Supatrac Nighthawk Tonearm

[SCULLERHBW]

I noticed the same thing on my Nighthawk arm, and Richard at Supatrac told me that this is simply abrasion of the ceramic paint on the surface of the "thrustbox'' at the pivot point and is normal. Neither the pivot screw nor the metal of the "thrustbox" itself is being abraded. And most important, I have heard no evidence (from playing records) that this phenomenon has degraded sonics.

 

[adyc]

I noticed the same thing on my Nighthawk arm, and Richard at Supatrac told me that this is simply abrasion of the ceramic paint on the surface of the "thrustbox'' at the pivot point and is normal. Neither the pivot screw nor the metal of the "thrustbox" itself is being abraded. And most important, I have heard no evidence (from playing records) that this phenomenon has degraded sonics.

Any comment of the performance of Nighthawk? We need more users feedback.

 

[SUPATRAC]

Abrasion around the pivot contact area is normal. The steel thrust surface is 2.5mm thick so I expect the thrust box to last for hundreds of years. Remember that the bearing point does not bear the weight of the arm, so contact pressure is minimal and wear slow.

The pivot point itself is very easily replaced - even end users can replace it - so I expect that SUPATRAC arms are far less obsolescent than tonearms which have expensive, difficult-to-replace and fragile bearings which require extremely careful calibration. The pivot contact area is between the pillar and the thrust surface so you need to look for it to see it.

If the cosmetic aspects of your tonearm matter more than the performance then there are many visually-exquisite brands to choose from. My goal is ultimate performance, reliability and longevity. The Nighthawk's appearance is determined 99.9% by its function.

 

[Dr Vinyl]

It seems Supatrac is not responding to emails or WhatsApp messages.

Please you can Pm us for any information you need

 

[SUPATRAC]

I'm sorry for slow responses - I've been ill with a cold/flu for about ten days. I'm working very hard in the workshop most of the time and I struggle to keep up with the emails sometimes. Apologies. Please be patient.

 

[SUPATRAC]

At AXPONA two Nighthawks were demonstrated - one in the Refined Audio room on a TW Acustic Raven with Audio Mirror amps and Cube Audio speakers. Here's an interview with Michael Fremer in that room during which I mention the differences between the Nighthawk and the Blackbird:

Another Nighthawk was heard by those lucky enough to be invited to hear Brian's system in his room about 25 minutes from the show. This system featured an amazing pair of Hill Plasmatronics Type 1 speakers. The deck was a Döhmann Helix One Mk3 which sported a 10.5 inch Nighthawk in the left bay and a 12 inch Blackbird on the right:

The next public exhibitions of the Nighthawk will be at Munich High End in the Cessaro/Alieno/Döhmann room on a Döhmann Helix One Mk3 and in the OePhi/hARt/HSE/SUPATRAC room on a Technics SL-1300G. I look forward to seeing any wbf members there.

 

[TrackingAngle]

I am new to this forum and am not in the habit of posting my impressions of audio equipment on-line. But I felt that I needed to say something about the new Supatrac Nighthawk tonearm, which was just installed in my system and during my very first, abbreviated listening session produced sound of extraordinary realism and beauty. This arm’s unique design employs a patented sideways unipivot.

I learned of Supatrac from a glowing review that Michael Fremer did of the Supatrac Blackbird tonearm in Tracking Angle. I ordered the Blackbird arm, but then upgraded my order to the newer, more rigid version of the arm (the Nighthawk) after it it had been introduced in beta form at the Munich High-End show this year and got similar accolades from multiple reviewers. I understand that construction of the carbon fiber arm tubes, the pillar, and both the front end of the arm (where the cartridge attaches to the arm) and the back end of the arm (where it pivots) have been made substantially more rigid. I also understand from the arm’s designer (Richard Braine) that I am one of the very first “early adopters” of the Nighthawk.

This post will be brief and very preliminary because I had only one short listening session with the Nighthawk before I needed to go out of town for an extended period. In a nutshell, what I heard after listening to a few sides of a few jazz and classical albums that I have played numerous times over the years and know extremely well was sublime.

Here are some discrete impressions I had of the Nighthawk tonearm:

>Sense of depth and breadth of performing space. The tonearm vividly revealed the contours of the listening space itself - its width, depth, and reverberant qualities. To the extent this ambient information was on the LP, the arm extracted it.

>Piano (specifically Bill Evans’ piano on “Sunday at the Village Vanguard”) had a real life palpability far beyond anything I’d ever heard before when playing this album. This is an extraordinarily well-recorded album, and the Craft Recordings reissue I have is exceptional. But I do not recall having the same sense of the “weight” of each piano key when played on this album that I did through the Nighthawk arm. The keys when played had a “presence” in the same way that the keys played on a live piano do. I was not simply hearing tones or “plinks” as the keys were played, but rather the Nighthawk tonearm conveyed the mass of each felt-covered hammer hitting the strings.

