SAEC 308N vs 308SX

Dear Geoch, Good point! I do have the armboard made by Kenwood specifically to fit the SAEC 308 to its L07D. It is reasonable to assume that the Kenwood engineers at least knew what SAEC intended in terms of geometry, so I should not have a problem, even without knowing the correct geometry per se. (I do recall that the preferred null points are given on the Vinyl Engine website, so one could work backward from that as well.) The Kenwood installation does allow for some "wiggle room"; one can slide the armboard from side to side a few mm each way to bring things into alignment, before tightening it down.

To answer your question about pivot to spindle distance, I cannot very well determine that unless or until I purchase a 308 and install it. One could estimate it by assuming that the SAEC pivot would lie right over the exact center of the hole in the arm board, I suppose.

Dear Lewm, all the geometry info is contained into the above Vinyl Asylum thread that I've copied back in my previous post.
Perhaps you've missed this so, please take a good look this time. It contains both alignments. First the SAEC recommendation and then the Baerwald for comparison. The P2S distance is 235 for SAEC and 222.759 for Baerwald. The difference is so great, that you can easily measure your (intended by Kenwood) P2S.
So, once again :
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/78/788115.html

Yes, I know about the VE data, and I did see your earlier post, now that you've reminded me. In fact, I just mentioned that VE gives the two null points. I have been meaning to compare their numbers to Stevenson and Baerwald, just for interest. Thanks for your many other insights into the possible differences between SX and N versions of 308. My choice would be to use an alignment that leaves the cartridge aligned with the midline of the headshell. If Baerwald won't do that, and I suspect it won't, I would not use Baerwald. I would choose the data given on VE, if those are the SAEC data, indeed.

Dear Lew, I own the SEAC 407/23 for which it seems to be impossible to get the u. manual. So I made a copy of 308N from VE to get some idea about the construction. There is no mention of null points in this manual. For my 407/23
there are also all kinds of 'suggestions' reg. the null points but nobody knows for sure. According to some former Australian importer of the SEAC brand the sufix '23' means Baerwald but this was dismissed by others as a myth. It is
very strange that there are so many indistinc opinions about SEAC geometry.BTW I assume that you know that there are two versions of the 308; the sufix 'N' refers to 'new'.

Regards,

Dear Nandric, thanks for your insights. Please do note however the title of this thread, which is to say that I do know about the SX and N versions, but I want to know what differentiates one from the other, especially since the SX is now valued at about double that of the N version. By all accounts and from all information available on the internet (which isn't much), the SX version came after the N version, so I don't know why N would stand for "new", but it might have been new with respect to some preceding design.

The correct geometry should not be so much of a mystery. One could measure the offset angle of the headshell, and combining that information with the null points (given on VE), one can quickly say that the data do or do not conform to Baerwald or more likely Stevenson. (From all the other posts, it seems almost a sure thing that this tonearm was not designed for Baerwald.) I guess I will look at those numbers first. As I noted above, I have an armboard designed specifically for this tonearm, so I am probably going to be OK even if ignorant.