SAEC Making Tonearms Again!

Good news, but the old 407/23 is that good?

Btw the "23" is the angle. The wrong one was Saec 308 models, and probably 317. 

I think the problematic is the Saec Ceramic Headshell which is very expensive, but it’s impossible to twist the cartridge using this particular headshell. It must be a different headshell to make re-alignment with 308N (short) or 308L (long) tonearms. There is a thread on audiogon where verything has been told about those arms long time ago.

this is what @t_bone said long time ago:

Personally, I had always assumed the 23 was for ~23cm length (the way the 506/30 has a ~30cm length). It is true that at 233mm, to get Baerwald alignment, it almost has to be 23 degrees offset angle, but that won’t get you the cart straight in line with the headshell. And there is no way that the 506/30 is going to have a 30-degree offset angle...

I am not sure of your question. You can twist the cart in the headshell on all the SAECarms (and it might make more sense to change the mounting distance too) to bring them to Baerwald. All but the 317 have original mfr geometry specs which are more aggressive than Stevenson alignment as far as I remember.

There is also Saec 308SX version: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/saec-308n-vs-308sx 

more about SAEC, posted by @dertonarm

The WE-8000 is the only SAEC tonearm where the offset of the headshell is correct.The SAEC 506/30 was designed to be used with 10" and singles only. It’s geometry does reflect it. Out of curiosity I have calculated a different alignment for the 506/30 which does suit 12" records MUCH better

.

@rauliruegas 

Btw, have you interest to buy a SAEC tonearm?

I have no intention to buy new 8k tonearm from any manufacturer, i like my Reed 3p "12 tonearm, it's new design, not a 30 years. But i like vintage tonearms as well, regarding vintage tonearms i'm not gonna pay more than 1,5k for any of them. I've learned from many audiogon threads that SAEC with its knife-edge bearings is not the best tonearm. And that's why i asked again is that good or not? Just curiosity, i'm not gonna buy Saec anyway. 

Sadly @dertonarm  is not posting anymore on audiogon, so i can not speak for him about his calculations etc. What i think is that size of the record does matter, especially for professional tonearms, if it was made for radio stations then the main format for new material on vinyl is SINGLES or "7 size first, all promo material for the radiostation released by the labels on singles to promote the best tracks from the LP long time before the LP will be even pressed or available for sale. This is how the industry worked back in the day. Singles with labels like "promo use only or D.J. copy" is typical for any radio archives. One song per side. I believe @dertonarm is right at some point, there could be a dedicated tonearm with dedicated alignment made for professional use for japanese radiostations backs in the 70s. 

@rauliruegas  I wonder why our experienced member and collector of the tonearms posted this:  

The SAEC 506/30 was designed to be used with 10" and singles only. It’s geometry does reflect it. 
-Dertonarm   

As far as i know SAEC 506/30 is a professional tonearm, so what i tried to explain is why in the professional industry (radio broadcast) singles ("7 inch vinyl and "12 inch EPs) are more inportant than LPs. 

 

@rauliruegas you’re right, but the SAEC 506/30 is a professional tonearm, audiophiles are not a part of the pro industry, professional used to be meant for broadcast in the 80s. In the broadcast industry nobody cares about LPs, singles are made especially for radio deejays and for promotion of the upcoming LP albums. Making professional tonearms SAEC or any other respected manufacturers must take in count the media format of the PRO industry and no wonder that special geometry applied for this specific format of the records (they are smaller than LPs). I think this is what our member (dertonarm) pointed in his comment many years ago.

Maybe SAEC 506/30 consumers in the 80s were not the hi-fi enthusiasts (private individuals), but the professional broadcast studios (special market) ?

For example here is Technics SL1000 MKII P ("P" = Professional)
There is a build-in balanced preamp Technics SH-10U
professional version of the EPA-100 tonearm (EPA-100P) or even the best EPA-100mkII as an option.

The cabinet is definitely not the best, but the whole concept reminds me EMT turntables, i think they are highly regarded among the audiophiles and price for them reflect it pretty well. Same about Denon broadcast decks.

@rauliruegas 

Better than that please do it a favor and due that you listen mainly to 7" size recordings then take this alignment parameters for your 64FX tonearm that will give you the lower tracking error with the lower distortion levels for a 7" recordings :

 P2S: 238.55mm  ; offset angle: 15.294° ; overhang: 8.45mm

the alignment is Löfgren A ( Stevenson gives no single advantage even with this special alignment. ) dedicated for that size recording and only as an example the tmaximum racking error goes down from: 1.9°-2.1° to only 0.36° that's outstanding and then way lower tracking distortion levels.

Thanks, maybe i'll try it. 
At my home listening sessions i'm 90% with LPs as you lazy guys, so i can relax and listen to the full side of LP. But when i'm playin out or abroad i'm with my vintage original 45s (from the 60s and 70s). 

I'm curious about those professional japanese tonearms, some of them are very expensive and very rare. In theory i'd like to know for sure why did they used special alignments. I can't believe they were "stupid", because Baerwald alignment is very old and very well known even in japan. I'm trying to understand the special needs those pro manufacturers served for the consumers (broadcast studios etc) at that time. Hope we will find the truth.     

