Vinyl Asylum

Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

Return to Vinyl Asylum

At last, a new tonearm development worth celebrating.

84.203.37.87
Posted on November 2, 2009 at 16:35:28
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007

I thought that SME took a wrong turn when they ended the 30XX R series.

When I lived in Japan at the end of the nineties, there was a big following for the 3009R, 3010R and 3012R tonearms. The Ortofon SPU was a very popular cartridge.

The M2-12R once again provides a tonearm from SME suitable for use with the Ortofon SPU.

BK

Dare we even ask the price?, posted on November 2, 2009 at 17:14:21
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 15857
Location: San Francisco
Joined: February 26, 2001
 What do you think of the SME 3009 SII (not improved)


I think it's a design classic that has stood the test of time., posted on November 3, 2009 at 01:48:40
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007



It doesn't have the extended bass, or the control and grip of the SME V, but it is capable of producing a well voiced mid-range particularly if rewired with silver wire.

I was never that impressed by finish of the S2 headshell, and generally prefer to use a slotted headshell so that cartridges can be switched without having to go through the process of re-alignment.

You can read my article on restoring the 3009 hosted by Steve Clarke on theanalogdept.com. Link below.

Best regards,

BK
Thanks BK, posted on November 3, 2009 at 08:25:45
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 15857
Location: San Francisco
Joined: February 26, 2001
 Somewhere I also have a copy of an alignment procedure I believe you wrote some years ago. It somehow got misplaced in move a couple years ago.

Is it also somewhere on the WEB?


Yes, posted on November 3, 2009 at 08:58:32
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007
 Yes,

You can find it here on Steve Clark's site:

http://www.theanalogdept.com

See 3rd line down in the section entitled "Articles and Reviews"

BK

Hi B.K...., posted on November 3, 2009 at 09:25:22
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 15857
Location: San Francisco
Joined: February 26, 2001
 the one I had was just quite a few pages of text on the very basics of how to align a cartridge, not the one with a protractor.

I thought it was from you as it was very easy to understand and use.

Wish I hadn't lost it, but as I NEVER through away anything, I may yet find it!


You are probably thinking of this article., posted on November 3, 2009 at 12:13:50
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007
 http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/51464.html

The novel part of the procedure is that you aim to set offset angle at the outer null radius, and effective length at the inner null radius.

Point 6 gives a method to determine how much correction is required to the effective length (which is adjusted at the inner radius). The factor of two in the correction comes from the fact that the outer null radius is approximately double the inner null radius.

You can align a cartridge quickly using this method.

Best regards,

BK
Thanks, B.K. , that's the one..., posted on November 3, 2009 at 13:52:55
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 15857
Location: San Francisco
Joined: February 26, 2001
 A blast from the past.

I don't think I would have ever been able to figure out how to align a cartridge without those instructions.
RE: Dare we even ask the price?, posted on November 2, 2009 at 18:20:51
Kozzmo
Audiophile

Posts: 383
Location: Chicago
Joined: January 14, 2003
 1,175 pounds from the following site

RE: Dare we even ask the price?, posted on November 2, 2009 at 19:47:29
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 10901
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 The SME 312 is a much better tonearm and it is only slightly more expensive at £1,235.19 on the same website.

And how do you fit an SPU to the 312?, posted on November 3, 2009 at 01:10:14
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007
 And how do you fit an SPU to the 312?

You have to use a SPU-N..., posted on November 3, 2009 at 10:17:56
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 10901
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 Either the Classic N, Classic NE, or SPU Royal N.

..........

In other words you can't fit the SPU to the 312 ...., posted on November 3, 2009 at 12:05:30
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007
 If you want to use one of the models that includes the integrated headshell, which was the point of my post above celebrating the new design.

BK

you don't even try, posted on November 3, 2009 at 05:41:01
Plinko
Audiophile

Posts: 1359
Location: N East, USA
Joined: July 21, 2005
 you go with an equally as good tonearm for far lower cost, the Thomas Schick tonearm

312S is "better"...based on what, posted on November 2, 2009 at 23:58:03
welly
Audiophile

Posts: 1005
Location: Brisbane
Joined: January 22, 2001
 Guess it depends on intended use and personal preference....
Cheers

welly

It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As pretty as an Airport' appear.
RE: 312S is "better"...based on what, posted on November 3, 2009 at 10:24:20
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 10901
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 The SME 312 is better in terms of structural integrity, stability, vibration damping and resonance control.

