@rauliruegas
Btw, have you interest to buy a SAEC tonearm?
I have no intention to buy new 8k tonearm from any manufacturer, i like my Reed 3p "12 tonearm, it's new design, not a 30 years. But i like vintage tonearms as well, regarding vintage tonearms i'm not gonna pay more than 1,5k for any of them. I've learned from many audiogon threads that SAEC with its knife-edge bearings is not the best tonearm. And that's why i asked again is that good or not? Just curiosity, i'm not gonna buy Saec anyway. Sadly @dertonarm is not posting anymore on audiogon, so i can not speak for him about his calculations etc. What i think is that size of the record does matter, especially for professional tonearms, if it was made for radio stations then the main format for new material on vinyl is SINGLES or "7 size first, all promo material for the radiostation released by the labels on singles to promote the best tracks from the LP long time before the LP will be even pressed or available for sale. This is how the industry worked back in the day. Singles with labels like "promo use only or D.J. copy" is typical for any radio archives. One song per side. I believe @dertonarm is right at some point, there could be a dedicated tonearm with dedicated alignment made for professional use for japanese radiostations backs in the 70s. |
@rauliruegas
Eh I got an SAEC 407 with the SL1000 I bought last year. Its a nice enough arm. I bought the EPA 250 to complete the Technics package. I also have a couple of Acos GST 801 to fill out my vintage arms. FInally, have a 12 inch Riggle String Theory arm on my main table, its fairly decent. I dont find the SEAC to be a bad arm |
Why is everyone trying to strangle the new baby? It may well be that the new SAEC has been corrected with respect to headshell offset angle and alignment geometry. Why not keep an open mind?
|
@chakster : Why don't make the alignment calculations through internet? in that way you need not that some body, posts or me convince you about.
Btw, have you interest to buy a SAEC tonearm?
R. |
@chakster : That gentleman is wrong. The offset angle is incorrect, I said in my post to lewm that's near Löfgren A with out even/coincident it.
It's not true that 506 was designed for 10" recordings.
SAEC is a " pain in the ass " regarding alignment.
R.
|
more about SAEC, posted by @dertonarm The WE-8000 is the only SAEC tonearm where the offset of the headshell is correct.The SAEC 506/30 was designed to be used with 10" and singles only. It’s geometry does reflect it. Out of curiosity I have calculated a different alignment for the 506/30 which does suit 12" records MUCH better . |
Dear @chakster : The 300 series is the SAEC entry level. Now the real problem with the ceramic headshell is not its price but that's way resonant.
You don't want to mount any of your cartridges in that SAEC ceramic headshells but the series 300 came with a different build material headshells, not ceramic that's an " exclusive " to the 407/506 and 8000.
R. |
@lewm : But even the 8000 alignment instructions are wrong. The manufacturer set up parameters are near Lófgren A but not even it.
R. |
I think the problematic is the Saec Ceramic Headshell which is very expensive, but it’s impossible to twist the cartridge using this particular headshell. It must be a different headshell to make re-alignment with 308N (short) or 308L (long) tonearms. There is a thread on audiogon where verything has been told about those arms long time ago. this is what @t_bone said long time ago: Personally, I had always assumed the 23 was for ~23cm length (the way the 506/30 has a ~30cm length). It is true that at 233mm, to get Baerwald alignment, it almost has to be 23 degrees offset angle, but that won’t get you the cart straight in line with the headshell. And there is no way that the 506/30 is going to have a 30-degree offset angle...
I am not sure of your question. You can twist the cart in the headshell on all the SAECarms (and it might make more sense to change the mounting distance too) to bring them to Baerwald. All but the 317 have original mfr geometry specs which are more aggressive than Stevenson alignment as far as I remember. There is also Saec 308SX version: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/saec-308n-vs-308sx |
Dear @lewm : "
Is it shameful to use a knife-edge bearing? ", well it's not the best bearing type.
When I bougth my Sao Win SMC 10 the cartridge manual has a warning: don't use knife-edge tonearm design type and S.Win told it by very good reasons. Btw, the SMC 10 is a really fine LOMC cartridge.
@neonknight stay away from SAEC tonearms the Technics is way superior tonearm design.
SAEC tonearms are very good looking but that's all.
I bougth my 3 SAECs because I like it what I saw and in those times I was convinced that were if not the best tonearms out there one of the best.
