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
Anyone can hear "the SAT sound" on their own turntable, if the tonearm is 9". Just realign your cartridge to the SAT null-points, and add 3° to your offset angle. If the SAT is mechanically superior, as it claims, that will affect the results a bit, but if your arm is a good mechanical design, that effect won’t be much, and won't obscure the effects of the new alignment and offset angle.
Dear @bimasta: Not exactly as you said. Any one can listen and align any pivoted tonearm taking SAT parameters,  independent if the effective length is 9", 10" or 12", por calculations.

SAT calculations uses Löfgren A, so instead to use IEC standard just changing it for: 75mm and 143mm.

The calculation will point out the NEW alignment parameters for the specific efective length tonearm: P2S distance, offset angle and overhang. All 3 parameters are NEW ones and you can have to change all of them according the new calculation.

It does not matters the efefctive length the null points always be: 80.6 mm and 126.1mm that are the exact null points for that kind of alignment.

As always, accuracy on the set up parameters is the name of the game.

R.
Hi Raul @rauliruegas  ,

I have just learnt that both the original 9" SAT and the new 12" SAT have exactly the same offset angle.  There is therefore no other conclusion than the one you have come to in your original post that the designer of this greatly overpriced arm (given the materials) does not understand tonearm geometry.  This arm represents what is greatly harming our hobby, ridiculous pricing for bad designs.  

bluewolf

PS My apologies to those owners of SAT's that will take offense to my post. It is not my intention to offend, but for a designer to have the same arm but for different lengths with the same offset angle is a fact that speaks for itself.
 Has anyone ever shown how tracking angle error really truly equates with distortion of the audio signal? So far as I know the custom is to calculate the audio signal distortion caused by tracking angle error, using an equation originally put forward by either Baerwald or Lofgren in 1941. At that point in history, stereo reproduction was only dreamed of. All cartridges were monophonic.  As we know, the stereo signal is reproduced physically in a manner that differs from reproduction of a true Monophonic signal from a mono LP, actually a 78 rpm shellac disc in 1941. Therefore it is probably dangerous to assume that the equation from 1941 is valid for stereo LPs. So my question really is has anyone done measurements in the modern era? 
Yep Lew, Max Townshend (Townshend Audio) did back in the 1990’s. Fremer discussed Max’s alignment protractor and the theory behind it in the November 1997 issue of Stereophile. It is based on minimizing distortion, rather than pure alignment geometry. The two are related, obviously.