SAEC paradox

[manolakis]

I am in search of a tonearm.
SAEC tonearms are concidered very well.They have very good critics.
However comparing the manufacturer's settings(overhang,eff.length) to those of Stevenson,Loefgren or Baerwold the results come very different and the performance of the tonearm at least disappointing.
Where is the truth on this matter ?
Do we go by the book ignoring the theory or do we ignore the manufacturer's settings ?How do you set up yours ?
Any opinion of user will be welcomed .

[nat]

Seems to me that if their geometry was actually an issue, the arms wouldn't have gotten good reviews. Various people can argue all day about which alignment sounds best, but I think the basic geometry is very clear and no manufacturer is likely to get it wrong. Certainly if you mount the arm incorrectly there can be problems, but unless you are absolutely insistent that the cartridge be exactly square in the headshell and centered front and back, you can usually apply different alignments than intended, which suggests that you can correct bad geometry, were a maker to screw it up.

[vincula2008]

I'm using a SAEC 407/23 and have no issues at all. I went for a slightly different overhang setting than the one recommended. It's set on a Le Tallec turntable. Now with a Nagaoka MP on a Nagoaka Headshell. Sometimes I swap it with a DL 103 with a graphite body. I love this arm.

Currently listening to Dinah Washington. Very impressive. I consider this arm the end of the quest !

Regards,

Vincula

[Cobra2]

How do the 308 compare with FR64fx? MA-505?

Arne K

[vincula2008]

Hi,

I wasn't personally beguiled by the performance of the FR-64fx. Others may say otherwise. I'd rate the MA 505 slightly behind the SAEC 308, think Micro a bit higher up the range instead (MA 707?). The 407/23 goes definitely further.

I haven't ever considered a change so far. Very detailed though smooth, never harsh or bright, exemplary tracker, technically flawless and incredibly beautiful to look at. Even its manipulation's pure joy !

That's my personal view. I'm listening to Lena Horne now, so I might be biased

Regards,

Vincula

[manolakis]

I'm using a SAEC 407/23 and have no issues at all. I went for a slightly different overhang setting than the one recommended. It's set on a Le Tallec turntable. Now with a Nagaoka MP on a Nagoaka Headshell. Sometimes I swap it with a DL 103 with a graphite body. I love this arm.

Currently listening to Dinah Washington. Very impressive. I consider this arm the end of the quest !

Regards,

Vincula

Can you tell us how much different and what made you make that change?
Apart your valiable experience with SAEC the question remains.
Japanese manufacturers are well known and highly respected.
If you use for ex.Stevenson geometry with SAEC what is going to happen?
Unless I have understand some things wrong.
Any thoughts or explanations welcomed.Even links concerning the topic

[phonomac]

Hello there,
Almost all of the Japanese tone-arms I have seen/used are designed around an alignment very close to, but not quite, Stevenson. Technics SL1600 Mk2, Audio Technica 1005 Mk2, AT-1120, Jelco SA750D, Micro Seiki 202, 505, 707.

The standard overhang for all of these is 15mm. If you use the alignment comparator tool and set the standard figures, then compare with 15.5mm overhang, you will find that the slightly larger overhang loses a little in tracing angle at start of side, but gains over everything else at end of side, which to me is more important.

And yes it is quite feasible to set overhang in increments of 0.5mm, by eye.

regards

Angus

[phonomac]

Further to my earlier post about adjusting the geometry of Japanese tonearms, I just found the following extract on an SAEC 308 being advertised on eBay:

The SAEC WE-308SX arm design is based upon research done by the Sansui Electric Co. The AES preprint 1390 (D-5) derived the optimum pivot position from a kinematic point of view, with the mass of the arm, the location of the center of gravity, and the moment of inertia around the system's center of gravity. Resonance was the engineering problem being solved. For this particular arm, it is not advised to op­timize the geometry, or the resonance of the system will change to such an extent that the arm will not track properly.

It seems more research is needed (certainly by me!) to understand what is going on with these arms. Having said that I am not a fan of arms with knife-edge bearings any way.

regards

Angus

[nat]

My impression, based solely on reading advertising copy, not dealing with actual arms, is that the SAEC arms were designed so that the horizontal bearing was placed at an antinode to the expected standing waves developed in the arm. So knife bearings would be just as stable as a unipivot, which I guess is probably the ne plus ultra for rigidity. Whether that is actually true, I don't know, but that's true of practically every claim in audio.
But, if memory serves, SAEC also claimed to have double knife edge bearings. I don't know what that means, but (in my mind) it sounds like two double knife edges, which would mean that the pivot location would change depending on if the motion was upwards or downwards, and I assume that this would damp motion, since the whole arm would be rocking back and forth in addition to up and down. But this is idle speculation.

[KentT]

A question though, Do the Audio-Technica ATP series tonearms align to the almost Stevenson geometry as well? Curious about this. Admired the SAEC arms for years and love their build quality and engineering thought.

[phonomac]

Hello Kent,
I just looked at the figures in the tonearm database for the ATP12, and if you put them into the alignment comparator you will see that it is a little better than Stevenson outside the outer null point, and then worse across the rest of the disc.

Add 0.5mm overhang (ie effective length is now 257.5 and overhang is 15.5) and the transformation is remarkable to my eyes. It is now on a par with Baerwald nearly all the way, until the inner grooves where only Stevenson beats it, and the max and average distortion are both well down compared to the standard.

I first noticed this while optimising a Technics SL1410 Mk2, and it is true for all of the arms that I listed above (even more so for the ATP12), so now it is my default alignment, and I make an arc template using Conrad Hoffman's brilliant generator to confirm the alignment.

regards

Angus

[manolakis]

From what I have read all around Internet Saec geometry is unique .
Obviously Saec engineers had something else in mind.Maybe they concider that in outer grooves music is written uncompresed and in more details than in inner grooves.So they designed a tonearm that is reading perfectly the worst part of an LP .A guy in Audio asylum posted this graph (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/78/788115.html showing a linear tracking error instead of the waveform you get from Stevenson or the others .
407/23 is the only model that goes by the analog bible.
Do owners of 308 and 506 series go by the Saec book ?
What is their verdict ?Is it worthy ?
Or is it a Japanese "Samurai" attempt for perfection that didn't work out .

[mmr24]

Manolakis-I realize this thread is a little stale but I am using the WE308N on a Micro BL-51 and like it very much using SAEC's geometry. They did the research and made the arm with this geometry for a reason. I would rather just set the cartridge square at the proper overhang and mounting distance than to worry about differences in a distortion graph as I am not hearing any. There is a certain clearness of midrange tone that this arm produces that is different than the Stax UA7/UA9 and Grace 707 arms that I can compare it to(MA505/DD40 also). It is not shy on bass either in my setup. Should have it set up with a 15g headshell shortly and a Denon DL103. I did pick up the extra W-2 weight from Fonolab to make that happen.
Matt