When I learned through several experiences with other vintage and today tonearms I just sold it.- The worst is the 8000 and if I have to choose between the SAEC line then will be the 407/23 but the Technics 250 is not only way superior to any of the SAECs but is very competitive against any other tonearm.
If I was you I will take/get the 250.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Invictus, No one who seriously examined an SME V would not say that it is a very high quality product, in terms of construction, but just to be accurate, ABEC7 is not the highest possible precision rating. If that's your fetish, you want ABEC9. |
Good work, Raul. Of course, the SME V may not have continued to use a knife edge bearing. I'm sure we will be told.
Halcro, I've never owned an SAEC tonearm, but my recollection just from reading on this site, VE, VA, is that the 308N is the one with the confounding geometry that gave a "bad name" to the whole line-up. I am not sure what I thought about the 407/23, but by all accounts, the 8000/ST was designed for one or another of the 3 major "acceptable" alignments, and is not at all problematic. But the 8000 is rare and expensive. Am I correct in these beliefs? |
|
I paid $1100 for my WE-407/23 about 5 years ago.......and it is an exquisite piece of eye-candy as were all SAEC tonearms (detail). I also had the WE-308N which certainly had a puzzling geometry (detail). I now have the WE-8000/ST which is probably the best of them. As beautifully designed, detailed and machined as these arms were....they are not the 'last word' in tonearm technology being shaded by contemporaries like the FR-64s and even the Micro Seiki MA-505S. To be asked to pay $8K-9K for a 35 year old design which doesn't have VTA 'on-the-fly' adjustment is an insult IMHO...... |
Should make the SAEC 407 ( i believe its a 23 as I can use its alignment template) worth a few more bucks. I am getting ready to pull it off and mount a Technics EPA 250. |
Earlier SME tonearms were known for the knife-edge bearing. It was one of their advertising points. If the SME V does not incorporate a knife-edge bearing, then I stand corrected. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant to me. Is it shameful to use a knife-edge bearing? If so, I never knew that. |
Good news, but the old 407/23 is that good?
Btw the "23" is the angle. The wrong one was Saec 308 models, and probably 317. |
@rauliruegas I would be absolutely shocked if you can provide evidence that SME V at some point had a knife edge bearing. This is completely false. But I'll eat my words if proven true. |
Dover, I have no understanding of how tonearms work. |
Dear @roberjerman @lewm : The problem is not that " had to little offset angle " but a " crazy " choosed alignment that just did not even/coincide with any standard alignment, not even Stevenson.
The only Stevenson characteristics SAEC models have is that came/comes with 0° tracking error at the most inner groove.
With my SAECs I choosed totally different parameters for each one alignment set up. Truly different to what SAEC recomended because they were wrong.
The tonearm invictus’s link shows the re-born of the 407/23 model that’s a descendent of the 506/30 big brother.
Great looking tonearm with extreme high quality build execution, you can’t ask for more in that regards.
Dover is rigth regarding the kind of bearings used in the SME V but SME used a blended knife bearing ( vertical movement. ) and gimball in the past that they changed with the SME V.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
SME V uses state of the art ABEC 7 bearings.
Prices of the new SAEC are not because that's what it takes to build it today, it's because vinyl made a comeback and they think they can make some quick money.
SME V should destroy them in every imaginable way.
|
SME V is a good comparator, because it too sports a knife-edge bearing and is similar in other ways. You gotta be kidding - no knife edge bearings in the SME V's I imported directly from SME all those years ago. If you think there are similarities between an SME V and SAEC then you have no understanding of how tonearms work. |
roberjerman, What you say was apparently true of one of their lower end tonearms, and I cannot recall the model name. Perhaps Raul or someone else with a detailed knowledge of vintage tonearms will tell us. However, I think the more expensive SAEC tonearms were designed to conform with one of the standard geometries, albeit that may be Stevenson or close to Stevenson, which a lot of alignment gurus do not like, including Raul. Did Fremer mention the preferred alignment? I don’t see it on his site. They’d be best off, obviously, to have built this new tonearm to Baerwald or Lofgren specs.
What I find most interesting is that the price gives us some idea of the answer to that old question: What would this or that well made piece of vintage audio gear have to cost, if it went into production now? The answer as regards an SAEC tonearm is "$8500 to $9500". I would bet that those numbers are at least 8X to 10X the original price of the vintage equivalent. Price does seem high, compared to Invictus' beloved SME V. SME V is a good comparator, because it too sports a knife-edge bearing and is similar in other ways. |
The original SAEC's had too little offset angle! Wonder if the new versions correct this? |
