Dynamic vs Static VTF on a SME V. Can someone explain the differences in sound?
I've been playing a bit with the percent of dynamic vs static VTF on my SME V. As noted in other posts, a mostly static VTF seems to be a bit faster, more transparent, but also leaner, flatter and less rich. A mostly dynamic goes in the other direction, richer, more textural, more bass, but somewhat less transparent and a bit slower. Now these differences are with using the exact same VTF measured with a good digital tonearm scale. Can someone explain the differences in sonics between the two? I would guess it must have something to do with physics.....as does everything...... :)
I have found that a combination of the two , in my system, gives me the best results, but as I said, I am curious as to why.
@Dover On another (current) thread, Evilteddie mentions that he has had his SMEV modified by SME so as to remove the dynamic tracking-force spring (effectively making it into a Series IV from that point of view). Assuming one's records are reasonably flat and thus static downforce is a good choice, what would you expect the advantage (if any) to be from having the spring device removed, over and above simply setting it to zero? Thanks |
Agree with @mijostyn a subtle improvement. If you are chasing the ultimate, worth trying, but you need to be sure the mod is reversible, or else you will devalue the arm. You have to be sure also that you do not disturb the bearings. We use to remove the VTF spring from Rega RB300's back in the day - definitely audible reduction of "mechanical noise" for want of a better description. Personally I am not a fan of anything that dampens arms/cartridges, you will get a better result with good matching of arm and cartridge and careful set up. Any dampening tends to slug the sound.
|
