| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Analog Playback» Which SME 3009? (11 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  SME M2-12 tonearm..  M2-12R specs...  Analog Playback Forum     10  92992  07-26-2004
  »  New  Lithuania enters the game: Reed 12" Tonearm..  It is even worse...  Analog Playback Forum     11  59553  12-03-2009
07-01-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Alex Yakovlev
NJ, US
Posts 45
Joined on 10-06-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 1127
Reply to: 1127
Which SME 3009?
Could someone please enlighten me on which versions of 3009 are better? Thank you.
07-02-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Brian Clark
Ongar, UK
Posts 78
Joined on 10-02-2004

Post #: 2
Post ID: 1135
Reply to: 1127
Re: Which SME 3009?
Alex, the best version would be the first (Series 1) version but these are very rare. Next best would be the pre-Improved Series 2, having metal knife-edge bearings. The Improved would be OK for light-weight, light-tracking MM carts, having been developed expressly for the Shure V15 & ED series, but not really for lightweight MCs without replacing the nylon knife-edges with metal replacement.

Watch out for the condition of the rubber coupling. These perish and need replacing with the genuine SME item.

I personally think the 9" arms are sonically inferior to the 3012 but it's been a long, long time since I had a 3009 in my system.

Brian.
07-02-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 3
Post ID: 1136
Reply to: 1135
SME arms: opposite side of medal.

Well, like in anything else there are two sides of the medal. I did not deal a lot with 3009. It is a fine arm. The very short time when I had the arm it impressed me as an arm identical to 3012 but with less developed bass.  I did not get any second chaise for this arm, not practically because it sound but because I did not want to waste a space on my TT for 9” arm.

Yes, there is a strong believe out there that older production (Series I) are sonically superior to the Series II. I think this is all audiophile bogusness purely artificially created by the ebay droolers who staff the Japanese buyer with overpriced 3012/I (Series I). The 3012/I had heavier tube and some people mistakably believe that it makes the arm sound better. Read my site: I have said many-many times that I run ANY cartridge with max possible effective mass of tonearm. Why, because the heavier arms sound better! Do you have to pay 3 times for a “collectable” 3012/I or you would add 15-30g to the headshell of the 3012/II is completely irrelevant. The effective mass of the arm is mater but not the magical “rare” status of the Series I tonearm.

The material of the knife-edges is the subject t of the controversy as well. The boys with light cartridges who use the 3012/II as the default 12g arm will sing the songs that the metal knife-edges bearing is superior to the nylon and worth the extra $150. However, I will see what kind song then will be singing when they loud into SME 35g-40g cartridge of add to the 9g needle that they use I would say 25-30g. The nylon bearing was introduced by SME as an optional upgrade and for 15 years the nylon knife-edges bearing was sold for extra $100. Then, when the SME begin to manufacture thier Series II with default nylon bearing the wily dealer and reviewers begun to spread rumors that the metal bearing worth more money. Why, because it presumably sounds better… the most humors of then sell the bronze-made knife-edges bearing for $250. I sincerely feel that it is all BS.

The older, Series I are juts older, have more wearing and higher effective mass. It’s it. Also the older arm has crappier connectors with which you should deal, most likely to replace. Brian was correct about the rubber coupling they are important and shame the M2 SME the they did not implemented it... I usually trash any rubber bushings after each mounting of the arm and I strongly encourage to do the same.

Rgs,
The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-03-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Brian Clark
Ongar, UK
Posts 78
Joined on 10-02-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 1138
Reply to: 1136
As George V may have REALLY said on his deathbed...
"Bugger dogma!". Romy is quite right challenging my obeisance to the Series 1. These things are so rare and when found are likely to be in a somewhat less than pristine condition.

However, it is not only the arm tube that is more massive but the counterweight and base assembly too. Robertson-Aikman of Scale Model Engineering made the prototype for his own use with the then brand new Ortofon SPU cartridge but was soon manufacturing to meet demand from, among others, Neumann.
It was for a while standard fitting on Neumann cutting lathes for playback of acetates using Neumann's own heavyweight cartridge.

What I should have done, rather making blanket assertions, was to ask "What cartridge(s) are you going to be using?" As the Series 1 was developed for a specific type of cartridge (heavy, stiff MCs) this is what one would expect it to be best for. In contrast the Series 2 Improved was developed specifically for the lightweight, highly compliant Shure V15 series and similar MM designs so one would expect that to be the optimum SME choice for those. The non-Improved Series 2 ("metal bearing"), having removeable headshell and a range of available counterweights, can be viewed as an attempt to make a universal arm to accept the gamut of cartridge types appearing in the '60s. It could thus be viewed as more compromised.

