What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

Dear @dgarretson  : Nice to " see " you again, in many threads we need you.

 

" livelier ", well that's exactly what SAEC owners including me think about those double knife tonearm designs.

 

As a fact I owned 3 SAEC's and I bougth due to the comments of Japanese audiophiles opinions I found out elsewhere including the advertasing through the USA distributor Japanese Stereo in CA ( seveal years ago ) and those opinions came in comparison between the SAEC 506/8000 vs the Micro Seiki MAX 237/282 that I owned too and those audiophiles said exactly the same as you for the 3012R and the Kuzma where for the Japanese the Kuzma was the MAX 237/282.

 

That's why I bougth the SAEC's when I already owned the Micro Seiki's and yes the SAEC was " livelier " and the MAX tonearms just as your opinion of the Kuzma till I learned first from where came that " livelier " and second why the MAX was really a superior tonearms.

The livelier came from the knife bearing with its tiny " rattle " and in the other side that the SAEC's are not a well damped design: more or less like the 3012R.

When I learned and even that the SAEC's looks just great and were build with a very high quality levels I prefers the MAX all the way down and till today. The MAX is perhaps one of the best tonearem designs and along the Lustre GT-801 the only dynamic baknce design that just does not ring like a bell with its VTF set up mechanism..

 

Even that great MAX/Lustre dynamic balance characteristics I ended using both through gravity forces that's the natural way for VTF.

Dgarretson, as I said before each one of us like what we like, it's our privilege.

Welcomed,

R.

@peterayer Your parameters to select a Tonearm has been as good as one could want to be achieved. The discovery made by yourself about there being 'when discovered' something that is repellent about the Flagship SME Tonearms is in keeping with my own findings.

Your description is "over 'damped and coloured sounding".

It does not need such control parameters to be in place as you have used, for an individual to discover a experience that is extremely attractive to them.

A one off experience and a attraction made is a subjective evaluation, or a extended period of A/B comparison between devices, in a controlled parameter, is still a subjective evaluation.

If a device is used, and it hits a home run, that is perfectly suited to ones unique taste and preference, that is enough, the choice made is after all, made by the one who is to experience the choice made, as part of their intended wish to have musical encounters.

When I was learning about how a New Tonearm to myself could compare to my SME IV. I come to the description the IV was seemingly constrained and controlled. There was a overbearing perception that a freedom of interaction was missing and when aware of this, it was unattractive and become a repellent, quite a outcome for someone who had been Wed to the IV as a 'go to' Arm for many years.  

The Tonearm I have now in use has the capability to create the impression it is completely free from constraint, the perception is it has a tangible freedom, and is interacting as a 'tool to do a job' in a manner that is very attractive, ( the chisel certainly is not blunted ).

In your own evaluations you used a Tonearm Pod and it is possible this Pod or another version of one is still in use.

I have no concerns for the use of a Tonearm Pod, from my observation from a time when a Two Arm Table was an attraction, and I was looking at options to create the set up.

I viewed the Standalone Pod, as not too much different from a Side Bar Cantilever Arm attachment as seen on a variety of TT Brands looking to offer a Multi-arm mounting configuration. The Cantilever can present it own mechanical deficiencies, but not enough to make a replay unattractive, the Pod has the same condition.

There is a Standalone Pod Designs I have seen in use that have a Mass Structure and a Densified Wood Arm Board as a Interface for the Tonearm. When sharing a Support Base with a TT, where the base has very stable inherent properties, the methodology for this set up, is unquestionably fit for purpose and will adequately mount an Arm, not only as a trialing mount for an A/B but also as a permanent role as a Arm Support.

A friend with a SP10 R was investigating a New Tone Arm, to enable the variety of arms to be used for the demonstrations the SP10 R owner has has a Standalone Tonearm Pod produced. From recollection the Arms used were a Glanz MH-12000s and MH-900s and a Reed 3P (9" Model). These three arms were home demo's on a few separate occasions through a Local HiFi distributor.

My SME IV was loaned for a extended demo' period, as well as a Loaned OL Arm and there was a Linn Arm already owned. 

Each of the Three above loaned /owned arms were able to be fully understood for for their impact on the performance, when used with the SP10 R and a established impression was able to be formed about each. Neither of these found their place on a Shortlist as a Model to be considered.

The Arm Purchased after the experiences encountered was the Glanz MH-1200s, which has made such a positive impression on a Standalone Monopod that is where it remains mounted.   

Even though there is a difference in how the 3012 R and Glanz arms were chosen the control criteria in place to help make the decision is with similarities, and a arm was discovered that has made a very positive impression and wanted to be lived with.

I am able to enjoy the SP10R > Glanz (Standalone Pod Mounted)> Miyajima on regular occasion and have never felt at any time something is amiss, 'recording dependent' the musical experience encountered is jaw dropping good and always wanted to be revisited.

I am hoping your jaw has a drop now and again as a result of the good musical experiences being encountered, and whilst standing in a queue somewhere the desire surfaces to get back for a listen, with a Tipple in moderation of ones favourite at arms length.

 

 

@rauliruegas Thanks for the welcome.  I've been distracted from audio by other projects for the past few years, and now have more time to participate.  The better of my two 3012R arms was worked over by

 

Dear @dgarretson ​@peterayer : Thank’s for the link.

Now, even that’s not exactly the same the today SME M2-12R is theSME 3012R response where mainly they fixed the main " trouble " in the vintage tonearm because in the M2 there is no knife bearing any more along that SME improved the internal damping and internal wire.

 

Other than the good look 12" tonearms really can’t gives us a true advantages even its lower tracking error. This example speaks by it self.

Löfgren A IEC standard. Tracking distortion in between/around null points for a 12" against what for me could be the best EL compromise 10.5" and against 9" too:

 

12 "....... 0.420%

10.5"... 0.485%

9"........ 0.58%

 

Who in this thread can detect: 0.065% or 0.16% against the 9" difference?

I know I can’t do it. We have to take in count too that at each single mm. the tracking distortion is changing all over the LP recorded grooves:

 

same premises but 1mm. after:

12"....0.419% vs 0.420% 1mm. before, difference of 0.001% tracking distortion that even a bat can’t be aware of it.

Those measurements are when the cartridge/tonearm alignment has 100% of accuraccy ! !

 

So where is the 12" big deal? along that this is what the SAT designer says about in favor of shorter arms vs 12"+ ones:

 

 

Makes sense the 12" EL tonearm design other that its look?, certainly not for me.

 

and we have to think in the higher inertia moment in the 12" and its effect in the cartridge stylus tip/cantilever by that added dynamic mass that needs to handle along all the LP imperfections.

 

 

THAT GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND YOUR DEAREST FAMILY IN THIS NEW    

2 0 2 3   YEAR   !  !  !

 

Sincerely,

 

R.

 

 

 

There are measurements and there is listening.  People choose what sounds right to them.