What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

When considering a change for the better to my Analogue Set Up. I was confident the most benefit was to be had from having the Phonostage in place that offered the most to meet my needs.

To get the best handle on this idea, I have a few thousand+ road mile journeys behind me, and have received demo's of numerous phonostages.

After having experienced the most typical circuitry and maybe a few more not so typical, where demo' Models have had a Value of up to £10K, I was Wed to the Valve Phon', not the Rich in Tone Designs, the Lean End of the Scale, was where I found my preference.

I was quite sure work done to the owned SME IV Tonearm was able to lift it to a level to be ideal for my Phonostage ambition. I certainly felt sure I had done the footwork and was to get the results to talk about and share with others in use.

Not as such, at a home event arranged by a forum member, I was given a unexpected and surprise invite.

At this social gathering I encountered a group made up of EE's, EE Minded and Trained Mechanical Engineers and Enthusiast Mechanical Engineers.

All present I had come to learn were known for having created a design for Analogue Source that had recognised to have been very beneficial.

I was informed I was invited as the host thought I might enjoy experiencing some the equipment brought along for demo'. The host made the right call about myself.

For weeks after this event, I was in wonderment about one Demo' probably the 'Show Stopper' and all who were present were very appraising of the work undertaken to get to the presentation on offer. 

The Demo' that was captivating was produced by a Tonearm. I made inquiries and arranged for a further Demo' at the producers home.

On a Solid State System, with Cabinet Speakers ( I don't do either as a full system), I was once more introduced to the Vinyl Source I was captivated by.

The introduction was a little educational as well, as the producer thought I would like to be shown how the Working Prototypes produced over a period of time sounded and compared. 

I had been given descriptions of how the design evolved and had been introduced to the use of modern materials within the evolving design.

I know of materials that are selected to be used today that are with inherent properties that far outperform common used materials selected for most Brands past and present Tonearm Designs.

The stability of these materials have enabled a whole new R&D in relation to machining tolerances and friction control.

Reduced Machining Tolerances have resulted, with improved dimensions to further  minimise movement. The Modern Materials of a certain type, have allowed for no increase in friction as a result of materials remaining so stable when used in the environment chosen for them.

I was on this first experience with the Tonearm Producer, demonstrated the Tonearm Design as Three Different Assemblies, from a period of R&D.

The differences were materials used to interface with the bearings.

One with a typical selected material, with the parts produced to the tightest usable tolerance.  One with a early adopted Modern Material for the R&D stages, that was claimed to be very good, much improved over the Typical choice, but had a stability that was prone to increase a impact of friction at times, so machining tolerances, even though tighter than a typical materials tolerance allowance, had to be accounted for, as a control measure. It took quite a few attempts to optimise this materials usage at a interface.

Last but not least, One with a material discovered that is extremely stable and can receive much tighter tolerances for the machining without a unwanted impact on the friction and overall freedom of the Mechanical Function.

All Three Arm Designs were swapped out over the course of a Few Hours, where each was used with the same TT>Cart' and on the same system.

The last one was quite something of a revelation, it was indelible as a experience and I own a later guise of it.

On this same period of demo's, one other Tonearm was to be demo'd, it was produced with the same materials as Tonearm that was extremely impressive, but had New Bearing used that were much more suitable to the modern material and environment to be used in.

The experience of this Demo' is nearly six years past and the impression made remains, which is basically the Fourth Tonearm demo'd, was seemingly a substantially improved Arm over the Three Arms Demo'd, but way beyond the performance of the The Third Tonearm Demo'd, which was the one I was already sold on.

The Design for the Arm I own, has been further tweaked by the designer over the period I have owned the Arm. I have been instrumental in encouraging some of the investigation undertaken and now adopted.

I have been invited to the be demo'd the finished work over the past years and have always heard it compared to my Tonearm Model.

The latest guise has the X Factor there is something that is not describable present, it has to be experienced to fully understand how accurate and desirable  the presentation is. 

 

 

@lewm , I wouldn't know Lew. Since I have been studying cartridges more carefully I have not seen any noticeable zenith error. Having said that I have seen some pretty shabby stylus assemblies the worse being an inexpensive AT cartridge. I was not looking for Zenith error at the time. More critical than a frequency response printout, manufacturers should start giving customers photographs of their stylus assemblies. 

@neonknight , Good work. Great preamplifier! I almost bought one but I decided to wait for the new DEQX Pre 8. Since you are already digitizing your phono stage you might want to look into Channel D's Pure Vinyl program. It gives you the ability to record records in 24/192 and you can use software RIAA correction which is insane. You can raid friends vinyl collections. 

@albertporter , Do to my experience with early direct drive units I am permanently biased against them. Since I am no longer in the business I am unable to compare new ones. Best to stick with what you know. Idler wheel drives were a necessity prior to electronic motor control. They are an archaic design which should have remained in the dust bin of history, but then again people still buy Shelby Cobras. There is no accounting for taste. More bearings equal more noise which will get worse as the turntable ages. This leaves the belt drive which the majority of engineers that design turntables prefer. A turntable that "sounds" is defective. Turntables, tonearms and cartridges are not supposed to have a sound of their own. They should sound only like the music on the record. This is not a wine tasting competition. 

I think the zenith tolerance is 5 degrees, not 5%, which would be a whopping 18 degrees. You’d notice 18 degrees of error. I have good evidence it’s an important factor in getting the best performance out of any cartridge. I’ve examined many cartridges under my Olympus microscope, but I wasn’t looking for zenith error. I have noticed however that press fitted styli seem correctly mounted.

Lets not debate drive systems here. I will refrain from countering your claim that “engineers” prefer belt drive.

Belt Drives in General have Two Bearings.