I use Denon DL-103R and Ortofon SPU Mono carts, i.e "stiffies" and am soon to be comparing a Series 1 3012, which I am rebuilding and rewiring for a friend, with my own rewired Series 2 3012 with heavy counterweight. They will have identical wiring and will be attached to the same custom made thick alloy base.
So we shall see....

Brian.
07-05-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Alex Yakovlev
NJ, US
Posts 45
Joined on 10-06-2004

Post #: 5
Post ID: 1143
Reply to: 1138
Carts...
Thank you for all the answers. I currently have four cartridges - Grado Statement, Dynavector XV-1 (not the s), Benz Ruby and Rega Exact.
07-05-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Brian Clark
Ongar, UK
Posts 78
Joined on 10-02-2004

Post #: 6
Post ID: 1144
Reply to: 1143
Re: Carts...
A Series 2 should be dandy Alex

Brian.
07-05-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 7
Post ID: 1145
Reply to: 1144
Re: Carts... mass, mass, mass....
And do not forget to load the shell of the Series 2 with a LOT of mass. The idiots-reviewers were writing in thier articles that the Grado Statement needs, as any other MI cartridge, a low to medium affective mass tonearms. In reality the whore-reviewers were spreading this foolishness at that tome juts because they had a few new tonearms that they needed to make public to buy. Anyhow, the top of the line MI cartridges need hugely heavy arms (over 35g, forget about the needle compliance) as with the mid-mass arms (ass all new production arms) the Grado will sound… exactly how the reviewer’s playback sound – decolorized, light, with not bass and too sharp.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-05-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
starboy
Posts 23
Joined on 09-10-2004

Post #: 8
Post ID: 1146
Reply to: 1145
Fixed or detachable...?
A friend has a fixed headshell model S2 and is about to trade for a detachable just for convenience but worries if there is any extra sonic merit in the model he already has?

Any idea Mr B____

p.s. Romy, I've got my 901 and I'm very much impressed so far, alas I have an 834P and I'm not sure if the loading is suitable. If my memory bank serves me well I think you may have experience with the said items together?

Maybe it's time I hot-rodded the EAR to get the best from the Shelter but which way to go I'm not sure at all.

With your advice I have also added extra mass at the headshell and was impressed with this slight tweak on my Original Well Tempered Classic and will get another heavier counterweight to go further.

Regards all
07-05-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Brian Clark
Ongar, UK
Posts 78
Joined on 10-02-2004

Post #: 9
Post ID: 1147
Reply to: 1146
Re: Fixed or detachable...?
 starboy wrote:
A friend has a fixed headshell model S2 and is about to trade for a detachable;just for convenience but worries if there is any extra sonic merit in the model he alread has? Any idea Mr B____


Obviously the fixed headshell means greater structural rigidity and if your friend is happy running just one cartridge (unlike some of us ;o) ) then he should keep it. However, it IS fun being able to swap 'em around isn't it?

p.s. Romy, I've got my 901 and I'm very much impressed so far, alas I have an 834P and I'm not sure if the loading is suitable.


The loading is 510 ohms. About 5 times too high I would have thought. What say you Romy?

Maybe it's time I hot-rodded the EAR to get the best from the Shelter but which way to go I'm not sure at all.


Sounds like you need to pop over and hear Korrektorix my friend
}:]

Brian.


07-05-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 10
Post ID: 1148
Reply to: 1147
Shelter 901 loading.
I load my 901 with 42K that behind my transformer that makes it 68R. It’s given that I always tend to load my cartridges slightly harder: have my reasons. I would suggest to load 901 with ~80-90R. The load of 510R suggests that something is tonally/mechanical not kosher in the rest of the system as lighting of the load was presumably used to EQ-correct the systems. Lording should be determine by readability of the groove ONLY and the tonal deviation with the loading change should be DISREGARDED. My experiments indicated that with over 100R of load (3012R+16g) the 901 did not read records well and sound too perfunctory. Read my one of the first posts in this forum: Don’t "use" VTA

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-06-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Brian Clark
Ongar, UK
Posts 78
Joined on 10-02-2004

Post #: 11
Post ID: 1149
Reply to: 1148
Changing EAR834P loading
R1 (green/brown/orange or yellow/violet/orange) needs to be paralleled with a 12k resistor to bring the loading seen by the cart to just under 100 ohms.

Brian.
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  SME M2-12 tonearm..  M2-12R specs...  Analog Playback Forum     10  92992  07-26-2004
  »  New  Lithuania enters the game: Reed 12" Tonearm..  It is even worse...  Analog Playback Forum     11  59553  12-03-2009
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts