Pindac, I was quoting from your post of 5-23-22. You can be forgiven for not recognizing something you wrote a year ago, nearly. I do not at all challenge your judgment of the copper wire that you have been discussing. I have no basis to doubt your testimony. I only wondered at that comment about how the wire is made.
|
Dear Pindac, I read in your post above, "larger crystals coalesce with each other, forming monocrystalline areas...." There must be a semantic issue, but how can coalescing crystals, which implies that the crystals aggregate in some way, result in a monocrystalline structure?
|
Just to add that SP10s used in broadcasting were usually seated into a very massive counter-top (for want of a better word to describe a broadcast booth). They weren't just sitting on top.
Raul and I had this argument long ago. I believe DDs need a massive plinth in order to counter the torque exerted during platter rotation. What the plinth needs to be made of is yet another bone of contention. Raul had one experience with a granite plinth. I don't care for granite, and apparently neither did he. We agreed to disagree on this subject (or at least I agreed to disagree), and I don't mean to stir the pot again. |
Invictus, Thank you for your civil response to my perhaps intemperate questions. Funnily enough, I would rank those Goldmund turntables as among the worst, most over-rated DD turntables I have ever heard, starting with their very badly implemented suspension systems. And their drive systems don't compete for engineering sophistication with the best Denon and Technics vintage DDs, in my opinion. I have yet to hear the 1200G, but the 1200G and the 10R both incorporate coreless motors. I have found that I tend to prefer DDs driven by a coreless motor, too. Among vintage DDs, this includes the Kenwood L07D and the Victor TT101. (There are more, Including the Yamaha 2000GT, but I haven't heard them.) Oddly enough, just based on what I know about SME turntables, I imagine that the SME design philosophy results in a turntable that has many of the qualities I like about DD turntables. If you found that you prefer the SME to the 1200G, that is a good head to head comparison, except, assuming you own one of the better SMEs, the cost is 2-3X that of the 1200G.
Fremer, who wrote the paragraph you or someone else cited critiquing the servo system used in DD turntables, more recently went on to write a glowing review of the SP10R, calling it one of the best turntables he has ever heard and also showing graphically that it was the most speed stable turntable he has ever measured. Somehow, he forgot to complain about the servo mechanism in that review. (Or, without checking the review, perhaps the spiel about the servo system was built into the SP10R review.) But negative reference to the servo system in DD turntables is a common device used by those who want to sell belt-drive or who have a pre-determined bias of some kind. DD turntables CAN have a coloration, which I think is much more due to either EMI emanating from the motor or to motor cogging. (Hence perhaps the reason that coreless motors seem to impart a more "continuous" and musical sound.) I think it's important to shield the cartridge from EMI, and the shielding effect may be the major reason why a lot of people swear by copper platter mats, etc.
And finally, nearly all modern belt-drive turntables are nowadays using a drive system that incorporates a feedback system to maintain speed stability. Witness the recent popularity of the Phoenix Engineering products in the US. How ironic is that? If the belt is at all compliant, this could in theory play havoc with speed stability, because if the drive system "sees" that the platter is slow (for example), it will signal a correction. The resulting torque bump from the motor will partly be used up in stretching the belt before the platter speed can respond. And etc. This back and forth is potentially worse than DD, because of belt compliance, if indeed there is any problem at all with DD in this regard. |
Invictus, Please be specific. What Technics/Denon/EMT turntables, exactly, did you "try"? What was the context? On what grounds would you say that the Michell and the SME turntables are "modern"? Neither brand has changed their product line much in probably 25 years, or more. Are you really saying that you don't like turntables that are not belt-driven? If so, say so.
You are entitled to your own particular set of preferences, as are all the rest of us. What upsets me is your consistent need to denigrate that which you have not chosen to love; in your case, it's anything not made by SME. It's OK to be in love with SME. Just know that the rest of us have had our own experiences which have led us to different conclusions regarding equipment we've chosen to live with long term.
People often get upset with Raul for his very frank opinions, but at least Raul always provides specific reasons to support his assertions, which often leads to lively and interesting, if heated, discussion. Furthermore, his taste is far more catholic brand-wise than yours. Your puffery leads nowhere. |
Why is everyone trying to strangle the new baby? It may well be that the new SAEC has been corrected with respect to headshell offset angle and alignment geometry. Why not keep an open mind?
|
Invictus, No one who seriously examined an SME V would not say that it is a very high quality product, in terms of construction, but just to be accurate, ABEC7 is not the highest possible precision rating. If that's your fetish, you want ABEC9. |
Good work, Raul. Of course, the SME V may not have continued to use a knife edge bearing. I'm sure we will be told.
Halcro, I've never owned an SAEC tonearm, but my recollection just from reading on this site, VE, VA, is that the 308N is the one with the confounding geometry that gave a "bad name" to the whole line-up. I am not sure what I thought about the 407/23, but by all accounts, the 8000/ST was designed for one or another of the 3 major "acceptable" alignments, and is not at all problematic. But the 8000 is rare and expensive. Am I correct in these beliefs? |
Earlier SME tonearms were known for the knife-edge bearing. It was one of their advertising points. If the SME V does not incorporate a knife-edge bearing, then I stand corrected. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant to me. Is it shameful to use a knife-edge bearing? If so, I never knew that. |
Dover, I have no understanding of how tonearms work. |
roberjerman, What you say was apparently true of one of their lower end tonearms, and I cannot recall the model name. Perhaps Raul or someone else with a detailed knowledge of vintage tonearms will tell us. However, I think the more expensive SAEC tonearms were designed to conform with one of the standard geometries, albeit that may be Stevenson or close to Stevenson, which a lot of alignment gurus do not like, including Raul. Did Fremer mention the preferred alignment? I don’t see it on his site. They’d be best off, obviously, to have built this new tonearm to Baerwald or Lofgren specs.
What I find most interesting is that the price gives us some idea of the answer to that old question: What would this or that well made piece of vintage audio gear have to cost, if it went into production now? The answer as regards an SAEC tonearm is "$8500 to $9500". I would bet that those numbers are at least 8X to 10X the original price of the vintage equivalent. Price does seem high, compared to Invictus' beloved SME V. SME V is a good comparator, because it too sports a knife-edge bearing and is similar in other ways. |
