What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

As has been written elsewhere (by me), the effect of CW mass on total effective mass is equal to the mass of the CW multiplied by the (distance from the center of CW mass to the pivot)-squared. So you cannot just say that CW is 10% of total effective mass, unless you’ve done the math.

Mijo, you are entitled to your guess. Your guess may be as good as mine, except I own and have used the BMC, and you own the Seta. The two units may have differences in both input impedance and current gain. Dunno. I’m only extrapolating from my prior experience, as noted. Input Z of the BMC is said to be <3 ohms. Do you have those data for the Seta? The outcome is not solely dependent upon the internal R of the cartridge, given two cartridges of exactly equal V output.

I keep mine powered up at all times, with the MUTE switch engaged when it’s not in use.

Your system may differ from that of the BMC seller in terms of downstream gain factors, but  I agree you’ll most likely be ok at the 0db setting, as noted above. If not then it’s easy to switch to the 7db setting.

Mijostyn, how do you know he’ll need to set the gain to “high”? And what is high on the BMC? 0, 7, and 14db are offered. With my ZYX UNIverse, which puts out 0.24mV and has a 4 ohm internal resistance, the 0db setting is robust. That’s with my linestage adding about 15 db of gain. The Verismo puts out 0.2mV with internal R = 7 ohms, roughly half the current output of the Uni. So, depending upon linestage gain, the input sensitivity of the amplifier, and speaker efficiency, I would guess 0db or +7db would be the sweet spot. Anyway, he can come over to my house in Bethesda to compare notes.

From my reading bits written by audio journalists who usually have only a tenuous grasp of the technology, it seems the MCCI and Leno are a bit different from one another in circuitry. As a user of the MCCI, I simplified things by turning off the Neumann compensator and any bass frequency modulation. I also set gain to zero db; only a very few cartridges would require the +7 or 14 db settings. Also keep in mind that Fremer reviewed the original version, not the ULN Signature version, in 2013. I think the jumpers are very easy to understand and deal with in the latest version. But I can’t say which you’d like better between the MCCI ULN Sig and the Lino C.

Mike, do you have v2.0 or v3.3 of Lino C?

Dear Pindac, I’m not sure I understand your last post. Are you advocating a change from XLR to RCA, if the latter and its wiring are using your favored OCC? Regardless of phono stage topology (balanced vs SE)?

Thanks.

It’s nonsense to think of changing the plugs from XLR to RCA as a “modification “. All you’re doing is grounding one side of the cartridge coils to effect a single-ended output. Pin2 of the XLR goes to the “hot” central pin of the RCA and pin3 goes to ground . You haven’t really altered anything, but you’ve forfeited about 6db of gain compared to a true balanced hookup via XLRs to a balanced phono stage, like that BMC MCCI. So the optimal choice if you want to spend the bucks is indeed to buy a balanced phono stage, be it a current driven type like the MCCI or a voltage driven type. It is important to note that in order to take advantage of the potential gain differential between a true balanced connection and a single ended connection, you must have a true balanced phono section. There are many on the market that offer XLR inputs, but are single ended internally. In that case, you are likely not getting the benefits of balanced Connection.

Ok. You’re perfect. But I have no idea why you think someone threw you under a bus (which is a horrible metaphor). You did concoct a long unflattering post about BD . I wondered whether that inspired Mijostyn, and that’s all there is to it.

Arguments within arguments. Mijostyn, I don’t understand the meaning behind your listing BD TT designers in a post addressed to my attention. I am not dogmatic about drive systems and never have been. It’s just that in recent years I’ve found DD to be the best bang for the buck, while restricting my choices to the best vintage Japanese models and after updates and replinthing all but the L07D. I admit that for about 10 years I was collecting rather than really filling a need. (Because who really needs 5 TTs?) I think you’re confusing me with Pindac. Apology accepted in advance. None of the three commonly used drive systems is flawless.

