, even though tighter than a typical materials tolerance allowance, had to be accounted for, as a control measure. It took quite a few attempts to optimise this materials usage at a interface.

Last but not least, One with a material discovered that is extremely stable and can receive much tighter tolerances for the machining without a unwanted impact on the friction and overall freedom of the Mechanical Function.

All Three Arm Designs were swapped out over the course of a Few Hours, where each was used with the same TT>Cart' and on the same system.

The last one was quite something of a revelation, it was indelible as a experience and I own a later guise of it.

On this same period of demo's, one other Tonearm was to be demo'd, it was produced with the same materials as Tonearm that was extremely impressive, but had New Bearing used that were much more suitable to the modern material and environment to be used in.

The experience of this Demo' is nearly six years past and the impression made remains, which is basically the Fourth Tonearm demo'd, was seemingly a substantially improved Arm over the Three Arms Demo'd, but way beyond the performance of the The Third Tonearm Demo'd, which was the one I was already sold on.

The Design for the Arm I own, has been further tweaked by the designer over the period I have owned the Arm. I have been instrumental in encouraging some of the investigation undertaken and now adopted.

I have been invited to the be demo'd the finished work over the past years and have always heard it compared to my Tonearm Model.

The latest guise has the X Factor there is something that is not describable present, it has to be experienced to fully understand how accurate and desirable  the presentation is. 

 

 

@lewm , I wouldn't know Lew. Since I have been studying cartridges more carefully I have not seen any noticeable zenith error. Having said that I have seen some pretty shabby stylus assemblies the worse being an inexpensive AT cartridge. I was not looking for Zenith error at the time. More critical than a frequency response printout, manufacturers should start giving customers photographs of their stylus assemblies. 

@neonknight , Good work. Great preamplifier! I almost bought one but I decided to wait for the new DEQX Pre 8. Since you are already digitizing your phono stage you might want to look into Channel D's Pure Vinyl program. It gives you the ability to record records in 24/192 and you can use software RIAA correction which is insane. You can raid friends vinyl collections. 

@albertporter , Do to my experience with early direct drive units I am permanently biased against them. Since I am no longer in the business I am unable to compare new ones. Best to stick with what you know. Idler wheel drives were a necessity prior to electronic motor control. They are an archaic design which should have remained in the dust bin of history, but then again people still buy Shelby Cobras. There is no accounting for taste. More bearings equal more noise which will get worse as the turntable ages. This leaves the belt drive which the majority of engineers that design turntables prefer. A turntable that "sounds" is defective. Turntables, tonearms and cartridges are not supposed to have a sound of their own. They should sound only like the music on the record. This is not a wine tasting competition. 

I think the zenith tolerance is 5 degrees, not 5%, which would be a whopping 18 degrees. You’d notice 18 degrees of error. I have good evidence it’s an important factor in getting the best performance out of any cartridge. I’ve examined many cartridges under my Olympus microscope, but I wasn’t looking for zenith error. I have noticed however that press fitted styli seem correctly mounted.

Lets not debate drive systems here. I will refrain from countering your claim that “engineers” prefer belt drive.

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. 

Two Spindles that when coupled to each via a ancillary such as a (Belt), the presence of the Belt when coupled and supplying the necessary rotations. will pass to and throw the energies of the Two Spindles 'out of sync' eccentric rotations.

As a result of the two 'out of sync' eccentric rotations, Oscillation is now occurring and inconsistent tension of the Coupling (Belt) is occurring.  The inconsistent Tensioning is now producing Speed Fluctuation and the Oscillations are also passing unwanted energy into the Platter.

Energies passed into the Platter are now at risk of contaminating the signal being  detected in the modulation as the result of the styli tracking the groove, (a styli is not prejudiced, it will send a signal whether intended to be sent or not. The  recordings design is not a protection, the Styli will send a signal born from a contamination from a unwanted source, where energies that are becoming a contamination are failing to be transferred away from the styli whilst in operation).

A method used as a control measure is to produce a Substantial Platter of High Mass, a 12Kg+ Platter might be considered a lightweight for some designs.

