2. analog
  3. 138331-3544

SAT Comparison

MF has kindly provided unidentified needledrops of 2 new versions of the SAT arm (incl one priced at $48K).
These can be found in the latest entries on his Analog Planet web page.

Listening to the first few seconds of each track on iPad speakers I found the “winner” (for me at least...) to be “1” followed by “3” then “2” with “4” the least preferred.

Just for fun, I invited my wife, who has no audio experience or interest whatsoever, who knew nothing about the files or the hardware or anyone else’s preferences, named her order of preference as 1-3-2-4, again listening to only the first few seconds of each file. Unlike myself she didn’t need 1-3/2-3 double checks she just identified them straight off. Impressive!

I wouldn’t be so rash as to assume that “1” was the most expensive “SAT” or that “2” was the original model.
(For the sake of the expensive model I would hope so! ;)
See what you think...

It’ll be interesting to know what the wildcard “4” turns out to be...

moonglum
lewm
13,476 posts
 
 What you said is partly why I won’t bother to try. I am skeptical of trying to judge an analog sound via a digital process. 
karl_desch's avatar
karl_desch
446 posts
 
Although I am in no way interested in purchasing said tonearms due to cost, it was fun to listen to these tracks and there are differences that I could hear with my computer audio headphone setup. I think the digitization affects the sound but does not obscure the comparisons in most cases.  I like that Fremer posts these files as it is an interesting/fun way to hear what differences show up between components and how that relates to the way other people put those differences into words.  It certainly informs the way Fremer describes what he is hearing.  
moonglum OP
619 posts
 
Hemondoc,
I’d been eagerly waiting for someone with the internet hooked up to a half-decent system to comment but that wasn’t quite the answer I expected LOL!

Like Lew says, we’re keen to know the answers from MF.
I think that he has shut down access to the links so they are no longer viable (but I could be wrong?)

Watch this space....
moonglum OP
619 posts
 
Karl,
It isn’t often that we can have a bit of fun in this hobby without having to do all the legwork first ;)
I always admire MF’s inexhaustible enthusiasm for the medium and his willingness to “put it out there” even if it doesn’t always come back the way he intended. :)
Cheers!
folkfreak's avatar
folkfreak
1,349 posts
 
 A very interesting experience and actually one that mirrors my own experience with analog. My tests were simply on an iPad via Campfire Andromeda’s but the differences were quite apparent

What made the winner to me stand out was the ease and naturalness of the sound and it’s ability to make different parts of the frequency range meld and play in harmony without anything sticking out. In the other tracks one part of the frequency band is prominent and while at first listen this is attractive, especially when it’s the bass, on subsequent listens you perceive the coloration.

So at first listen I thought track 1 was laid back and preferred 2 or 3 when I went back and listened again I heard details in the bass and pipes that were obscured in the others. 

Track 4 has an obvious hum which would suggest a different set up ... surely an analog guru should know better then to post a track with hum!

By the way this is a great LP and track I know intimately, the original Tara pressing is the optimal way to listen to it. In the flesh it has grunt and impact that will really impress
More to discover