SME 20/2 SME V or Triplanar VII?

Hi Ed,

I think you're heading in the right direction. I have heard both of those cartridges on a TriPlanar and they are wonderful. To borrow a comment I once heard, the XV1s gets you close to the Universe for a lot less money. At the time I was plunking down for table, cart, phono and pre so I decided to get the Dynavector. I can always add the Universe latter. I would say that the Universe is more tonally neutral. Still, they are both great cartridges.

I do not have hands-on experience with the SME or Phantom arms, but here again I think you're going in the right direction by considering the TriPlanar and Phantom over the SME. I have owned a 2.2 for the last couple of years so I'm familiar with the ease of adjustment both of these arms provide. The TriPlanar does have the advantage with VTA adjustments as you listen. The 2.2 (and I assume the Phantom is similar) could do this if the set screw that locks vta was replaced with a thumb or knurled screw instead of having to get in there with a hex wrench. How much of an issue this is going to be on a suspended table? Do you think you will be able to adjust VTA with a record playing without loading the suspension? I know it was not possible on a Basis suspended table, but I don't know the SME 20/2.

The SME V also lacks azimuth adjustment. This would be another non-starter for me. Cartridges are never perfect. Fine tuning azimuth for a cartridge is essential for achieving good stereo separation.

Fwiw: the SME Vd supports azimuth adjustment via a detachable headshell. One might claim this joint compromises structural rigidity although testing by SME engineers indicate the connection between the headshell and armtube is significantly stronger than that between cartridge and non-detachable headshell. Comparison suggests no sonic difference between V and Vd.

Cheers,
Tim

Are you getting the new SME 20/12 that has just been released or the older version?

IIRC, the SME also lacks any real ability to adjust cartridge alignment angle. Again, cartridges aren't always perfect. Headshell holes instead of slots confer no sonic advantage, but they do make aligning an imperfect cartridge difficult or impossible.

To an SME headshell, applying a sharp 2.8mm (~ 7/64") bit *by hand* yields enough accomodation on the holes for any cartridge alignment I felt the need to make.

Wrt 'synergy', is this the sort of thing one can talk a table/arm out of or into? I suppose there is no harm in the trying. ;-) Yet when the makers of an arm and table are the same, the possibility may not be so remote as one might reason. Those who have heard seem to think there may be something to the combination of an SME table with an SME arm.

Cheers,
Tim

I have owned two SME model V's,and the Triplanar.For what it's worth,when installing my Triplanar,I was quite impressed with it's "amazing" bearing rigidity/smootheness upon installation.This probably seems silly and redundant,but the arm's movement in free space,when mounted on the armboard,and being moved into place,"blew me away".Of course,it had moved "out" of the arm lock,to notice this.I guess you had to see this to understand,otherwise it seems like a stupid point.
The SME,obviously has great bearings,yet there was "something" about the Triplanar that stated...."this is hand made,and tweaked to the max"!!
I,also,found the SME bass to be a bit over-ripe,in my older COSMOS.
My friend had a SME-V on a VPI TNT,at the time,and felt bass response was a bit over done.Of course synergy has everything to do with it,but if I were to choose either arm today(assuming my table could accommodate them equally well)it would be the Triplanar.Warts and all Doug!-:)