Put a 9Kg Platter onto a Inverted Bearing with a questionable Anchoring at the Base to the Structure and a Spinning Plate Design is in the making, excessive eccentric rotation of the Platter is only a period of short usage away, the impact of this on the Oscillation of the Belt and Speed Stability is one to run to cover from, but some are loyal to their product and bear with it, maybe investing in extremely expensive Speed Correction devices.

The wear that has been seen within the Bearing Housing of such a design is the worst samples when witnessed, bushes are almost ellipse shaped when the Inner Shape is observed, Heavy Platters on questionable Bearing Assemblies are not to be the best selected.

Some try to avoid issues with the inconsistent dimensions of the Belt causing Wow and Flutter, by adopting a Gossamer Thin type coupling material.         

Add to the above the inconsistencies to be found in the Belt Dimensions and the Cogging of the Motor (Torque Variations), the Wow and Flutter is very much a concern and very sophisticated Speed Control Measures are becoming the next stage of investigation, some of which are more expensive that a very speed accurate of the Shelve TT and in some cases with a Tonearm and Cart' to boot as well.  

Another method used as a measure to Control the Transfer of Energies that are a contamination and unwanted to be received by the Styli is to use a Two Part Support Structure.

A Design that adopts the Sub Chassis to reduce the need to manage external energies and Motor Transferred Energies. Where there are permutations as part of the design to mount the Motor, Platter Bearing and Tonearm on different Surfaces belonging to the structure, as a Measure to reduce the impact of Contamination born from the TT's usage and set up environment, especially where there is a desire to remove energy that is unwanted being transferred to the Platter/Styli.

There are also seen measures where the Motor is a Standalone Motor Pod, with the intention of isolating the energy produced from the motors operation, being transferred through the Support Structure the other Critical Parts to be mounted.

There has been a recent reveal within this thread, that there is a real concern for convection occurring, and this is a issue to be concerned about when a Standalone Pod is utilised. A convection occurring can certainly impact on the Wow and Flutter, especially if convection is to impact on the Motors positioning to the TT.

The Inconsistency of the Belt Tensioning will be the cause of Speed Fluctuations occurring as the result. Another issue some might find is best themselves if avoided.   

A Suspended Structure is another Measure adopted as a design to manage Transferral of energies and a unwanted contamination impacting on the Styli. 

In some cases a Sub Chassis is suspended from a Plinth. In such a case the Platter Spindle may be found attached to the Sub Chassis, in some cases the Tonearm is attached to the Sub Chassis as well.

Where the Platter Spindle and Tonearm are attached to the suspended Sub Chassis, there are designs using this method that have the Motor attached to the Plinth as a means to isolate energies created from the motor and reduce energy Transferral.

The Motor when mounted on the Plinth, is to supply a lateral force to a Platter that is attached to a Floating Structure. The energies produced from this lateral force is not only impacted on by the eccentric rotation of the Two Spindles and the Inconsistences of the Belt Dimension, the eccentric rotation of the two spindles and oscillation that is developing has the energy contained to create a movement of the suspended chassis.

The result being a increase to the Wow and Flutter as the Coupling (Belt) is now operating in a environment that has even more ambient impacts on the Belt, where much increased risk of Belt Slippage is able to occur.

Add to this a Sub Chassis that is able to produce a momentum when being influenced by a lateral load, when using a Platter of substantial weight, the Pendulum can get a momentum that will have the best capacity of most systems to increase Belt Oscillation that has an unprecedented impaction on the overall replay, each individual set up environment and support structure will yield very different end results.

There are quite a few items to be considered when considering the Belt Drive TT, from the most basic design to the designs that have gone to extreme lengths to engineer out a unwanted effect only to create New effect needing to be overcome.

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

The Belt Drives have there following of hypochondriac worriers or those that are oblivious to the shortcomings of the design, and revel in its usage when nowhere near optimised.

All said an done I will one day have a decent session in front of a Kuzma Design, as I am liking their take on a TT, especially the Bearing Structure.

The report is that Hideaki Nishikawa is a fan too, good enough for him, certainly good enough for my limited knowledge on TT matters.  

If I wanted a BD TT and if I didn’t want to pay the big bucks for the Helix, I’d opt for a Kuzma too.

Curious I noticed the absence of 

@nandric 

Has he been active lately?