I used to hang around local emporia for audio, until I began to feel guilty about taking up space and not buying gear. Stopped going about 20 years ago, but that didn’t prevent most local businesses from failing. Tokyo is just the opposite; they still have wonderful stores and no one seems to care how long you loiter, although I do also buy stuff usually.

Hi, Albert. Nice to hear from you, and I hope you are well. Happy New Year.

Whart, that’s a beautiful system. I assume you have no feedback problem with the horns aimed so directly at your TT? Which Allnic phono stage is seen on the shelf below your TT? I’d like to hear that system.

Speaking of which, I noted that there are at least two others besides myself who live in the Washington, DC, area. (I live in Bethesda, MD, which is naught but a suburb of DC.)  Pindac seems to derive a lot of benefit from his local audiophile associations, and I think perhaps it would be fun if we also could occasionally get together for chat and auditions.  If anyone is interested, we can go from there.

Mulveling, What is there about the Korf tonearm that leads you to believe it might outperform an SME V?  What I see is that neither the pivot point nor the counterweight lie in the plane of the LP surface.  Nor does the CW appear to be decoupled from the pivot, although it may be.  All 3 of those design elements are now fairly well accepted to be optimal for a pivoted tonearm, at least according to theory.  Yes, there are many great vintage tonearms that don't meet these design criteria and still manage to sound excellent.

I think you perceive hostility where none is intended.

I guess when you write that you regularly encounter an SP10R that is served by a Glanz tonearm on a pod, you are not referring to your own system, because you also said that you do not use an outboard arm pod.  Fine either way. Apart from the possible problem of mechanically dissociating the tonearm from the TT bearing, I would also be concerned about alignment being affected over the long term of use, if occasionally the pod is nudged from its optimal location with respect to the spindle. That is if I were a stickler regarding alignment in the first place.

Pindac, Interestingly, when you are angry, at me or anyone else, I find your posts much more comprehendable.  Not that I would deliberately piss you off. So, if you agree that the tonearm pivot and the turntable bearing need to be tightly and rigidly coupled, then why did it make you angry when I said so?  I also allowed that an outboard tonearm pod can be done right by a designer who knows what he is doing and why he is doing it.  Ergo, we seem to agree much more than we disagree.

Mijostyn, Why do you continue to ignore my argument that it can be beneficial for a tonearm to exhibit a higher effective mass in the horizontal plane than in the vertical plane?  You've neither derided it nor acknowledged it.  If you hate the idea, I would like to know why. Some noteworthy tonearms are designed to conform to that paradigm, e.g., the Dynavectors, the Moerch (which you hate for being a unipivot), several vintage Japanese types, and all linear trackers, of course.

Pindac, no one is telling you what to do. This is a hobby. Messing around is fun. Arguing politely is also fun and sometimes enlightening. Simon Yorke TTs are other exceptions to the rule broken by the Onedof with its outboard arm pod. But I think SY provides a shelf or base in which to seat his TT and arm pod.

Whew!

Raul does not need an apologist.  He is what he is. By all accounts of those who have met him in person, he is indeed a charming and amiable person.  Not always does he behave that way on line. I feel it's OK to call him out on his behavior at those moments.

Mijostyn, For a person who seems to reside in rural New Hampshire (and what part of New Hampshire is NOT "rural"), you sure have a lot of cement trucks and earthquakes with which to contend. Portsmouth is the only city I know of that may not be categorized as rural in NH. I live in Bethesda, MD, which is suburban but not rural, and we never have a problem with heavy trucks or certainly not earthquakes in my neighborhood.  (Yes, I know seismic disturbances travel great distances, but they also lose energy along the way until barely perceptible and brief in duration.) You could move down to more bucolic New York City to avoid those problems.  Just as you accord some respect to the Triplanar based on the testimony of many others, so too I accord some respect to an arm pod done right, although I personally would never go that route, because so many others seem happy with theirs.  I cannot always discern what Pindac is doing, but it appears he is cognizant of the necessity to build his arm pods to be rock stable.

