SME V arm: dynamic VTF or straight weight

Hi Raul,
>>> Usually when the cartridge does not " wiggle&jump " that cartridge/tonearm set-up performs extremely well. <<<

I couldn't agree more!

What I describe is just my finding, and agreed like always --- there's yet something else...

Note:
Ockham Razor "The explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory"
:-) Ah, so...

Greetings,
Axel
PS: Mine doesn't 'wiggle&jump' currently ---- most all of the time

Well, it's been about a year and a half since I started this thread and I think I shall add a recent observation:

I have been researching new arms and am intrigued by the two SME 12" arms, the 312S and the V-12. Besides the detachable headshell on the 312S, the main difference seems to be static versus dynamic VTF. So I was checking the alignment of my SME V and thought I would retest my earlier observations about VTF. My system has changed in the past year, and with the addition of new monitor speakers, it is considerably more revealing than it was. I did an A-B-A test or dynamic-static-dynamic. I listened to Beethoven's Violin Concerto and some female vocals. In static mode at 2.1g VTF, the sound was flat, lacked subtle detail and was generally not involving, and these were LPs that I love and listen to often. Massed strings lacked the sense of individual musicians playing as a group. There was little or no hall information. It sounded 2-D. When I switched back to dynamic mode I noticed the change immediately. The sound was more full, had more weight, better air and sense of space, music filled the room rather than just the plane of the speakers. Massed strings sounded like many individual musicians playing together. Sounds reverberated in the hall. Voices were fleshy, not dry. In short, the experience was much more real and involving. I quickly forgot about listening for details and just got lost in the music.

The difference was not nearly as subtle as I found it to be a year ago. I immediately noticed the improvement. Perhaps it is because I have another year of listening experience, perhaps my system is just more revealing now. Whatever the reason, I now much prefer dynamic VTF with the SME V arm in my system.

Now, on to trying to compare my SME V to the V-12 and a few other arms.

I just ran across this thread (with all the usual suspects! ;--) so excuse my late arrival to the party ;--( I read all the posts and still have some questions (maybe I didn't read carefully enough?) But I'll try and keep it simple:

1.) With my SME-V (and a decent digital VTF scale) it's quite easy to create a 'composite' VTF which is comprised partly of static VTF and partly of dynamic VTF. I just recently ran across the idea on some forum or other, but haven't tried it yet. Any comments as to the possible benefits of having perhaps mostly one kind, with a little of the other kind? And which of which?

2.) I've always used the SME headshell spacer (1/8" thick, 3 grams) because the platter height of my TT necessitates raising up the whole arm assembly slighty. However, there are other ways to increase the height of the arm assembly without using the headshell spacer; and I'd like to know what you all think about doing it by (basically) adding the 'spacer' to the tonearm base rather than at the headshell? The particulars:
a.) My MC cart. has a dynamic compliance of 15.
b.) With the spacer, the 'effective' cart. weight = 7.6g (cart) + 3g (spacer) + 1.5g (mounting bolts) = ~ total of 12g.
b.) SME advises also adding the 3g spacer weight to the effective mass of the arm, thus increasing it to 13.5 g (+/--). Note: I question SME's 'math' however, because the entire 3g (spacer) is being added right at the headshell and NOT evenly distributed over the whole armtube? Whatever; maybe an approximation is good enough?
c.) Using the VinylEngine's resonance calculator, and entering the numbers associated WITH using the spacer, I get a clear result of 8Hz for the resonant frequency.
c.) WITHOUT using the spacer, the resonant frequency increases to 9.5Hz.
So which way would be preferred, and why?

3.) RE the horizontal (damping trough) issue: The SME-V arm at 10.5g (+/--) would I guess be considered a medium mass TA. And at 13.5g (+/--) (if I use the spacer) it would definitely fall into that category. Most people advise against using the fluid trough for damping horizontal motion under ANY circumstances! Or MAYBE with the exception of some VERY low compliance and relatively LIGHT WEIGHT cartridges? I know this was discussed above, but I wonder if there's an absolute resonant frequency (like around 12Hz) AT or ABOVE which, it becomes advisable to apply SOME amount of fluid damping to control horizontal motion and (artificially?) lower the resonant frequency?

Thanks for ANY real thoughts, and ALL unreal opinions ;--)
\Neil
.