SL1200 vs. SP10/SME3009

by **anilva** » 29 Oct 2009 04:08

Folks,

I have a new and well setup SL-1200 with it's original tonearm and a recently aquired SP-10 MK2 fitted with a well preserved SME 3009 Series II improved tonearm.

SL-1200 has a Shure M97x and the SP-10/SME has a AT440MLa carts.

Rest of the electronics path is the same in terms of phono stage and amplification. When I do A/B comparison, it is clear that SL-1200 is performing a lot better in terms of dynamics, resolution and performance across the entire groove span. Whilst SME 3009 arm is found wanting quite a bit.

While I read so many comments on how low/mid end the SL-1200 arm is, on the other hand SME 3009 has had cult following (atleast to my understanding), but clearly there is huge performance difference between the two arms. I am completely discounting SP-10 from the picture, since as it performing beautifully in terms of speed stability etc. for which it is known. Nothing wrong with it and I don't believe it is the culprit.

Any suggestions on improvong the setup or should I simply look for a better tonearm like the Jelco 750D?

Cheers.

by **JaS** » 29 Oct 2009 10:01

Hi,
Personally I always found the SME3009 to have a rather 'soft' sound, lacking in detail and with an undefined bass but YMMV.

However, you don't say what plinth you are using with the SP10? This has a huge effect on the sound quality.

Regards,
JaS

by **anilva** » 29 Oct 2009 10:41

Sorry for not clarifying earlier. The plinth is the original SH-10B3 Obsidian base. The SME arm is mounted on a 1/2" thick MDF cutout made to fit SH-10B3.

Thanks.

by **JaS** » 29 Oct 2009 13:18

Hi,
I use the SH-10B3 myself so I doubt that's the problem? I've used Dynavector DV505, SME309, Zeta, AT1010, Helius Orion IV arms etc on it successfuly (although the Zeta and SME were a tight fit).

If your turntable stand is well isolated I'd think about changing the arm, but it might be worth swapping over the cartridge first? AT cartridges tend to have a more lively sound than Shures and it might be just the kick the 3009 needs?

Regards,
JaS

by **LousyTourist** » 29 Oct 2009 13:46

wow, the SL1200 more or less stock sounds better than an SP10 with a 3009?

Something is rotten in Denmark.

I have found that arm/cartridge synergy is key. Perhaps the AT440 (which I know nothing about) doesn't play well with the 3009. I know the cartridges are well received when I hear of them, just never had the pleasure.

I would tend to believe the Shure would play better with the SME, maybe you could try swapping them?

by **philbee** » 29 Oct 2009 13:51

just swap the cartridges from one to the other and that will give you your answer.

by **pivot** » 29 Oct 2009 14:28

On the 3009 is it the interchangable headshell version? If so, try a different, better braced, headshell. I truly dislike the stock "swiss cheese" headshell on the II imp, rings like a bell.

Are the rubber grommets in place in the bedplate? If you are careful you should be able to remove them without damage (so you may replace them if you wish), On SOME turntables SOME users prefer the sound of knife edge SMEs with the without the bedplate grommets and secured with larger screws.

Are the grommets between main arm tube and counterweight stub in good shape? I have seen a number of older SMEs with saggy counterweights due to deteoration of the grommets. Replacements are available.

Have you cleaned (DeOxit) all the electical contacts?

How are the pivots? The knife edges nice and clean and well seated? The horizontal ball bearings have no notchyness at any point across the disc surface? Anit-skating string runs smoothly?

How is the external cable? I try to avoid the "cable wars" that spring up around the "sound" of cable. (Everybody ends up flaming - nobody gets convinced) However, the stock SME cable is getting up there in age and the original cable not of stunning quality to start.

It may just be a differance in taste. JaS points out the SME can sound somewhat soft, I'd call it "mellow". Have not spent much time listening to the 1200 arm - perhaps it is "zingier" and you like it. (I wonder if the bass issues JaS has heard with the SME is the result of the stock headshell)

I would expect the 440MLa to be a good match to the SME, but can't say I have heard them together. Have you played with preamp loading to tame the 440MLas tendency for a hot treble?

by **anilva** » 29 Oct 2009 14:30

Will swap the cartridges and try.

As I mentioned earlier, the SME arm has the AT440 which is supposed to be more lively than the Shure M97x. I did not swap the cartridges so far since I was thinking that the Shure cartridge will make the SME lot less livelier.

And I dread to change the cartridge on the SME 3009 with it's fixed headshell design. It is such a pain...I am not sure how much audible benefit that one got between the fixed and removable designs of SME3009, but if I have to do it all over again, I will avoid the fixed headshell model.

Thanks.

by **anilva** » 29 Oct 2009 14:40

Just as I was typing my response and finished, I realized that PIVOT has sent in his advice. Thanks.

Few answers to the questions:

Yes the bearings are smooth and no play. I have not inspected the knife adges, as I have not opened the arm at the yoke. I have also not checked the rubber coupling near the stub. All the contacts are neatly cleaned and in good shape. The tonearm is an old SME cable with the 4 point connector. The look of it gives me scares, but seems performing well with zero hum. I can solder a new cable directly to the four pins inside the screening can.

As mentioned before the headshell is a fixed one (and painful to mount a cartridge). AT440 has a particularly trick mount flange/space. Not easy at all.

Thanks.

by **pivot** » 29 Oct 2009 14:56

anilva wrote:Will swap the cartridges and try.

I am not sure how much audible benefit that one got between the fixed and removable designs of SME3009, but if I have to do it all over again, I will avoid the fixed headshell model.

The fixed headshell II imp is lower mass, 6.5 vs. 9.5 for detachable with stock shell. In theory the fixed headshell should be more rigid but I wonder as there is still a joint at the headshell.

Is the 440MLa run in for 50 hours? It will sound bright till run in. Preamp loading?

by **anilva** » 29 Oct 2009 17:41

The AT440 is brand new and not even run few hours and so is the Shure M97. May be it will improve after the run-in.

I have a new Denon DL-103 lying with me. Can I try that on the SME3009 after adding a headshell weight, just to increase the tonearm mass to ensure a match to DL-103? I bought this earlier to fix on my TD-135.

Cheers.

by **analogous** » 29 Oct 2009 18:08

The 3009 Improved is not a very good arm. SME 3009/3012. And it cannot be used with the DL-103.

by **pivot** » 29 Oct 2009 18:13

anilva wrote:The AT440 is brand new and not even run few hours and so is the Shure M97. May be it will improve after the run-in.

Get 50 hours on that puppy, then listen.

I am not very patient either but the AT sounds a bit rough for, at least, the first 50 hours.

...and loading to 32k can make a difference too.

by **pivot** » 29 Oct 2009 18:19

analogous wrote:The 3009 Improved is not a very good arm. SME 3009/3012.

An opinion not everybody shares.

The SME II imp is NOT viewed as usable with a low compliance cartridge like the standard 103. I have heard the Imp sound pretty damned good (to me - my opinion) with moving magnet/moving iron high compliance cartridges.