2. analog
  3. 134929-245

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
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
2,877 posts
 
and the system owner posted that he will change one SAT for the terrible double knife bearing design
SAEC 506/30 that I owned. This is double knife when the 3012 is knife/gimball.

Which kind of advisors has Tango and some of the other gentlemans posting there?

+1
Raul, that’s a great question, lol. But you may not want to know the answer!
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
2,877 posts
 
@halcro 

Stop trolling yourself. You know we have had the discussion before...and you are dead wrong. I asked a mech/ structural engineer about the “moment connection” of a solid one piece headshell vs a two piece removable headshell...and as you will find out, the structural integrity of the one piece headshell is superior....in all instances,. Go and ask a mech/structural engineer this question, as I am certain that you are not one...after your ‘bs’ response above, and on the other forum. 
halcro's avatar
halcro
2,664 posts
 
I asked a mech/ structural engineer about the “moment connection”

mech/structural engineer.....?
I've not heard of one of these....
Do you mean he did a 4-5 year Mechanical Engineering course at University and then did a 4-5 year Structural Engineering course as well?
Please tell us his 'name' and repeat what he told you about 'Moment Connections' since you apparently haven't the understanding to Google it yourself.....

Oh.....and I studied Structural Engineering for 6 years as part of my Architectural Degree at University.
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
2,877 posts
 
So Halcro you are an architect...or maybe just a ‘draftsman’...lol..
Your understanding of structural engineering tells me everything I need to know,...
i think you need to go back to school...and ask the teacher about this subject...and be prepared to learn it...and not just google stuff..

 
You sir are a complete idiot.
lewm
13,165 posts
 
Henry, Sorry, but in my opinion, you and John Ellison are wrong. "Wrong" in the sense that your and his analysis is very incomplete. "Signal loss" due to R is not the only thing to consider when comparing transmission along a single piece of wire from A to B to transmission of the same signal across several different pieces of wire, interrupted by several physical connectors along the way from A to B.

First, your analysis, and John’s, assumes that resistance across a connector is zero. Of course, it is not zero; it is some number of Ohms that would and should be added to your and his calculation of total resistance. This will be different for every connector along the way and also dependent upon its cleanliness, the use of contact enhancers, etc. (And by the way, do you also mean to say that all connectors sound the same and that all connectors are tonally neutral?)

Second, at each physical connection in the interconnected second circuit there is introduced a capacitance and an inductance that would be expected to affect the signal in (admittedly) tiny ways. And finally, I would predict that the pure effect of wire R must not be so audible as perhaps are connectors per se. To support my contention, I would point out that many audio circuits deliberately introduce much larger values of R in series with the signal, in the form of physical resistors to prevent oscillation. In tube circuits, this is called a "grid-stop"resistor. Tubes with very high transconductance typically require a grid-stop resistance of at least 100 ohms. In many phono stages, there is a 100-ohm or higher value grid-stop resistor right after the input connection to the first gain device (tube or transistor). Transistors have much higher transconductance than tubes, typically, and also require "gate-stoppers". The value of these Rs, which are also in series with the signal, is many thousands of times the resistance of the wire. You might argue that if we could get away with removing these latter physical resistors, we might hear the difference, but we cannot do that, and their value in Ohms completely swamps R of the wires and any connectors as well.

As to audibility, I have come to the conclusion for my own purposes that high quality headshells with cleaned and contact-enhanced connectors have no detectable negative effect as compared to a straight shot from cartridge to phono input, for MM or MI cartridges. But I have heard faint differences between the two alternatives, in favor of the straight through connection, for very LOMC cartridges. So, for my LOMCs, I try to use either one of my two tonearms that provide the direct wire connection, my Triplanar and my Reed. Surely, you cannot demand scientific proof that someone other than yourself is hearing a small difference in a situation such as this. It is equally OK then to ask you for "scientific proof" that the use of headshells and a plethora of connections is superior. I am sure that the small difference I hear is measurable, but I have no idea how to measure it. It does not seem to be so simple as an effect on frequency response.



More to discover