2. analog
  3. 1248727142

SME V vs 309 Sonic Differences

Hi all,

I've read from a few sources one or two line comments like "The SME 309 gives up surprisingly little" when compared to the SME V. I've also seen a comment "most of the difference is in the tonearm cable." But in trying to nail down the true performance difference I have done numerous searches on both google and AudiogoN and can't seem to come up with anything beyond these one-liners.

Does anyone have experience with both arms that can give some insight? I just committed to an SME 309 and am wondering what it sonically gives up. Based on what it gives up, I'm wondering if the SME V would ever make sense as an upgrade, and what upgrade path exists for the 309 itself as either general improvements or targeted changes to specifically narrow the gap with the V. Any personal experiences with any possible upgrades is also welcome.

(Also, on a side note - I've heard some say the SMEs can be dark or too analytical. Is there any truth to that?)

Thanks everyone!
Greg
gsoravil
jeff1225
172 posts
 
I have experienced great synergy with the SME IV, Hovland Music Groove 2 and the Shelter 5000. This set up (on a Transrotor Fat Bob) gives me all I could ever hope to achieve: bottom weight, detail and sound stage.

I've seen SME IV's for $1500 - $2000 on the Gon.
axelwahl
788 posts
 
Jeff...
there is SMR IV and then there is SME IV.vi.
The latter ONLY available in US (for Sumiko), but as mentioned earlier, the IV.vi. is a stripped down V i.e. minus the damping trough.
The 'normal' IV is (silver not black) but uses copper arm wire and bearings one grade or so down from a V or IV.vi.

So there is a difference, and it WILL reflect in the price I should think.
Axel
jfrech's avatar
jfrech
1,816 posts
 
Hi, I would not call the IV.Vi a "stripped down" V (and the IV.Vi has the damping trough)

The only differnce between the IV.Vi and V is the internal arm cabling. IV.Vi using magnan copper ribbon vs the V's van den hul silver. Some (like me) prefer the magnan. the other differnce is the IV.Vi uses a static vs dynamic balance. Theory here being one less thing to resonate. Not sure if there is "better" here...more different I suspect.

So the IV.Vi and V are really variants on the same arm.
axelwahl
788 posts
 
Hi Jfrech,
y.s.:
>>> ...IV.vi uses a static vs dynamic balance. Theory here being one less thing to resonate. <<<

Well, if that dynamic arm VTF (that I indeed forgot to mention!) resonates, then the damping trough (which is an option to the IV.vi. for all I know), will resonate even more freely... :-(
The damping trough uses less viscous silicon fluid than is used inside the V's dynamic VTA housing, thicker in summer than honey in winter.
BTW, the same silicone 'juice' is also used to damp the swivelling DIN female phono-cable connector.

You are also correct with the manganese/copper cable vs. the vdH silver wiring in the V.
All said, it makes for a rather more expensive IV.vi. arm as compared to the normal IV arm, which is the point I was trying to make.
Greetings,
Axel
utahusker
44 posts
 
I own an Oracle 345, it takes the best attributes of the 3,IV, and V, IMHO.
More to discover