SAEC 308N vs 308SX


Does anyone know the differences between these two tonearms? I can find only that the SX version came later than the 308N. Is there any functional reason why the SX seems to be valued at nearly double that of the 308N. Thanks.
lewm
Dear Lew, This is a quote about SEAC WE-308 SX from 'Tonearm Geometry and Setup' (Kessler&Pisha,Audio,January 1980): 'The SEAK WE-308 SX arm design is based upon research done by the Sansui Electric Co. The AES preprint 1390 (D-5) derived the optimum pivot position from a kinematic point of view,with
the mass of the arm ,the location of the center of gravity,
and the moment of inertia around the system's center of
gravity. Resonance was the engineering problem being solved. For this prticular arm ,it is not advised to optimize the geometry, or the resonance of the system will
change to such an extent that the arm will not track properly.'
So obviously this arm is not only unique qua price . BTW you should know that reaserch is very expesive and need to be earned back somehow. I assume that 308, 308N, 308 L and my 407/23 are not 'inflicted' with the Sansui research and
that te owners of those arms may 'mess' with different geometries? There is no other choice btw because SAEC is very confusing or not very clear about,say, the null points.

Regards,
Dear lewm, dear Nandric, dear Geoch, for those wondering about the odd geometry on many SAEC tonearms ( see 506 for instance ...). SAEC stated that these tonearms geometry was optimized for zero distortion in the inner grooves.
This wasn't smart.
However if used as a tonearm to play 7" singles, these SAEC's geometry shines in a all new light .......
Whatever motivation it was that prompted SAECs engineers to design some of it's tonearms with a very odd geometry, they can all be "re-adjusted" to Baerwald/Loefgren/Stevenson et al - if however at the expense of sometimes very odd off-set position in headshell/mount and altered breakdown torque with effects on skating force.
Cheers,
D.
Dear Nicola or anyone else, What do you think was meant by the statement you quoted: "it is not advised to optimize the geometry, or the resonance of the system will change to such an extent that the arm will not track properly."

What does that mean, exactly? What is the definition of "optimize" in that sentence? It would seem that they mean one should use the recommended and indeed strange SAEC parameters and that the warning not to "optimize" means not to use one of the more standard geometries, each of which gives two null points between outermost and innermost grooves.
Dear Daniel, What kind of German are you? I thought, because of Wagner, that you are very fond of all kinds of mythology. Do you really need to destroy the SEAC kind?
Never in my life I was so dependant from a sufix. Ie I hope
that my 407/23 and more in particular the sufix '23' is something 'totally different' in the SEAC brand (aka the Bearwald geometry). You should postpone your answer till I
sell the thing(please!).

Regards,
Dear Lew, 'Dear Nicola or anyone else' is not to the liking
of my 'super ego'. I am alas not an expert in kinematics, have, to be honest, no idea what 'kinematics' means so you are overating me in one aspect of the issue while underating me in some other. My idea is that you should design some
other tonearm base for your second arm on your beloved Kenwood.Ie this SEAC enigma is developing from bad to worst.
Regards,
More to discover