What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

@pindac @lewm 

You guys are missing the real point - to measure the groove accurately the tonearm must be "anchored" in position relative to the platter, with no differential movement.

As to whether this is achieved via a common chassis linking the arm/platter ( my preferred solution ) or an arm pod is moot - it depends on the design and implementation - there are good an bad in both formats.

On the other hand if you believe in having a rigid loop between platter, arm and cartridge then you need to throw out your TT if it has one of the maglev type bearings that are all the rage at the moment.

And of course there is the classic story of the cleaning lady that lifted the arm pod to dust the shelf underneath, without telling the owner, and he wondered why the TT sounded so bad after all those hours spent on careful set up and most of his favourite records ended up with groove damage from mis-tracking.

@dogberry 

And yet, somehow I expect a turntable bolted to the South Col of Everest would find itself on a fairly solid platform!

Yes but trying to adjust VTA accurately with frozen nuts can be difficult.

**** Back in the old days when the SME5 was first made, there were only three top arms; the SME5, the Graham unipivot and the Triplanar. ****

Thats a pretty myopic view of the world.

There were many others at that time  - Syrinx PU3, Alphason HR100S, Exact, Breuer, Sumiko MSC800, Naim Aro, Air Tangent, Eminent Technology to name a few.

Personally I've never rated the Graham - too much dampening in the armtube ( the early versions ) and the bearing is upside down - draining energy in the wrong direction. The Aro smokes it.

The Triplanar lacks resolution - its adjustability is both an advantage ( cartridge set up ) and disadvantge ( too many joints, loop rigidity is compromised ).

The mighty ET2 was left out of that exclusive club. Never owned the Triplanar, but have owned the SME5 and the Graham and still own the ET2. In the ways that matter to me, and with the many cartridges of both the MC and MM variety that I have used, the ET2 comes out on top. Still available and still beats the SME5.

@frogman

I used to run a Rabco that I modified. I get the allure of straight tracking.

I left the ET2 out on several counts. The first being that the lateral tracking mass is a multiple of its vertical tracking mass. This makes selecting a cartridge rather difficult- if you succeed in getting the mechanical resonance correct in the vertical mode, you’ll see the cantilever bending back and forth on occasion. When it does that, due to the short radius of a cartridge cantilever, the tracking angle error is higher than any radial tracking arm.

Second, it uses an air bearing. If you want the cartridge to play without coloration, there can be no play between the surface of the platter and the mount of the cartridge. We know that bearing play makes a difference since you can use higher pressure pumps and hear a difference.

Finally the arm mass is high enough that a decision was made to run only 4 wires rather than the traditional 5. Cartridges are balanced sources and they don’t make a lot of voltage. When the arm ground is integrated into the left channel signal, it can be noisier. Plus you can’t run it balanced should you wish to do so; something you can do with most arms. One result of this can be RFI, although use of RF beads can sometimes sort this out.

So IMO it didn’t rate the top drawer.

@dover "Yes but trying to adjust VTA accurately with frozen nuts can be difficult."

And that's why we can't surpass the SME V - VTA is just a twiddle of the vertical adjustment thumbscrew!