What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?


Thinking about the possibility of searching for a new tonearm. The table is a SOTA Cosmos Eclipse. Cartridge currently in use is a Transfiguration Audio Proteus, and it also looks like I will also have an Ortofon Verismo if a diamond replacement occurs without incident. 

The V is an early generation one but in good condition with no issues. Some folks never thought highly of the arm, others thought it quite capable. So it's a bit decisive. 

The replacement has to be 9 to 10.5 inches. I have wondered if Origin Live is worth exploring? Perhaps a generation old Triplanar from the pre owned market?

 Any thoughts on what are viable choices? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

neonknight

@lewm you are correct, actually the most correct I have seen for a long time in your statement "no one is telling me what to do", I will reciprocate it with the passion others express about archaic, halcyon ideas that have certainly moved on in other circles of thought.

I am an individual who likes a first hand 'sit in front of' experience, then I make my assessment. I don't pretend I know what is the best and express a Boorish behaviour toward any ideas from another that challenges experiences and assessments that I am comfortable with.  

As for the Base Board to Mount a TT and Standalone Tone Pod on.

My referencing a Base Board is how I have thought the methodology through and would choose to mount the Two Parts being interfaced.

As stated in a previous post, the board will be best if it has a Stable Property, ( again only my idea for this), it will with today's experiences to draw on also be a for the better if the Board has good damping and dissipation properties combined with being stable. This is not to be a statement to tell another if they do different they are wrong. 

It does offer a alternative to an individual, if they have not thought of this methodology and choose adopt it, to see if a benefit can be attained.

There are many methods adopted today to control a transfer of energy not only one 

As stated before, the TT Designs seen today and the methodologies selected as part of the design, to mount/interface the Tonearm are varied (the designs are way to varied to even be considered they are born from a one methodology only approach). 

Tectonic Plates are what they are, they keep other parties with a passion for this    field of interest extremely stimulated as does Marine Science and Astronomy. 

All Three are natural, and all can have an impact on vibration transmission that can impact on a Man Made Product.

Tectonic Plates being used as means to describe a Set Up of a HiFi Device and Supporting ancillaries is so extreme it is ludicrously off the scale. 

Is the next attempt to prove a point, using off the scale ludicrous as the parameter. Is where it is stated that Igneous Rock used in System, as a Plinth Material and Standalone Tone Pod Material will accelerate the convection and a Mini Mounting Range will form within ones lifetime in front of ones eyes, a ravine might even appear during one Albums replay.   

Comparing the Naturally Created Tectonic Plates convection to a Platter Spindle and Tonearm that are 'not' mechanically fastened to the same material,  hence, 'not'  being mechanically coupled, and as a result, able to create a convection as seen in a Tectonic Plate is utter Cod's Wallop. 

If a TT and Standalone Tonearm Pod had shown a movement toward each other at a dimension of Two Inches in one year in my own home, even if a Jack Hammer Breaking Out, next to the room with the equipment. I would be calling 'Ghostbusters' as a Meddling Poltergeist would be the most feasible explanation for the cause.

  

@pindac @lewm 

You guys are missing the real point - to measure the groove accurately the tonearm must be "anchored" in position relative to the platter, with no differential movement.

As to whether this is achieved via a common chassis linking the arm/platter ( my preferred solution ) or an arm pod is moot - it depends on the design and implementation - there are good an bad in both formats.

On the other hand if you believe in having a rigid loop between platter, arm and cartridge then you need to throw out your TT if it has one of the maglev type bearings that are all the rage at the moment.

And of course there is the classic story of the cleaning lady that lifted the arm pod to dust the shelf underneath, without telling the owner, and he wondered why the TT sounded so bad after all those hours spent on careful set up and most of his favourite records ended up with groove damage from mis-tracking.

@dogberry 

And yet, somehow I expect a turntable bolted to the South Col of Everest would find itself on a fairly solid platform!

Yes but trying to adjust VTA accurately with frozen nuts can be difficult.

**** Back in the old days when the SME5 was first made, there were only three top arms; the SME5, the Graham unipivot and the Triplanar. ****

Thats a pretty myopic view of the world.

There were many others at that time  - Syrinx PU3, Alphason HR100S, Exact, Breuer, Sumiko MSC800, Naim Aro, Air Tangent, Eminent Technology to name a few.

Personally I've never rated the Graham - too much dampening in the armtube ( the early versions ) and the bearing is upside down - draining energy in the wrong direction. The Aro smokes it.

The Triplanar lacks resolution - its adjustability is both an advantage ( cartridge set up ) and disadvantge ( too many joints, loop rigidity is compromised ).

The mighty ET2 was left out of that exclusive club. Never owned the Triplanar, but have owned the SME5 and the Graham and still own the ET2. In the ways that matter to me, and with the many cartridges of both the MC and MM variety that I have used, the ET2 comes out on top. Still available and still beats the SME5.

@frogman

I used to run a Rabco that I modified. I get the allure of straight tracking.

I left the ET2 out on several counts. The first being that the lateral tracking mass is a multiple of its vertical tracking mass. This makes selecting a cartridge rather difficult- if you succeed in getting the mechanical resonance correct in the vertical mode, you’ll see the cantilever bending back and forth on occasion. When it does that, due to the short radius of a cartridge cantilever, the tracking angle error is higher than any radial tracking arm.

Second, it uses an air bearing. If you want the cartridge to play without coloration, there can be no play between the surface of the platter and the mount of the cartridge. We know that bearing play makes a difference since you can use higher pressure pumps and hear a difference.

Finally the arm mass is high enough that a decision was made to run only 4 wires rather than the traditional 5. Cartridges are balanced sources and they don’t make a lot of voltage. When the arm ground is integrated into the left channel signal, it can be noisier. Plus you can’t run it balanced should you wish to do so; something you can do with most arms. One result of this can be RFI, although use of RF beads can sometimes sort this out.

So IMO it didn’t rate the top drawer.