I totally agree with Mijostyn about the advice that the tonearm should be tightly coupled to the turntable bearing assembly.  The two should move in unison and never in relation to one another.  However, many persons have built these very heavy, very sturdy outboard arm pods, which when mounted on the same platform/shelf/support structure as the TT itself, apparently can work quite well.  I suspect this works in proportion to the degree to which both turntable and pod are subject to the exact same environmental disturbances and react similarly to such disturbances.  This is not a question of plotting or skullduggery on anyone's part.  It's just good engineering.  Take a look at any well built turntable designed with its own plinth and tonearm; you will find that the designers arranged for the sort of tight coupling to which I refer.  The Rega P10 is light as a feather, figuratively, yet it incorporates a heavy metal girder that links the platter bearing support to the tonearm pivot.

Perhaps facts speak for themselves, but where are the facts in your insulting post? Also, I do not want to be dragged into defending the Triplanar.  That has nothing to do with it.  It is the manner in which you delivered your opinion.  Don't you get that you are not the only one who can be insulted?  You like to use the word "win".  That is the problem; most of us are not trying to win anything. It's quite OK for you to point out whatever you think are the drawbacks of the Triplanar or any other piece of gear.  I think we have a consensus that there is no such thing as "the best" tonearm or the best anything.

Raul, that was not a constructive comment. It was a personal attack. You owe Ralph an apology. If you want to make a negative comment about the Triplanar, just do it.

If I wanted a BD TT and if I didn’t want to pay the big bucks for the Helix, I’d opt for a Kuzma too.

I think the zenith tolerance is 5 degrees, not 5%, which would be a whopping 18 degrees. You’d notice 18 degrees of error. I have good evidence it’s an important factor in getting the best performance out of any cartridge. I’ve examined many cartridges under my Olympus microscope, but I wasn’t looking for zenith error. I have noticed however that press fitted styli seem correctly mounted.

Lets not debate drive systems here. I will refrain from countering your claim that “engineers” prefer belt drive.

Mijostyn, I’m used to Raul misinterpreting my English. After all, it’s his second language. But what I said or certainly meant to convey is that zenith IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. Problem is that what we’re talking about is not strictly defined by the term “zenith”. Zenith, defined as the relationship of the long axis of the stylus tip to the groove, is very very important. The two companies that make all the cantilevers in the world have a +/-5% tolerance for mounting styli on them. A5% error in zenith is not good enough to get the most out of the cartridge. We have no argument about the importance of zenith for lowest distortion.

“All of the high end cartridges I have examined are right on the money for VTA and azimuth.” What does that mean? There is another parameter to be accounted for, and that is “zenith”, which we define as rotation or lack thereof of the stylus with respect to the cantilever. I scoffed at the idea it’s important once, but I was wrong. 

we all love gadgets, but spending on aWallyskater which is a nifty gadget is an extravagance when AS is never perfect by definition and is as well set by ear.

Wise decision not to mate a SOTA with an outboard  pod, at least. My guess is any sensible change you make is going to make you happier with the SQ. It’s how we’re built. So don’t fret.

I don’t know about Minus K as a separate device, but the Minus K built into the Helix poses no problems in operating the TT itself, once you learn not to push down too forcefully. But when it does flex due to downforce, it does so very smoothly and without the bounce associated with undamped springs.

Just to throw another name brand into the mix, Reed tonearms are very good. Schroeder tonearms are also superb but have a reputation for long wait periods if you order a new one. I have no basis to claim that any tonearm is "superior" to the SME V, because I don't own one and have heard it only in audio salons and at shows, which experience I judge to be a poor way to choose gear.  Also, keep in mind that the cartridge (matching to the tonearm and SQ), the turntable, and the downstream system have everything to do with how we perceive the performance of a tonearm. Instead, I would look at features, like how easy is it to adjust overhang, VTA, VTF, azimuth, etc., along with quality of construction and design execution.