2. analog
  3. 134929-245

SAT 30K+$$ TONEARM: W O R T H T O H A V E I T ?

http://www.swedishat.com/

That is the everywhere touted and very expensive tonearm. Touted by all professional reviewers and obviously " satisfied " owners ( around 70 of them. ).

Here some reviews:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2014/06/sat-swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm.html

http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/AirForce%20III_SAT_HiFi+_0817.pdf

and you can look elsewhere the TAS one and others.

Obviously that the proudly owners started to buy the tonearm because those reviews and trhough audio shows but mainly for the " great " reviews.

It was ranked class A in Stereophile and I know are coming two new models that inludes a 12" tonearm.

Other than the very high price I never was interested on the tonearm design due that is totally out of my budget. Its price cost what a decent whole audio system cost.

Anyway, a few months ago in an other analog forum and through a TT review the SAT appeared in that discussion thread and was here when I decided to analize this regarded tonearm design where I found out that those 30K+ dollars are a true money lost and does not matters of what reviewers and owners think about where there are not clear facts all of them are extremely satisfied with the SAT.



Let me explain a little why I said that through my post to MF:


"""""""

from your Stereophile review the SAT specs are as follows: P2S: 212.2mm, overhang: 22.8mm, offset angle 26.10° with an effective length: 235mm.


Those numbers tell us that you are listening ( with any cartridge. ) way higher distortion levels, that you just do not detected even today, against almost any other tonearm/cartridge combination.


Obviously that the SAT needs a dedicated protractor to make the cartridge/tonearm set up but we have to analize what those specs/numbers has to say:

the SAT maximum traking error is a really high: 3.09° when in a normal ( Jelco or Ortofon. ) 235m Effective Length tonearm Löfgren A alignment ( IEC standard. ) is only: 1.84°

the SAT maximum distortion % level is: 2.67 when in that normal tonearm only 0.633

the SAT average RMS % distortion is: 0.616 when in normal tonearm only :
0.412 ( Löfgren B even lower: 0.37 ).

All those makes that the linnear offset in the SAT be 10mm longer than in a normal tonearm ! !

All those are facts and you or Mr. Gomez can’t do nothing to change it. Pure mathematics reality.

You posted in that review: """ Marc Gomez has chosen null points of 80 and 126mm instead of the more commonly used 66 and 121mm. """

that’s a deep misunderstood on tonearm/cartridge alignment input/output calulations in the overall equations used for that alignment:

NULL POINTS WERE NOT CHOOSED BY MR. GOMEZ BUT ARE PART OF THE OUTPUT DATA ON THOSE ALIGNMENTS CALCULATIONS.

In the same is not true your statement: """ the more commonly used 66 and 121mm. """

that " commonly " just does not exist and only depends of the standard choosed for the calculations.

There are several other things in that SAT design that not only are not orthodox but that has a negative influence in what we are listening it:

he said that the tonearm owner can change the bearing friction levels and this characteristics could tell to you that’s a " good thing " but it’s not but all the way the opposite because makes not a fully 100% steady bearings.

Ask you a question?: why the best top cartridges use cantilevers of boron and not carbon fiber, it does not matters that laminated carbon fiber the SAT has.

Carbon fiber is way resonant no matter what. In the past existed cartridges with CF cantilever and sounds inferior to the boron ones. ....................................................................................................................................................................... the designer was and is proud that the tonearm self resonance happens at around 2.8khz, go figure ! ! !. It happens way inside the human been frequency range instead to stays out of that frequency range. """"



Dear friends and owners of the SAT: way before the mounted cartridge on it hits the very first LP groove and against any other vintage or today tonearm you have way higher distortions that per sé preclude you can listen a real and true top quality level performance and does not matters the audio system you own.


What we can listen through the SAT is an inferior quality performance levels with higher distortions. Obviously that all reviewers and owners like those heavy distortions but that does not means they are rigth because and with all respect all of them are wrong.


Some one send the link of what I posted to the SAT designer and latter on ( I do not knew he read my post. ) I ask for him for the information about the effective mass of the SAT. He gave me a " rude " answer and did not disclose that information that in reallity was not important in that moment.



I have to say that at least two professional reviewers bougth the SAT tonearm., both with the Continnum/Cobra TT/tonearm. At least one of them say the SAT outperforms the Cobra one ( maybe both, who knows why bougth it the other reviewer. )

The credentials of the SAT designer are impecable and really impressive ones but no single of those credentials speaks about audio and certainly not on analog audio.

