SAEC Making Tonearms Again!

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.

Dover, I have no understanding of how tonearms work.

@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.

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. 

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.