Has There Been Changes To The SME V Over The Years?


So my V has a serial number of 57564, which from what I can tell makes it a mid 1990s era arm. The arm looks like new, no signs of heavy use or mistreatment. I zero the arm out and a moderate puff of air will allow the arm to travel the whole horizontal range of travel, and same when testing vertical. 

Does anyone know the history of the V arms? I remember talking with a dealer in England who was heavy into the SME arms, and he stated that over the years suppliers changed, and that certain eras of V sounded better than others. I have no idea. 

As I understand it the internal wiring has changed over the years. But I see little else. I know one member on Whats Best who stated that when he rewired his V and compared it to a 2016 era one, there were no significant differences to be seen. 

One of my options for upgrading the arm on my SOTA is getting the SME V worked on. Alfred at SMETonearms will do a disassembly and bearing upgrade, and then a single wire loom of Cardas. If I were to have the arm rewired I think I want to stick with silver, and it seems Audionote UK or Kondo, or Discovery1877 are the wires most often used with this. 

 

Anyone know the history of the SME V, or can share their experiences on having theirs serviced or upgraded?

neonknight

When I was looking into having my SME IV modified / upgraded, I was included in discussion that was quite similar to the latter, where ABEC /ISO are being commented on by a well respected Tonearm Engineer.

I'm quite sure from recollections ABEC 9 was the suggested modification along with a rewire. The description was there is benefits to having lessened surface contacts, but if doing so adds a whole new set of issues more difficult to overcome, is the idea of swapping out a Bearing Type a improvement?  

Even though the idea to make changes was strong the description on offer about the parts to be used was quite convincing and I chose to direct my monies to other options which eventually become a change of Tonearm.

Today I realise that my Ego was a big part in sticking loyal to the SME Tonearm.

Today that Tonearm is a stored tool, occasionally lent out to somebody with an interest in what it can offer in comparison to other Tonearms.

To date following periods of Loan where comparisons have been made to support a Tonearm Purchase, the individual has not chosen SME as the Tonearm being purchased. Also others who have heard the SME at such comparisons, when making a Tonearm selection for themselves have not chosen to purchased SME.

There are experiences had in my local Audio Group, where the outcome has been profound as an impression made on members within my Local Group.

Inclusive of my own go to Tonearm, there are three Tonearms now in use based on the design of the Tonearm I exchanged to. 

After listening to my Vinyl Front End, the influence on a few group members was such that they made significant changes to their Vinyl Sources. An SME TT and V/12 user sold up and started a new journey of discoveries to be had. 

One member commenced to replicate my Vinyl front end with an immediacy and another bought into a SP10 R shortly after, with a Arm selected that become a  Glanz Model.

"Ball bearings – the myth of ABEC quality

In the audio press and in advertising it is often mentioned that tonearm manufacturers are using best quality bearings, stating ABEC 7 quality. Does this statement have any practical use?

Let us check what an ABEC standard actually means. It is a US standard for classifying certain parameters of ball bearings. In this case it only guaranties that ball bearings are made to specific sizes and tolerances. The higher the number, the tighter tolerances of the bearing.

In any production process when parts are made, their dimensions have to be specified. It is almost impossible, for example to make a shaft exactly 20.000 mm in diameter. In production tolerances are used, which tell us how much bigger or smaller than the exact 20.000 mm the shaft can be. For example for that shaft to fit a hole of 20 mm in bearing housing, it would need to be smaller. The shaft can be made 0.1 mm smaller or only 0.01mm smaller. The smaller the size variation which is allowed, the tighter is the tolerance and the more difficult to make. The same applies for the hole size. It can be made bigger for 0.1 mm or 0.01 mm. I believe you get the picture.

ABEC standard ( US) or ISO ( European) prescribes only certain basic dimension tolerances of ball bearings. In ball bearings there is an outer and inner ring, balls and a cage which separates the balls. All these parts are made within certain tolerances to fit together and to be built into products.


ABEC and ISO standards do not cover: radial play, surface finish, material, ball complement, number, size or precision level, retainer type, lubrication, torque, cleanliness at assembly, raceway curvature, packaging and other factors that may be essential to the desired bearing performance.

I would like to emphasise a few of the most important parameters which are not covered by ABEC: Starting torque which affects the swinging of the tonearm up and down and following eccentricity of the record, noise level and vibration in bearings which adds distortion, cleanliness of oil which may restrict movements. It will not tell how precisely the ball bearings are fitted into the housing and shaft of the tonearm, which has direct influence on smooth zero play and movement of the tube in all directions and across the whole record playing area.

When you read about the quality of the ball bearings in a tonearms ask yourself ˝Did they choose the right bearings and are they fitted in the best possible way"? Just stating ABEC means the same as declaring that amplifier A is the best because it has the lowest measured distortion and, as we all know, this has nothing to do with good sound itself."

Why not just buy an electron microscope to confirm all of the desired properties?

 

@roxy54 The monies some of the TA are being priced at, It would be very satisfying for the Customer to be knowing the critical parts at movement interfaces, will have the Balls that are in use Highly Polished, and selected as most accurate Spherical is shape, with hopefully a tolerance selected of 0.01mm separating Ball sizes.

A Perfect Circular Race, with perfect dimension between ID to OD, as well as a tightest of tolerance fit to house the Balls.

How about once assembled to be one that has the lowest Co-efficient of friction that can be achieved for all parts assembled 😎 .

Note: A TA as a result of the Method it is used, will at some time in its life be detrimentally affected from Brinelling having occurred. Is Brinelling a condition that is to become perceived as having an influence on the end sound?, or even one that is Audible?

But what do I know, I wont be spending the monies asked by the Big Names for their products in today' market.  

As my got to TA has a brand new bearing design and assembly, Brinelling is something I will not be concerned about for the rest of my years left to enjoy it.

TA's from a Vintage Period, especially ones without too much Quality Controls in place for parts selected for use at the critical movement interfaces at the time of Manufacture, are ones potentially being detrimentally effected through Brinelling having already developed.

Again not the wisest of choice to be putting the most expensive of Cart's onto such a TA, that has not been serviced and had any bearing wear issues addressed.

Add the Vintage TA to the Vintage TT with wear in the Spindles Bearing Housing and having developed a Eccentric Rotation, then Mount the TA from a Vintage Period with Brinelling having developed, along with your $5K Cart', is not looking like the most attractive place for such a Cart' to reside.

It is very very easy to remediate the issues that can manifest through excessive Wear of Critical Moving Part Interfaces, if they are concerning enough to motivate change to be made.