@rsf507 isn't that something!  And, it is not an uncommon problem. Many give little thought to the room and frequently put the system in a situation were all it is good for is background music. I have a friend with Magico S7s and they sound glorious but, the system is not imaging. I am pretty sure it is a room problem. Next time I get over we are going to take some measurements and play around with acoustic tiles. I am certain we can fix it.

You don’t like Technics but other than the AT 1100 has the lower friction bearing levels that any non-unipivot tonearm and not even a bat can hear that " rattling " you are talking about .

I never said I disliked the Technics. but I would not use one with a low compliance cartridge.

However if you had ever listened to the Technics EPC100's where the "fake" ruby bearings have been replaced by silicon nitride bearings, and properly adjusted, then you would know precisely what I am talking about.

@dover I am potentially sharing in a experience like yourself on a different Tonearm.

Tonearms from a Large Brand, especially one produced from a vintage era are produced to work within a budget and this in itself will impact on the machining requirements and materials that are selected to used at the mechanical interfaces. 

Role the clock forward and give the Tonearm a introduction to modern design materials that can be used to supersede the original used materials, with identifying modifications that can be applied that will enable the exchange materials to function at their optimum.

The interfaces that are in use on the original design are when compared to a modern design concept the the Tonearm, speedily able to identify the earlier design is impeded by the use of materials produced used from the era of production.

I am using a Tonearm from a Vintage Period that has undergone modifications to enable materials produced in Japan with a modern design approach to be used to supersede the original parts used at a mechanical interface.

I am also able to visit and be demonstrated a modern produced Tonearm based around the design of the modified Vintage design model I am using.

Each Tonearm are extremely impressive and are able to make any of my recollections of other Tonearms either owned/used or demonstrated over time seem to not have the capabilities on offer from these Tonearms ( A Personal Subjective Evaluation of Course ) 

Note: The methods used on the Vintage Tonearm are not merely a swap out of a part, each Interface has been carefully considered and addressed, where the part selected has been considered and any requirements to enable it to function as a optimised part has been produced.

The attention to detail has included the removable SME Headshell Connection, that has been reproduced and has been A/B demonstrated, where the new design has shown to be a notable improvement.

There are a host of minor changes that have a much improved effect on the function of a interface and materials are incorporated that have a improved management of transferred energies.

From my knowledge, there is not much more to be produced from the engineer working with the Tonearm redesign on the mechanical interfaces.

Internal Wiring is now the route being investigated to see where there is opportunities to exploit the values on offer from the work already produced.

The requirements within the Tonearm to ensure the routing of wire has been  thoroughly interrogated and the effect of the wire within the Tonearm, has now been shown to have a Zero Impact on the Bias.

With the knowledge attained there are limited wires identified that are to be able to maintain the present produced function, it is a case of trying out the options as they are becoming available.

The present status is,  the ideal wire is discovered for use, as a result of deselecting other suitable wire types.

The good outcome for myself is that I am now using a Tonearm that makes an extremely good impression, especially to the point I choose to no longer use respected Branded Tonearm Models on a regular basis any longer.

The more interesting outcome for the present time, is that the preferred Tonearm is now in a position where it can be offered up as a Donor, to receive the additional measures produced, that through being invited as a attendee to receive demonstrations of the work undertaken, are able to show very noticeable changes for the better. 

That is not too bad a place to be for a Tonearm that in its present condition, is one that has ended my search for a Tonearm that offers a very satisfying performance. 

Revisiting the OP, I would like to think that a Tonearm that costs +50K has had its design team live and breathe the options to be considered / used to get it to the levels of performance the price suggests it should offer. It does seem strange that the predecessor at $30K is unashamedly referred to as having a bearing that is inferior, this is deduced from the producers referencing that the Successor Models are offered with a improved stiffer bearing.

Is the product a performer that stands out over the masses and one to aspire to, or is it a Talk the Talk item with a modern approach to selection of the used materials  with a only above average performance, offered at a very high price. Where the only justification for the asking price is from what is to be discovered in the sales spiel.   

Again as said previously, I don't intend to or feel it is necessary to allocate this type of money to a Tonearm, I am not even sure my curiosity would have it put it on a shortlist of demonstrations to be party to at a commercial event if it were present.   

Dear @dover  :  first those Technics tonearms are not EPC but EPA 100 and 100MK2 and I owned both. 

I mounted several cartridges on it and I can't really remember if  I mounted really a low compliance cartridge. I think the lower compliance model I own is the 103 and it's not really a so low compliance and no I never mounted in the EPA's.

 

R.

@pindac 

I own many classic/vntage arms as well as modern, some modified.

The main issue with classic arms such as the FR64S/SME3012R most of the Micro Seiki arms and SAEC arms, and others of that era that are now popular are the non offset bearings. Nobody raises this issue.

As you are no doubt aware, with non offset vertical bearings, when you change VTA the azimuth changes. For those that are not aware of this issue, place the palm of your left hand over your right at an angle ( offset angle of cartridge ). Lift you right elbow up and down - you will notice that your left hand ( the cartridge ) rotates - lift your elbow up and it rotates anticlockwise, lower your right elbow and the left hand ( cartridge ) rotates clockwise.

Most modern arms now use offset vertical bearings so that when you alter VTA azimuth remains constant. 

On my FR64S for example, when dialling in VTA the soundstage moves all over the place and the azimuth has to be rechecked each time. This is a royal pain in the a**.

As far as the SAT goes, I've heard enough to know that it is an exceptional arm, whether you agree with the design choices or not. The value proposition is very simply - do you have the disposable income, and if so, does it do what you want - it's an individual choice. Why knock folk who choose to buy it - I say good luck to them, hope it works.

For me the best arm is simply what can I afford that gives the best performance for my preferred cartridge choice in the context of my total system.

The most neglected issue that most ignore when it comes to discussion of arms and cartridges, is that all arms are not perfect, all cartridges are not perfect, and arm/cartridge combination ( the combination of 2 imperfect variables ) is arguably more critical than the individual choice of arm or cartridge.

I see so often folk spending $2-5k on cartridges for arms that either don't match or are not up to a standard that will exact anything close to the full potential of the chosen cartidge, In my experience poor arm/cartridge matching results in musical dissatisfaction every time - and costs more in the long run to fix.