|
Post by MartinT on Mar 14, 2017 18:03:37 GMT
As far as SME being dead or grey sounding, that is simply not true of current production at least. Fair enough, I haven't heard a very recent one and I do agree, it's down to synergy. The SME IV that I had, while having very good bass, did not plunder the depths of my Dynavector's bass nor did it have the same resolution or levels of detail. Synergy is one thing, but I don't believe an SME would give a better musical presentation on any deck. The Rega is a little grey every time I've heard one, but the Michell TecnoArm (which I also owned) shows that it can fairly easily be transformed into something much more worthy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 18:40:58 GMT
I would also like to hear what AK can do in a "no holds barred" tone arm design. I really like the F.X approach, and if he can better that, it should be rather good. I could not justify buying one though... "No holds barred"? Can mean what you want. The AK47 is effectively the "bells and whistles" version of the straight F.X concept with an aluminium tube for that element. F1 is "no attempt to produce to a price" and "everything I want to try in an arm, without cost constraints". I think a price of £15,000 was mooted. For sure, that is to do with very small production runs, and very high R&D hours per model sold, rather than unobtainium or bling. I think it unlikely one will grace my illustrious deck either -even at mates rates. I am happy enough with what I have - although I would like to de-scruffy the PT unit which as Kevin knows, is in a very prototype state. Interestingly AK was talking in one of his upbeat moments recently of relaunching PT and suspendeds**. I take full credit for the thought troubling him - and am very grateful that he indulged an old mate to such an extent allowing me to explore the potential in the concept. If it turns into a new product line (or really an old one reborn) then that will be a bonus. I had it first! **There are lots of "maybe's" with AK. They don't all necessarily stay the course. There are a couple of refinements I would like to finish on the deck - and since AK and his partner are talking of coming to visit us in Granes, I can maybe bend his ear then. Can you ask him to pop a Vector equipped with an FX3 into his carry on luggage?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:51:19 GMT
The price of SME's have just risen between 25-32% due to a buy out and new distributor in the UK making an SME V £4K, mind you a Graham is now £6.5K getting a little silly on arm prices now I feel
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Mar 14, 2017 19:55:25 GMT
They are going to drive down with Ed, their dog, so maybe room in the car. But we're into wobbly ones again. They're not as scary as you think
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Mar 14, 2017 19:59:08 GMT
The price of SME's have just risen between 25-32% due to a buy out and new distributor in the UK making an SME V £4K, mind you a Graham is now £6.5K getting a little silly on arm prices now I feel I wonder which Arms funk used the anonymous resonance plots for on their website when demonstrating the unique performance of the F.X Arms? Hint : Martins dynavector wasn't among them.
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Mar 14, 2017 20:03:24 GMT
As far as SME being dead or grey sounding, that is simply not true of current production at least. Fair enough, I haven't heard a very recent one and I do agree, it's down to synergy. The SME IV that I had, while having very good bass, did not plunder the depths of my Dynavector's bass nor did it have the same resolution or levels of detail. Synergy is one thing, but I don't believe an SME would give a better musical presentation on any deck. The Rega is a little grey every time I've heard one, but the Michell TecnoArm (which I also owned) shows that it can fairly easily be transformed into something much more worthy. Could you remind me which arms you used before the Dyna arrived?
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Mar 14, 2017 21:50:46 GMT
I have used the following arms in my time:
SME 3009-II Improved SME III Helius Aureus SME IV Michell TecnoArm Jelco SA-250ST Dynavector DV507-II
|
|
|
tonearms
Mar 15, 2017 0:20:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by julesd68 on Mar 15, 2017 0:20:39 GMT
Ah yes, with a particular fondness for the Helius as I recall...
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Mar 15, 2017 6:20:16 GMT
The helius orion was my personal favourite until the funk range came along. It worked particularly well with the technics cartridge on any PT, but especially Anni. The mission 774 (which I used for more than 10 years on my deck) was outstanding for the money, even if it did look like my son made it from mechano . The early sme 5 worked well too, and was an aesthetic and ergonomic joy, but just never seemed as alive as the orion in my experiences. However it was the resident arm on the demo unit during my time as MD.
Of all of those, the mission was the innovative fresh thinking design.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Mar 15, 2017 6:35:51 GMT
Ah yes, with a particular fondness for the Helius as I recall... The Aureus was a piece of crap. I could never stop the bearings from sticking, it drove me demented.
|
|
|
tonearms
Mar 15, 2017 9:44:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by ant on Mar 15, 2017 9:44:49 GMT
Ive never had an expensive arm on a Tt. First had a linn basik and linn akito on the lp12. Both shite. Then put a project 9 carbon fibre arm on the lp12 which was much better than either linn.
Had a mayware formula 4 and a sonus formula 4 that were fantastic on a td150, the jbe series3 and a denon dp2550. Loved them on everything I put them on.
Had a helius standard that was very good when rewired, and an sme 3009 that was abit meh.
I build a load of unipivot arms ranging from a very high mass one from oak that was built to work with a dl103 rhat was stunning with that, but useless for anything else, to an aluminium and carbon fibre one that was very good indeed.
Careful attention was paid to resonances in the arm tube, the wand ended up like Swiss cheese after drilling it out in various places until it was nice and dead.
I found that it wasnt so much the frequency, but the decay of the ringing that made the difference. All arms wands will ring, how quickly they stop ringing depends on how clean they sound. Its a case of the tail wagging the dog, the cart will dump energy into the arm and the arm needs to be able to get rid of it as quickly as possible in my opinion. A u/p wand has one point that energy can get out through (the pivot point) which seems to lend itsself well to this.
The best sounding one i made used a flat tapered perspex wand rather than a tube. Very few mid to high frequency modes in it and fast energy transfer.
Only 'high end' arm ive heard was the linn ekos, an early one, I had it for about a week.
I currently use a modified rb251, thar has had the arm tube drilled and had foam damping put in, rewired with silver and had an aluminium rod bashed into the counterweight stub to damp it. It has a separate earth and detachable arm cable made from Banbridge 4 core mic cable. Much better than the stock rb, i have a standard rb250 for testing stuff with and comparing them is like chalk and cheese.
In terms of design, i think that higher quality machining, bearings ect are all very well and make a better product, but more attention needs to be paid to the energy being dumped into them arm by the deck and cart. Folk are sniffy about the use of plastics for example, but engineering plastics ( nylon, delrin et al) have some desirable qualities if used in the right manner. But the tactile quality is not the same as machined alloy.
Personally i prefer unipivots from a design standpoint as I think they lend themselves well to fast energy transfer and simplicity. Less parts mean less vibrational modes from these parts colliding at the bearing(s) and having to be gotten rid of, and less bearings, 1 instead of 3 means one path out of the arm rather than 3
think of it this way A cart converts kinetic energy into electrical energy. But it doesnt convert all the kinetik energy into electrical energy, so the remainder has to go somewhere. Energy cant be destroyed, only changed. The remaining kinetic energy that isnt converted int electrical energy by the generator in the cart, or heat by the cart suspension eemains as kinetic energy and is transferred into the surrounding structure. This will feed back into the generator and be converted into electrical energy after a delay while it bounces around in the arm structure, by which time, more energy has done the same thing, creating a kind of delayed ghost signal. You and I cant hear it as it is so low level, but its there unless it goes elsewhere via the structure, and manifests itsself as a barely perceptible distortion. If this can be kept away from the cart and transferred elswhere, i.e out of the arm, then it could mean better sound. My thoughts on this may be meaningless, just what I have formulated over the years of buggering around with arms
Cheers ant
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Mar 15, 2017 13:11:44 GMT
No Ant
Your thoughts in your final paragraph are right on the money for everything I have grown up with, and found to work. The key with energy is to get it away from the generator mechanism in a way which is broadly even across the frequency spectrum. That's why arm tube resonances are potentially so significant.
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Mar 22, 2017 11:07:35 GMT
|
|