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
@lewm please don’t try and put words into my mouth. What I posted was an agreement with your inquiry to Raul. I failed to understand the point of his post.
I’m not trying to insult Raul either, I was questioning his post and the meaning behind it. Seemingly, as were you...which is why I posted the +1. 
My subsequent post to Raul about one man’s ‘expert’ is another man’s neophyte...is a common point in numerous areas of expertise. IME, it definitely applies in this hobby as well. Personally, I feel that there are a number of highly dubious characters in this industry at the present time....not a good thing, imo.
Again, don’t get me wrong, there are also a number of great people who have tremendous knowledge...unfortunately the dubious characters are getting more press these days.
Dear @downunder : """ Here we have a report on Tang’s wonderful system ... ""

Wonderful for who? maybe to you. What I see and read there is a very whealthy gentleman with very log MUSIC/sound knowledge levels that’s the worst combination: to many money to waste along to high ignorance levels.

The one person that made the four days review maybe is good to handle tonearm/cartridge set up but I don’t know or did not showed his skills down there:

in that " shoot-out " were used two way different phono stages and worst than that both with those " terrible " tube designs along its sut’s ( I don’t know which is worts the Ayon or the EMT, I think this last. ), different tonearms with different tonearm internal wiring, with no specific test process/specific whole methodology to match each cartridge to each tonearm and in the removable headshell tonearm designs the gentleman did not talks the use of different kind of headshells to match in better way those cartridges with, how that gentleman knew that the differences he reported were more by tiny phonolinepreamp SPL used by its attenuators/volume ( he did not says if even the SPL with each cartridge and phono stages when making the comparisons ), he used normal recordings ( I own at least the 90% of them. ) that in reality can’t tell us differences in between those top cartridge performers: how can he knew for sure that the differences he shared/reviewed are really better and not only different when he has not a true methodology where he can identify the better or worst from the different? ? ? ? ? ?

The review is full of faults and can says almost nothing real nothing where we can trust on it.

The owner obviously is truly satisfied and proudly with what he can shows to his friends even owns that " terrible " non-accurate EMT 927. Why " terrible " non-accurate?

Next is something that I posted many years ago in an EMT thread in this forum where many gentlemans said was the " holly grail " TT when certainly it’s not:

""" These are the true facts ( not " illusions. ) measurements/specs in the 1957 designed 927:

speed unnaccuracy: +,- 0.15%, the swing tell us that the speed unaccuracy in reality is: 0.30% ( the worst I ever seen in any TT. ).

wow an flutter: +,- 0.05% with a swing of: 0.1% ( again the worst I ever seen in any TT. ).

signal to noise ratio: 58db ( again............. ).

as I posted: the 927 was designed for radio stations.....The other " touted EMT vintage designs are not relly better but only non-accurate units:

the 938, 948 and 930 models had a signal to noise ratio: 70db and wow and flutter: 0.075%

where the 950 shows a less poorer ( but still a poor and along the others the worst specs I seen in my life for a TT that several people things are top ones when certainly are not. ) spec on w&f: 0.05%.

All of them speed innaccuracy is : 0.1% when an average Denon model ( Not the top, from those times. ) has: 0.002% """

downunder, I respect your opinion but to many facts that said that the words " wonedrful systems " has no facts for its foundation. Maybe you have those facts, who knows.

R.

Dear Lewm,
Apologies for the late reply and for what I consider to be an over-blunt request on my part.
The reason I asked my question was that some folk have actually tried tie-wrapping an external tonearm wire to the original tonearm in a bid to simulate the effect of a single loom. I didn’t dismiss the possibility that you may have tried this yourself. ;)

Anyhow, I doubt that such an experiment would be fair since they would have had to strip out the original tonearm cable to eliminate additional “mechanical” influence on the bearing and cartridge so it would be no more than an interesting exercise.

As for Mr Ellison. He is one of the most helpful guys you will find on any forum. We are unworthy of the data he provides... ;)
Have a good day :)
Moonglum, I am not sure whether I am being chastised or not, so I won’t respond to your comment that has to do with John Ellison and the fact that I happen to disagree with his conclusion, which is after all an opinion.

I’m not sure what you mean by “tie-wrap “. I have thought about running a single wire from the cartridge to phono stage that would travel outside the tonearm wand to the pivot point and then from there to the phono stage without ever running through our inside the tonearm itself. This could be a way of achieving a single connection between cartridge and phono stage without drastically re-wiring a tonearm that has interchangeable headshells. You could say that might be the best of both worlds, if you love headshells.
daveyf, Sorry.  I did think your +1 was tinged with sarcasm.  At the time, you and Raul were engaged in a back and forth that I wanted no part of.  Anyway, my bad.

I'm kind of surprised, not to say "shocked; shocked I tell you", that apparently most of this group seem to agree with John Ellison, that minimizing resistance is more important than minimizing the number of connectors, especially in a phono circuit.  The latter goal is a gospel to me.  Is this just because JE is such an authority?  Or is it because most of us use tonearms with interchangeable headshells and don't want to be shaken in our beliefs and practices?  I searched for headshells that have soldered leads built-in so as to eliminate at least one set of connectors in the headshell pathway; I found only one product, made by Yamaha.  I bought one in Tokyo.