Depends on which tonearm @rauliruegas
I have 4 tonearms, actually 3 are connected right now.
No problem with LPs i can listen with Baerwald on Reed 3p "12
My record collection is 50% 45s and 50% LPs

My Sony PUA-7 has its own alignment and its own SONY protractor.

Maybe i will experiment with Luxman TA-1 tonearm with high compliance cartridge for 7’inch only.

At the moment my new FR-64fx with FR-7f is on the "warm-up" in my system with its original alignment, i just replaced tube gear to solid state and everything changed, so i need time to get used to this sound, before i will make any changes!

I know your opinion that Stevenson is "stupid" and all japanese tonearm manufacturers are "stupid" too, but i want to know WHY did they used what they used! And i think we need more information, more opinions.

And yes, i want to learn things and i have time to learn things in this hobby, i am 41

@rauliruegas 

Sp-10s were designed for broadcasting: they needed fast star up and fast stop too, speed stability, etc. but they did not needs a special plinth to avoid resonances/vibrations as we need in a home system.

I wonder about your own learning curve, Raul
Several years ago you'be been fighting with a'gon members regarding your idea that "naked fashion" (no plinth at all) SP-10mkII is better than any plinth. Do you remember? 

You goal was to add AT-616 pneumatic insulators under the Sp-10mkII, just like i did last month on this photo of SAEC mat (if anyone would like to see what i'm talking about). 

Now you're talking about "a special plinth to avoid resonances/vibrations", could you explain? The AT-616 pneumatic insulators is there to avoid vibrations and to level turntable in its "naked fashion" style. 

In many cases on this forum you're controversial to yourself, your own statements (from 5 year ago for example) regarding cartridges, tonearms, plinth etc is often completely different to your current statements. Which make me think that all your current statements about vintage analog equipmentn will mean nothing in the next 5 years.  

@rauliruegas

Are you waiting for a post by Mr. Stevenson?

That would be nice, or from anyone else on the same subject.
You don’t have to repead your statement, i have already switched between Baerwald and Stevenson alignments several times with some of my arms over the years. I don't have paranoia about distortion level. My question was not exactly adressed to you personally, it was not exactly about my own gear, the question was about Japanese manufacturers and you can’t speak for them, because you don’t know what to say about their theoretical point of view, you’re talking from the practical point of view. I appreciate your advices, but your posts became very rude, next time you will say anything personal i will stop communicate with you forever. What you need to learn is a good manners on public forums, strange that at your age you didn’t learned this yet, believe me this is more important than alignments of tonearms or anything that you posted. Respect community members and they will respect you. As i pointed earlier, you’re contradicted to yourself in several post on differen subjects i audio if we will read old posts and new posts. Ok, nevermind.

@invictus005
Don’t forget that audiogon members experienced that Technics reference sound for 20-30 years or even longer. The SP-10 mkIII was one of the ultimate Direct Drive ever made for decades. The best plinth makers offered an amazing plinth for SP-10mkII and mkIII over the years. Some users are fine with the origina Obsidian plinth too. The EPA-100 mkII Boron-Titanium is still one of the best tonearms ever made.

Second hand Technics EPA-100 and SP-10mkII has the best value today and they are still great, no matter what you personally think about it. There is no comparison between SP-10mkIII and SP-10R made yet, only at the Technics factory. But there is already a lot of speculations about it.

Until 2017 there was no SL1200G, GR, GAE
... and until summer 2018 there is no SP10R, SP1000R on the market!

I agree that SP-10R is what we should think about, but not the SL1200G, you will see them for sale used on audiogon when the SP-10R will be released! Technics reference series does not looks like an old SL1200 with new motor and new plinth, the reference is SP-10R and SP-10 mkIII is next to it.  

There are many vintage DD on the market with a proper plinth, one of them is Luxman PD-444 in aluminum plinth with armboards for almost any tonearms. Victor TT-101 is another coreless DD. Why should the owner of the great classic DDs should care about SL1200G which is not even reference Technics? We will see when the hype is over.

SP-10R is the target for serious audiophiles, but it’s 14 000 UK Pounds, while the SP-10mkIII is much cheaper.

"The WE-8000 is the only SAEC tonearm where the offset of the headshell is correct.The SAEC 506/30 was designed to be used with 10" and singles only. It’s geometry does reflect it. Out of curiosity I have calculated a different alignment for the 506/30 which does suit 12" records MUCH better" - @dertonarm

I’ve been thingling about that statement made by Dertonarm. Looking at my SAEC SS-300 mat i can say that even this mat was designed for singles (7’ inch records) and LPs.

http://img.ukaudiomart.com/uploads/large/1850936-rare-saec-ss300-special-alloy-mat-870g-made-in-japa...

This is the ONLY mat that i know with special concave for 7’ inch records while the other mats are totally flat. I believe SAEC did a great job for professional market back then.

As i said earlier if it was made for radio stations then the main format for new material on vinyl is SINGLES (7’ inch records), all promo material for the radiostation released by the labels on singles to promote the best tracks from the LP long time before the LP will be even pressed or available for sale. This is how the industry used to work back in the days. Singles with signs like "promo use only or D.J. copy" is typical for any radio archives. One song per side, about 3:50 min only, 45rpm. I believe @dertonarm is right at some point with his statement about SAEC tonearms, but i can just add that SAEC mat is also designed for singles! Think about it.