Just a little real life experience. For many years (1970s and 80s) I had a SME 3012 on a Thorens player. Then, I changed to a VPI HW-19, and the Souther / Clearaudio Triquartz parallell arm. Despite a huge amount of tweaking, this combination never worked out for me. An audio friend commented, its like a skate slipping this way and that in the track. So, I changed to a SME V in 2004, and have been quite happy ever since. It performed better than the Triquartz on the VPI, and even better on the Hanss T30 (from 2014) using magnetic bearing instead of springs. I mainly used Lyra carts (Clavis, Titan, Atlas). My impression is that SME V + Lyra Atlas + a stable (not spring-suspended) player = quite good. Like, "no worry" good. I have experimented with some more weight on the arm, and some oil in the damper reservoir, etc, but have basically gone back to ’default’. By the way, I am allergic to pitch problems, since I play the flute, and the Hanss T30 (six strings, two motors) is quite good (= not a big problem), while the VPI HW-19 was problematic, even with all the upgrades + SDS power.

The best thing I ever did  for my system, regardless of player, arm etc, was to mount a support in the basement right beneath the stereo rack with the player in our living and listening room. Cost ca nothing. Before, when I jumped in front of my player, the cart would skip. After, almost never.

 

@o holter

 

I remember looking at the Amari turntables at one time, I believe they are the OEM builder for Hanss. I thought about their multi level tables, but did not pull the trigger. Instead on Audiogon I found a dealer sellign a demo Scheu Audio Das Laufwerk No 2, and I chose that as my second table. The speed regulation on the SOTA with the new motor and Phoenix Engineering controls is supposed to be superb, and to be honest I cannot hear any issues with the system Scheu uses. I have heard the VPI several times and had a Prime here for awhile, I am not fond of the VPI motors. 

 

What is the age of your V? Have you done anything to it? Do you still run OEM phono cable and the cartridge wires?

 

@o_holter , your experience with the Souther arm is typical. If you are the least bit discerning they will drive you nuts, almost as nuts as air bearing arms. If you are looking for the ultimate pitch stability you need to check out vacuum clamping. My own feelings about VPI are well known. 

@lewm , AJ Conte, Edgar Vulchur, Marc Dohmann, David Fletcher, Hideaki Nishikawa to name a few. 

neonknight - my SME V was made in October 1999. In 2016 I asked SME about service and upgrade. Answer: unless something wrong, maybe not needed. But for 555 pounds they would do a full service + testing + new internal wire (silver litz van den Hul). I thought it was fair, but I checked the arm myself, found no obvious problems, and have never done it. Likewise, the phono cable stays the same, Kimber KCAG soldered to the DIN plug to the arm (a bit tricky). I borrowed a Hovland cable but heard only marginal improvement over the Kimber. Never tried a balanced phono cable. My phono stage can take this, but the general debate is that it does not matter much unless there are problems with single ended (the Io’s first gain stage is not truly balanced, anyway).

What HAS made a big difference to me, lately: 1) I was lucky, getting a quad of excellent ultra low noise Telefunken in the critical first gain stage of the Io, 2) fine-tuning the azimuth with a Fozgometer, plus other small cartridge adjustments, and 3) working more with speaker positioning. Small "boring" things that can add up to a lot. All in the service of a more quiet, stable, balanced dimensional stereo image.

The Hanss T30 is an entirely different animal compared to my VPI hw19 mk4, and my short verdict is "better". I agree with you regarding the VPI motors. In this and other respect the Hanss is clearly superior (although the SDS is perhaps the best power control, or at least more convenient to adjust, compared to the little box that comes with the Hanss). To compare the two, I recorded to DSD on my Tascam DA-3000. So I could A-B switch, comparing pitch, timbre etc. The Hanss won out. Someone wrote that Hanss cannot really rock (a Townshend player was better), but it has never bothered me. A friend of mine has the bigger brother, the T60, and it has a bit more deep bass and explosive dynamics than my T30, but these are basically similar-sounding designs. I have never heard Scheu, or even SOTA. I got a T30 demo for a very good price (ca usd 2800) ten years ago and have basically stopped looking for another player. I like the ideas behind the Hanss design, and find that they work well, like two motors, totally isolated from the player, strings pulling the platter evenly, from each side. The platter is clearly held in a much tighter ’grip’ than on the VPI (a critic might say; even so, with 6 strings, you get all the troubles of these rubber type strings, they vibrate, etc - and although averaged and evened out, it is not quite = full precision). Further, the magnetic bearing works much better than the springs on the VPI, even after placing the HW-19 on a Bright Star platform, and other tweaks I tried. That actually did help the HW-19 sound, but only after a lot of base / feet / platform tweaking. Which I got "free" so to speak with the Hanss. I placed the T30 directly on my solid stone rack top shelf, and have never felt the need for more tweaks, sand box, etc - no thanks.

