SAT 30K+$$ TONEARM: W O R T H T O H A V E I T ?


http://www.swedishat.com/

That is the everywhere touted and very expensive tonearm. Touted by all professional reviewers and obviously " satisfied " owners ( around 70 of them. ).

Here some reviews:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2014/06/sat-swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm.html

http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/AirForce%20III_SAT_HiFi+_0817.pdf

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.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.






Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Dear friends: It's just " unique/incredible " that almost all of you but @tli and @jareko posts far away to chime of all the proved SAT design " anomalies " and professional reviewers irresponsability whay you choosed was and is try to " hit " me ( some way or other. ) even that almost all think are audiophiles/music lovers and no single of you think that the design goes against to stay truer to the recording due to its proved design faults.

So what kind of audiophiles think are you? certainly not a TEA or at least a TA not even an A.

That is what really surprise me more in this thread. Seems to me than other that the tonearm owners for all of you everything with the tonearm is great and its anomalies means " nothiing.

It's clear that other than the tonearm owners
 you deserves what you listen through your audio system, no matters what.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.





Dear @bluewolf : Now you again ! !

What do you think of the SAT's faults?. Your contribution welcomed.

R.


A bit confused?????

70 people on the planet have enough money to buy a $30,000 tonearm. 

Irrespective of sound quality, measurements, science, test results,etc.....why is it so important to you that you make them aware that they are not true audiophiles? 

Are you you like a reverse Robin Hood? Fighting a cause so the wealthy keep their money?

Think of all the time you’ve wasted “being right”. 

I don’t own one haven’t heard one and will never afford one like the other 6 billion earthlings in this planet. 

Put a record on the system you’ve have at home enjoy the music and move on.  


Dear @lewm : Even between that tonearm null points its develops higher distortions than through standard alignments, so the designer choices were not good enough even " there ".

As I told to @tli @jareko the SAT offset angle of 26.1° is another critical bad choiced parameter because that angle does more harm to the cartridge signal than any good and affect too to the cartridge suspension/cantilever due that puts more stress ( that develops additional  distortions per sé. ) to it than the 23° ( around. ) standard alignments offset angle.
Even develops higher skate all over the LP grooves. How that can be a good choice?.

A friend shares this info:

"  Marc ( SAT's designer. ) has set up different cartridges in his arm and  determined the VTF he thought sounded the best while at the same time avoiding mistracking. So lighter weight, no mistracking, assuming coils in optimal position, less record and stylus wear.  He also came with his own Atlas and tracked that at 1.5 gms; so one assumes that's where Marc felt it sounded the best.  "

Any one of us can test any of our cartridges and make a VTF test with any one of those cartridges setting up a VTF that stays lower than the manufacturer VTF range specs and all of us can find out that we have no " apparent " mistraking and that the sounds is good but all those does not means is really rigth and in favor of what is in the recording because at microscopic levels exist mis-trackind that we can " see " detect as mis-tracking but part of that good sound as some kind of colorations.

That microscopic mistracking ( that's where the groove and stylus tip works. ) develops higuer wear in both sides: stylus tip and at each single LP groove.
Additional to that cartridge coils are not centered, so we now are not nearer to the recording but far away from there and damaging the cartridge stylus and my LPs ! ! !

How all those can be good choices?

I understand why the tonearm owners say nothing about and could be because not only invested 30K+ in the tonearm but that all of them trusted in the tonearm designer, reviewers and tonearm distributor when all these 3 sources are wrong and were really irresponsables.
Again, I'm not questioning if the owners like what they are listening through it.

I know true expert gentleman in this forum that I would like to ask what they think about those proved tonearm anomalies ?

I respect ( between others. ) these two gentlemans: @atmasphere @dgarretson .  Your contribution as audiophiles and music lovers appreciated.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @rauliruegas , what do I think of the "SAT's faults"? The only fault I can comment on is the price which I guess includes a ridiculous markup. I have not heard it and therefore cannot make any useful comments. I leave the designing to the designers and the listening and then judgement thereon to me. Where I cannot listen on my system or another's, the next best thing is the thoughts of someone I trust who has listened, and then a report of someone who has made a listening comparison. Speculative writing is no substitute to listening.

@rauliruegas is that rarest of the rare, a person who can not only tell what something sound like without hearing it but amazingly he can tell what "distortions" I like from scouring the internet and finding someone who reviewed a CD on Amazon who he thinks is me and from that CD review know what distortions I like from an arm and cartridge so as to place me accurately for the purposes of his "scientific distortion" denegration because I have had the audacity to praise products of an analog designer who he personally does not like and whose products he has never listened to.

@rauliruegas unfortunately generates his own unique distortion by denigration of equipment he does not like or that does not fit his unique "scientific" world, or a person who does not bow down to his theorizing including designers and manufacturers of some great sounding gear.

I can appreciate @passion, but I do not appreciate his arrogance of thought which will not tolerate a dissenting view to the extent of personal denigration. This type of forum bullying is not conducive to constructive exchange.