One utilised to Mount and Rotate the Platter, and one to supply a Lateral Force for a Coupling (Belt ) to rotate the Platter at a required Speed.

Two Spindles in use that can't be set into their housings, that are not making a tight fit, as this will create a friction, which will be a unwanted impediment to the desired function of the Spindles.

Two Spindles with a looseness that can create their own eccentric rotation, when rotating independent from each other. 

Two Spindles that when coupled to each via a ancillary such as a (Belt), the presence of the Belt when coupled and supplying the necessary rotations. will pass to and throw the energies of the Two Spindles 'out of sync' eccentric rotations.

As a result of the two 'out of sync' eccentric rotations, Oscillation is now occurring and inconsistent tension of the Coupling (Belt) is occurring.  The inconsistent Tensioning is now producing Speed Fluctuation and the Oscillations are also passing unwanted energy into the Platter.

Energies passed into the Platter are now at risk of contaminating the signal being  detected in the modulation as the result of the styli tracking the groove, (a styli is not prejudiced, it will send a signal whether intended to be sent or not. The  recordings design is not a protection, the Styli will send a signal born from a contamination from a unwanted source, where energies that are becoming a contamination are failing to be transferred away from the styli whilst in operation).

A method used as a control measure is to produce a Substantial Platter of High Mass, a 12Kg+ Platter might be considered a lightweight for some designs.

Put a 9Kg Platter onto a Inverted Bearing with a questionable Anchoring at the Base to the Structure and a Spinning Plate Design is in the making, excessive eccentric rotation of the Platter is only a period of short usage away, the impact of this on the Oscillation of the Belt and Speed Stability is one to run to cover from, but some are loyal to their product and bear with it, maybe investing in extremely expensive Speed Correction devices.

The wear that has been seen within the Bearing Housing of such a design is the worst samples when witnessed, bushes are almost ellipse shaped when the Inner Shape is observed, Heavy Platters on questionable Bearing Assemblies are not to be the best selected.

Some try to avoid issues with the inconsistent dimensions of the Belt causing Wow and Flutter, by adopting a Gossamer Thin type coupling material.         

Add to the above the inconsistencies to be found in the Belt Dimensions and the Cogging of the Motor (Torque Variations), the Wow and Flutter is very much a concern and very sophisticated Speed Control Measures are becoming the next stage of investigation, some of which are more expensive that a very speed accurate of the Shelve TT and in some cases with a Tonearm and Cart' to boot as well.  

Another method used as a measure to Control the Transfer of Energies that are a contamination and unwanted to be received by the Styli is to use a Two Part Support Structure.

A Design that adopts the Sub Chassis to reduce the need to manage external energies and Motor Transferred Energies. Where there are permutations as part of the design to mount the Motor, Platter Bearing and Tonearm on different Surfaces belonging to the structure, as a Measure to reduce the impact of Contamination born from the TT's usage and set up environment, especially where there is a desire to remove energy that is unwanted being transferred to the Platter/Styli.

There are also seen measures where the Motor is a Standalone Motor Pod, with the intention of isolating the energy produced from the motors operation, being transferred through the Support Structure the other Critical Parts to be mounted.

There has been a recent reveal within this thread, that there is a real concern for convection occurring, and this is a issue to be concerned about when a Standalone Pod is utilised. A convection occurring can certainly impact on the Wow and Flutter, especially if convection is to impact on the Motors positioning to the TT.

The Inconsistency of the Belt Tensioning will be the cause of Speed Fluctuations occurring as the result. Another issue some might find is best themselves if avoided.   

A Suspended Structure is another Measure adopted as a design to manage Transferral of energies and a unwanted contamination impacting on the Styli. 

In some cases a Sub Chassis is suspended from a Plinth. In such a case the Platter Spindle may be found attached to the Sub Chassis, in some cases the Tonearm is attached to the Sub Chassis as well.

Where the Platter Spindle and Tonearm are attached to the suspended Sub Chassis, there are designs using this method that have the Motor attached to the Plinth as a means to isolate energies created from the motor and reduce energy Transferral.

The Motor when mounted on the Plinth, is to supply a lateral force to a Platter that is attached to a Floating Structure. The energies produced from this lateral force is not only impacted on by the eccentric rotation of the Two Spindles and the Inconsistences of the Belt Dimension, the eccentric rotation of the two spindles and oscillation that is developing has the energy contained to create a movement of the suspended chassis.

The result being a increase to the Wow and Flutter as the Coupling (Belt) is now operating in a environment that has even more ambient impacts on the Belt, where much increased risk of Belt Slippage is able to occur.

Add to this a Sub Chassis that is able to produce a momentum when being influenced by a lateral load, when using a Platter of substantial weight, the Pendulum can get a momentum that will have the best capacity of most systems to increase Belt Oscillation that has an unprecedented impaction on the overall replay, each individual set up environment and support structure will yield very different end results.

There are quite a few items to be considered when considering the Belt Drive TT, from the most basic design to the designs that have gone to extreme lengths to engineer out a unwanted effect only to create New effect needing to be overcome.

Idler Drives and Direct Drives have lesser concerns overall, and they have developed their own fanbase for these reasons.

The Belt Drives have there following of hypochondriac worriers or those that are oblivious to the shortcomings of the design, and revel in its usage when nowhere near optimised.

All said an done I will one day have a decent session in front of a Kuzma Design, as I am liking their take on a TT, especially the Bearing Structure.

The report is that Hideaki Nishikawa is a fan too, good enough for him, certainly good enough for my limited knowledge on TT matters.  

If I wanted a BD TT and if I didn’t want to pay the big bucks for the Helix, I’d opt for a Kuzma too.