I don’t blame my SME V for my troubles with the VPI player, it sounded ok on this spring-loaded turntable also, but it clearly likes the more stable Hanss platform better. There is no skipping or mistracking, except when the LP has a major problem.

I am interested in good ways to go, based on the system we have, for a low cost. In my case, maybe I should check the SME damping. A little more oil might do the trick. I have some treble noise or sibilance, on some recordings at least. Also, the Hanss player might sound even better with a linear power supply.

Arguments within arguments. Mijostyn, I don’t understand the meaning behind your listing BD TT designers in a post addressed to my attention. I am not dogmatic about drive systems and never have been. It’s just that in recent years I’ve found DD to be the best bang for the buck, while restricting my choices to the best vintage Japanese models and after updates and replinthing all but the L07D. I admit that for about 10 years I was collecting rather than really filling a need. (Because who really needs 5 TTs?) I think you’re confusing me with Pindac. Apology accepted in advance. None of the three commonly used drive systems is flawless.

@lewm There has been plenty of 'throwing under the bus' within this Thread.

From recollection it first started when a SME 3012 was a made known preferred choice over a SME V/12.

It has reared it head on a few occasions since and now with your latest statement the 'throwing under the bus' continues.

For the record, I am not prejudiced against any Drive, I have used Three of the most common examples and still own all Drives oof a common example.

A Idler Drive Superseded a Belt Drive and a DD Superseded the Idler and Belt Drive. At one point, not too many years past, I was with all the required knowledge to produce a Idler Drive design that could be a Belt Drive or Idler Drive.

I regularly visit individuals who have Belt Drive TT's, Idler Drive TT's and DD TT's.

More Importantly I am very respectful of their choices and know each is able to very successful produce a Replay that is able to be enjoyed.  

I am into the musical encounter and the social aspect of this hobby as first priority, I don't do equipment as the goal, or the must have to be aspired to.

Equipment is a Tool and a Tool is only as good as the skill of the user.

There are plenty of very worthy Tools able to produce a great end piece in the hands of individuals who will never know the tools true capability.

There are some who have the Tool and express curiosity about how to get the best value from its capabilities and reap the rewards for their endeavors to learn more.

I know which side of the fence I am on. 

As a second interest that has a allure and nothing else, I am into the Mechanics of the Trinity of TT>Tonearm>Cart'.

I have spent hours with individuals who are skilled by career in Mechanical Engineering and have extended this discipline to Micro Mechanical Engineering, the types who machine parts for Cameras and Watches, and have a love of vinyl, taking these skills to the table on this subject.

I have also spent hours with individuals who have access to very skilled machinists who are adept at carrying out micro machining, as a result of being engineers that produced reduced scale working Models of bygone equipment.

I have shared numerous mails with likeminded individuals from across the Globe and have been supplied great snippets, as well as supply snippets of info' very much worthwhile pondering. A vast amount has been learned about alternate materials and how they are on paper improved in their properties over other options seriously considered. Even though there may never be a face to face meeting, respect and friendships grow.  

As said it is a allure, it is not a must have in my life.

With this interest, I have developed a few ideas about, what I class as being for the best and of most importance for the Integrated Function of the Trinity.

I have learned of and experienced first hand, measures that can be put in place to supply each interface within the Trinity with an improved environment to function.

Some of this has to be experienced to fully understand how the benefits are showing out, words can't do it justice, all they can do is let it be known betterment can be attained.

I am sure my viewpoints on such a matter will cause a few to have their feathers ruffled, but Hey Ho, I am getting a great deal form the learning, creativity and experiences being encountered.   

Ok. You’re perfect. But I have no idea why you think someone threw you under a bus (which is a horrible metaphor). You did concoct a long unflattering post about BD . I wondered whether that inspired Mijostyn, and that’s all there is to it.