He is a true " roockie " enthusiast ( and I say it with respect.) and obviously that is welcomed in the high-end " arena/area/ring " where all of us are learning at each single day. Any one that’s marketing an audio item has a true merit and this is not under discussion: SAT designer has his own merit for that.

You that are reading this thread permit me to ask: what do you think, overall, about?, at the end audiophiles are the ones that has the last " word " or should be that way.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.






Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
While I agree that some of these specs seem odd, I learned long ago not to judge a component based solely on specifications.
lewm
12,462 posts
 
I wrote above, "In my opinion the SAT is probably not the  tonearm that is way overpriced."  I pecked that out on my cell phone; what I meant to say is, "In my opinion the SAT is probably not the ONLY tonearm that is way overpriced."  That's sort of a distinction without a difference, but I wanted to be clear.

I agree in one respect with cleeds:  You cannot really be sure how something will sound based only on its specifications; ultimately, you need to listen to the particular piece of gear in the context of your own system before passing judgement.  However, I often do what Raul has done: Just assess the article based on its external features vs price.  When the article is very very expensive, that's about the best one can do because it's not going to be available for personal evaluation.  For another example, I often wonder about the Boulder phono stage that costs way in excess of $30K and sports a S/N ratio of around 60db (only).  One wonders how it does so badly for S/N, given that it is a solid state design.  Nearly any good tube phono can do much better. Or the Ypsilon phono stage that offers only 39db of gain, barely adequate even for an MM, if you want to use a passive or very low gain linestage. I also question megabuck tonearms that hang the counter-weight way aft of the pivot or that fail to position the center of mass of the CW so it lies in the plane of the LP surface. (Durand Telos.) Or tonearms that totally lack provision for anti-skate. You may choose not to use AS, but it ought to be available for your option in a tonearm that costs in excess of $20K, in my opinion.  But I think that the market recognizes that the traditional desire of every upwardly mobile yuppie to own a nice "hi-fi" is dead or dying slowly.  The manufacturers have responded to this phenomenon by creating a category of cost that is palatable only to the very very wealthy who are likely to assign an "assistant" to assemble an audio system, where said assistant is given carte blanche to spend without thinking.  The SAT tonearm is in that category.

By accounts of those who actually own it and whom I trust, the Continuum Cobra tonearm is actually very good. Anyway, it seems cheap compared to the SAT.
larryi
3,718 posts
 

I have not heard this arm at all, so I cannot comment on its sound.  It is clearly designed to go into a system where very little compromise is made with respect to what it costs to achieve top performance.  I would never say that something is ridiculous, even if I heard it and disliked it because that judgment would be a product of personal taste, and perhaps, system matching issues.  If some people who have heard it like it and were willing to pay the price, almost by definition, it has a rightful place in the market.

As for the engineering criticism, I don't see this as dispositive of anything.  As far as I can see, it has a slotted headshell and it looks like the base can be moved so it can be adjusted to whatever alignment one prefers within the limitations of it being a 9" arm.  The designer has chosen this length because, above all else, he is seeking to maximize rigidity and damping within the engineering confines of a not exceeding a particular effective mass.   The 2.8 khz resonance figure is for the FIRST resonant node, not the predominant frequency and it demonstrate extreme rigidity.  Whether or not extreme rigidity and the kind of extreme damping claimed by the designer, particularly if some other quality is compromised, is desirable, is an entirely different issue.  But, I don't see how the design can be categorically dismissed by just examining the literature instead of listening.  As for the claim about adjusting the bearing, there is no such thing as a perfect bearing and any particular design/adjustment involves tradeoffs between rigidity and friction; that the SAT arm allows for adjustment can hardly be deemed a fault in the design. 

I don't own this arm and I never will (absent extreme luck with Powerball); that simply means it is not right for me, but that does not rule out that it might be right for someone else.

tzh21y
1,654 posts
 
I am sure that the arms sounds fantastic.  However, after listening to the files, I am glad that one can attain decent performance at a modest cost when comparing to a 200K turntable.  IT SHOULD SOUND BETTER AND BETTER SOUND BETTER
moonglum
619 posts
 
Admit it Raul, you really want one of these but are just trying to talk yourself out of it.   ;) :)
More to discover