RE: 312S is "better"...based on what, posted on November 3, 2009 at 22:02:45
welly
Audiophile

Posts: 1005
Location: Brisbane
Joined: January 22, 2001
 That may be so, but both arms fulfill different functions. So, broadly claiming that one is "much better" than the other is a bit of a big claim.

The 312S may be better in regard to the aspects you mention above. However it could also equally be claimed, for example, that the 312S is much worse because it does not provide compatibility with integrated headshell cartridges.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is rather rash to claim that any single component is "much better" than another without providing some frame of reference.

Undoubtedly, some people will prefer the M2-12 because it fits their particular set of requirements better than a 312S would. In their opinion the M2-12 would be the "much better" tonearm.


Cheers

welly

It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As pretty as an Airport' appear.
You're right to a certain extent..., posted on November 4, 2009 at 07:03:56
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 10901
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 There is obviously a market for the M2-12, otherwise SME would not have produced it. However, in my way of thinking, all tonearms perform the same function; it's just that some do the job better than others. Therefore, in my way of thinking, the entire M2 line is somewhat of a step backwards for SME in terms of performance. SME could have modified the 300 series to accept a bayonet type detachable headshell if that is a feature that people want. Instead they chose to resurrect an inferior design for modification.

Best regards,
John Elison

Not a very well thought out analysis., posted on November 4, 2009 at 08:13:06
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007
 You wrote that SME could have modfied the 300 series to accept the SPU. It's not a very well thought out analysis.

The 300 series, the series IV and the series V tonearms are cast. The M2 series (and it is the M2-12R not the M2-12 which takes the SPU) are based around an extruded tube. The construction is completely different; it is relatively easy to provide the option of a straight or j-shaped tonearm using an extruded tube, compared to making new casts.

As regards making a new cast for an S-shaped or J-shaped tonearm, several of the features of the series V derivatives wouldn't have been compatible with a tonearm that accepts the SPU: there is no lateral balance, insufficient tracking force range, the series V is designed so that its centre of gravity is in the plane of the record - a feature which would be lost if designed to accept the SPU and an SPU fitted to a series V would look ridiculous.

In any case, your position regarding the right starting point is irrelevant. It was the popularity of the 3012 and it's derivatives which provided the business case to spend money developing the M2-12R. To serve this market, the right product logically should share some legacy with the series II tonearms; therefore, the M2-12 not the 312 was the logical place to start.

BK

I would tend to agree with you if the price of the M2-12 were half the price of the 312..., posted on November 4, 2009 at 09:20:02
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 10901
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 As it stands, the price of the two tonearms are basically equivalent. It therefore doesn't seem like a good value to buy a M2-12 and a SPU when you can buy a 312 and SPU-N for the same price and get better performance to boot.

Ultimately, I think it all boils down to personal preference, and how much emphasis one places on price vs. performance. I consider the better value to be the one that provides better performance for a similar or lower price.

Best regards,
John Elison

Actually, the prices are not the same, and, moreover, price has nothing to do with it., posted on November 4, 2009 at 09:40:23
B.K.
Audiophile

Posts: 569
Location: Ireland
Joined: February 18, 2007
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2007
 The M2-12R (not M2-12) serves a different market to the 312. This market comprises the people who prefer a tonearm which accepts the standard SPU. Even if the M2-12R was more expensive than the 312, it would still serve that market.

Price is nothing to do with it.

If a set-up based around SPU-N mounted on a tonearm without the bayonet headshell served that market, then tonearms like the Ortofon SMG 309, the SME 3012 would have no following.

Your analysis (from the start) has left out that whole dimension: what do people want. In your opinion, there are better options.

However, John Elison says so, isn't a particularly good case for developing a product and I'm glad SME followed the route they did instead of offering some Frankenstein product based around the 312 with a bayonet fitting for the SPU.


BK

Page processed in 0.061 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]