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 also thought I shared the issues that 'do arise' from the Two Spindles used on a Belt Drive TT and how some, 'not all' measures are put in place to attempt to manage the impact on the system of the Two Spindles working in conjunction with each and coupled by a Belt formed from a variety of material types.

As said, there is a lot of design, that can be put in place for a Belt Drive, as a means to control unwanted conditions inherent to the design in general.

How far these designs are to go will escalate the costs, especially when one is to buy into the philosophies of Certain Brands for the creation of their most engineered designs.

I do not see such extremes needed to control the Idler Drive, and there is plenty of Money available to create a Market Place for a substantially over engineered Idler Mechanism, they do not require the same engineering to optimise them as a Belt Drive has proven to require.

As said, I have today chosen to go for a DD TT, that has been given a specific material for its plinth, when in use, there is as a result of the Drive a cogging issue, that many will say is something that is to be of a concern.

I am yet to experience anything that is noticeable from the drive method, that is a detractor and leaves something extra wanting to be present.

This positive outcome may be due to the work the EE/Engineer who carried out work on the DD TT, producing a a Modified Speed Control Design, and the improvements made to the Platter Bearing.        

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.

I only attempt to have input on this forum with a content that may be beneficial to an individual who stumbles on threads are a later time, whilst making a investigation into a Topic of Interest.

I would like to think there are explanations supplied of experiences encountered that by myself that are reasonable. I would like to think the content belonging to suggestions made by myself are reasonable.

I don't do much to steer a person from attaining their own experiences of all areas of HiFi, I regularly suggest the taking up the hot seat as the very best place to make a evaluation, and make it known, this is the method requiring the footwork, as usually the mountain won't be coming.  

As a onlooker and a contributor to a Thread that is running live within the analog forum on the Gon.

It is a task to contribute and not get caught up in the endless rounds of P***ing Matches that quite often show, as the, 'same old-same old' migrates across the relevant threads, fade away as the thread becomes a spent threads and resurface with Gusto at the next available opportunity.

 As said, for me it is the enjoyment of the music 'first',  equipment (tools) to produce the replays of recorded music 'second', and learning about the betterment for the functioning of the Tools 'third'. 

For the bulk of music heard today, Alexia is just fine, music at the command of a voice, in the Company of my Wife, pure Bliss.

Then there are the musical encounters on the Home System of which CD is quite a substantial period of allocated time and the Vinyl LP is maybe just a little more used.

Then there are the Social Gathering put in place solely for likeminded types to spend a period enjoying in a shared Musical Encounter.

Social Gatherings with a agenda to encounter New Experiences, where the Tools to be used to aid the replay of recorded music are to the most present, New Devices made available for Assessment , DAC's, Streamers, CDT's, CDP's, Phonostages, Pre, Power and Integrated Amplification. Turntables, Tonearms, Cart's, Cables and HiFi Phoo.

Most importantly all done with an Open Mind and no prejudice towards any methods under demo'.   

I use what I use, but I experience a whole lot more than I restrict myself to using. 

As an update after resetting the cartridge on the SOTA I have decided to stick with the SME V and Proteus on this table. 

However, I have the Ortofon Verismo I am receiving back from VAS. Actually, that showed up yesterday, and last night I installed it on a Dynavector DV505 on my Scheu table. Absolutely beautiful cartridge, the best I have heard here, and not sure I can really ever do better. This is a keeper. Which led to other decisions. 

Poking around on the used market I found a Schroder CB-1L tone arm that was basically in new condition. Owner had put it ona  refurbished Garrard 401 and found out he was not an idler guy. The new table won't accept the arm so I was able to buy it in as new condition for a very very attractive price. 

After completing the transaction, I realized I overlooked one important thing. The arm has XLR terminations on the tone arm cable. My phono stages are RCA inputs. So I am going to have to deal with that. I have used XLR to RCA adapters in the past and the ones I had were not good. Perhaps the Cardas ones are an option. The other choice I have is a different phono stage, and I am finding that XLR inputs are quite difficult to find. The third option is to have the cables re-terminated, and that is not an appealing one to me, I hate modifying equipment from this original design.  The one I am considering is a B.M.C. MCCI Signature. I don't know if I have ever sat down and got extended listening time with a current injection design. So, it is intriguing. 

