SME V, Tri-Planar or Phantom B-44 ?

my table is j michele orb se
Dear Andrew: I wish thigs can be so " simple " like what you posted but it is a lot lot more complex than that, even if you try the ame cartridge with two different tonearms IMHO the best you can affirm is that that cartridge match better with one of those tonearms but not that that tonearm is better than the other.
Anyway, I think that the in deeep tonearm subject is for other new thread and not this one, sorry Benson139 for deviate your thread.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Syntax, yes this is the correct thread. Thanks.

Raul,let's consider starting a separate thread at some point.
Hi Aoliviero. Welcome back!

In regards to you comments, any structure under load resonates at a particular frequency. Such is the case of the cartridge/tonearm system.

The cartridge "compliance", determined by its suspension stiffness, and the tonearm "effective mass", determined by its component's mass distribution, must play at a frequency that does not overlap with the frequencies of the sound being reproduced. A general consensus is that the cartridge/tonearm frequency should fall in between 8Hz and 20Hz, so that it does not have much effect on the signal generated by the cartridge. Since the cartridge generates its electrical signal by the motion of the cantilever relative to the cartridge, it will be ideal if this interface is not being biased by external conditions.

One can refer to "cartridge compliance / tonearm effective mass" charts to determine what cartridge/tonearm combination will have a more effective frequency for playback. The problem is that cartridge compliance and tonearm effective mass are dynamic in nature. Therefore, it's not guaranteed that a particular cartridge/tonearm combination will play according to the "cartridge compliance / tonearm effective mass" charts. One of the reasons for this is that the cartridge and tonearm will be affected by outside forces, such as the frequency of the platter, the frequency of the sound, standing waves, resonance of the walls, etc. Another reason is that since effective mass is related to mass distribution, the effective mass can be changed on some tonearms by the relative configuration of its parts, such as the use of balancing weights. Also, the use of damping fluids on some tonearms can change the tonearm's frequency.

This is why it is so difficult to assert that one particular tonearm is better than the other. It is easier to accept that a particular cartridge/tonearm configuration is better. But for this statement to be true, the design goals must be defined first.



Thanks for the welcome and most of all the explanation. Honestly I have been enjoying my system so much that I have been spending less time on the internet. I also find it a bit frustrating some times seeing threads go back and forth and with a lot of always seems that a given component someone owns is "the best". I tend to appreciate the threads that are more informational in nature. Anyway I hope to contribute some more directly and try to provide my opinions based on direct comparisons.

I see you have the Mambo. I used to have it and think itis a very very good table. I wish I kept mine for a second system. Also Rauls preamp is a tour de force.

This is a great hobby...obsession. I wish I could own the number of components that raul and Syntax have. On one hand I would like to experiment with different tonearm-cart combos but I wonder if I would just end up listening to one combo.

Adios for now

Great Thread. Benson 139, I pretty much have the same question as you. I have a SME 20/2 table and have long thought a different tonearm will yield a little more for me (maybe more than a cartridge upgrade).

Both the Graham Phantom II and Triplanar VII u2 are on my list. My dealer recently ordered a new Triplanar and I've heard it in my system, but mounted on a Grand Prix Monaco Turntable. So, to many varibles from my SME 20/2 changing. (same lyra Skala Cartridge)

Honestly, I'll likely will have to take a leap of faith and just order one of these for my SME 20/2. Seems like the Graham is slightly favored-both as a match for my SME tt and as a match my Lyra skala.

Albert Porter just posted under his system some comments on the SME 312s. He loves the micro overhang adjustments using the rack and pinion setup the SME arms have. Of course the 12 inch arm is a another "varible" here than some of us can't take advantage of.