So that is the update. 

It’s nonsense to think of changing the plugs from XLR to RCA as a “modification “. All you’re doing is grounding one side of the cartridge coils to effect a single-ended output. Pin2 of the XLR goes to the “hot” central pin of the RCA and pin3 goes to ground . You haven’t really altered anything, but you’ve forfeited about 6db of gain compared to a true balanced hookup via XLRs to a balanced phono stage, like that BMC MCCI. So the optimal choice if you want to spend the bucks is indeed to buy a balanced phono stage, be it a current driven type like the MCCI or a voltage driven type. It is important to note that in order to take advantage of the potential gain differential between a true balanced connection and a single ended connection, you must have a true balanced phono section. There are many on the market that offer XLR inputs, but are single ended internally. In that case, you are likely not getting the benefits of balanced Connection.

@lewm I hear what you are saying, I just have an internal quirk about modifying expensive equipment. My own internal firewall, I hate to do it. Yes its just a set of terminations...what can I say?

All I know is this Verismo is one of the finest cartridges I have heard, I like it more than the Transfiguration, I have my doubts my MC2000 will outperform it top to bottom, its going to be similar but I think the Verismo is more liquid.

I am going to want to give it the best supporting cast I can afford. The Schroder is a good fit for my Scheu. I am going to see if that BMC is an option. I have an Esoteric E-03 that supports two of my cartridges, I will probably have to sell my Graham Slee Accession to make things work out for the BMC.

It is quite something how an individual can assess a situation and then see it is the Antithesis of another's approach. 

I see XLR and thought of a exchange to a OCC Pin/Male Connector immediately.

I see a Phon' as a idea to use with the XLR and thought about acquiring a used Model, followed with exchanging the Chassis Mounted XLR to a OCC Sleeve/Female Connector and using PC Triple C Wire as an exchange material on the Signal Path within the Phon' 'if a wire is in use' for this role.

I know the Verismo will sing like not imagined, I say this with confidence, as I have been Demo'd a Windfeld as a Cart' through a Tonearm > Phone with a above average parts used for the build.

I am a advocate of PC Triple C Wire and have been quite encouraging in the idea of adopting the Wire to be used for a variety of Roles.

At a later date I was introduced to the same set up, with PC Triple C Tonearm Wand Wire, Pure Copper - Low Eddy Connectors on Tonearm Wand Wire and Phon' Chassis, and PC Tripe C used within the Phon' on the Signal Path.

The Windfeld when Demo'd was almost unrecognisable, the betterment of the Cart's performance was quite something to be experienced.

The Designer/Builder of the Tonearm and the Phon' could not explain their surprise, they certainly did not foresee, the end product from their investigative endeavours. 

I have also been Demo'd lesser value Cart's that I am quite familiar with from the Ortofon Design, and this Wire and Connector arrangement has allowed for the Cart's to excel, and again are not recognisable to the Cart's when heard in the system in the earlier guise. To the point that on a occasion the impression made from a Cart' with substantial hours of usage, was able to be kept in use for a very extended period, to the point that there was no time left to use a Cart' I specifically brought along to be used, the impression such a simple set of changes can have is is substantial in relation to a Betterment and a New Indelible Experience has been encountered, that is worthy of a mention.

I will be looking into see the thoughts shared on the Verismo/Proteus, as I am a Ortofon Wed User, who formed a suspicion the Proteus was a worthy Cart' to consider from another Brand.

@neonknight , When I got my Channel D Seta L Plus (a fully balanced unit) I had to change the RCAs to XLRs on my Schroder CB. I did not even have to trim the wires. I just desoldered them from the RCAs and re soldered them to the XLRs. It took maybe 10 minutes. You can order the Schroder with XLRs. 

The BMC is a fine unit but you should also look at the Channel D Lino C which recently got an A+ rating with stereophile. I use an MC Diamond which sounds wonderful into the Channel D. The Verismo is for all intents and purposes the same cartridge. Great choice!  

Mike, do you have v2.0 or v3.3 of Lino C?

Dear Pindac, I’m not sure I understand your last post. Are you advocating a change from XLR to RCA, if the latter and its wiring are using your favored OCC? Regardless of phono stage topology (balanced vs SE)?

Thanks.