>Janos Starker’s cello (on the Speakers Corner reissue of the Mercury box set of Bach solo cello suites) has never sounded so deep and resonant before. His cello had a fullness and richness that was stunning. This to me speaks volumes about the tonal accuracy of the Nighthawk arm. And I heard Starker’s breathing clearly as he bowed - information I do not recall being extracted before as recognizably from the grooves.

>Bass notes were deep and distinct, not wooly; cymbal strikes were sharp and clearly defined and decays naturally extended.

>Clarity. Even in complex, dynamic, multi-instrument passages, the various instruments never lost their individual character or location in space, never became part of an undifferentiated, blurred mass of sound. In other words, the Nighthawk arm reproduced what was recorded with precision and clarity, but without etching.

I likely will supplement these impressions after I have done more extensive listening this fall. But apart from any specific impressions that I can articulate, the bottom line is that the Nighthawk arm (with its sideways unipivot design) conveyed the music I played in a palpably real and stunningly beautiful way.

I have a Nighthawk here for review and I agree with all you've posted here....

 

[TrackingAngle]

I have yet to audition the Nighthawk, but for an arm in this price level, the finishing is just not acceptable to me! This is a photo taken by my friend at the agent. Look closely at the pivot point and you can see there are scratch marks already. Whether that will affect the arm’s performance, and whether it will get worst over time, are everyone's guess!

View attachment 138614

I'd like to see you under fluorescent lighting . Of course scratch marks will have zero effect on sonics

 

[mtemur]

IMHO, we’re witnessing another SAT case here.

After receiving a positive response to the marketing of the $3,000 DIY-looking Blackbird, a not-too-different Nighthawk was quickly released. DIY aesthetics and modest build quality may be acceptable at a $3,000 price point, but at $16,000, concerns were understandably raised.

When the build quality didn’t convince some members, like @thekong and @SCULLERHBW, they pointed out scratches on the finish. One would expect the manufacturer to promise an investigation and improvements, but instead, @SUPATRAC responded by suggesting those unhappy should look for other brands.

Similarly, one might expect a reviewer to take such complaints seriously and stand with customers—after all, $16,000 is hardly a bargain for a tonearm even in today’s hi-fi market. Instead, we got a joke from @TrackingAngle, comparing scratches on a sellable, manufactured product to the lines on the face of a human being.

 

[TrackingAngle]

I think they are improving the quality as they increase the production. Regarding the pivot, as far as I understand from the manufacturer, it is easily replaceable and cheap. It is not something made of expensive metal or diamond.

 

[mtemur]

But they increased the price instantly and exponentially from $3000 to $16000, certainly not in line with the hard-to-believe build quality increase. Why they didn’t take the way of increasing prices as the quality increased?

 

[TrackingAngle]

IMHO, we’re witnessing another SAT case here.

After receiving a positive response to the marketing of the $3,000 DIY-looking Blackbird, a not-too-different Nighthawk was quickly released. DIY aesthetics and modest build quality may be acceptable at a $3,000 price point, but at $16,000, concerns were understandably raised.

When the build quality didn’t convince some members, like @thekong and @SCULLERHBW, they pointed out scratches on the finish. One would expect the manufacturer to promise an investigation and improvements, but instead, @SUPATRAC responded by suggesting those unhappy should look for other brands.

Similarly, one might expect a reviewer to take such complaints seriously and stand with customers—after all, $16,000 is hardly a bargain for a tonearm even in today’s hi-fi market. Instead, we got a joke from @TrackingAngle, comparing scratches on a sellable, manufactured product to the lines on the face of a human being.

Had you bothered to read my original review of the Blackbird you'd have noted that I was very critical of the product's presentation, documentation and other things. My review was not a "love fest" nor did I cover up the many presentational and other deficiencies, most if not all of which have since been greatly improved.

The Nighthawk is considerably different than the Blackbird though it might not be readily apparent in a quick look. You reference scratches but not which: i see a few minor ones on the arm and the usual ones where the point contacts the thrust box. That will have no bearing (no pun intended) on sonic or mechanical performance. It's the inevitable result of the point's movement during set-up and adjustment.

Many of the comments here about costs, DIY, etc. demonstrate very little understanding of how these small start-up businesses operate or the arc of their cost and pricing considerations. This began as a "home based" enterprise and retail cost projections proved to be way off. Mr. Braine decided he'd like to make this a profitable enterprise and so had to raise prices. So many similar businesses manufacturing excellent products fail. No one who owns one of these arms would want to see that, I'm quite sure.

Mr. Braine is not the enemy nor is he trying to make a 'quick buck', which seems to be the tone here.

Early buyers got both a bargain and an even more primitive build quality and presentation that was DIY for sure but you have to hear this arm to understand its sonic power. It's not hype you're reading in the reviews. Before proclaiming the Nighthawk as "not too different" from the Blackbird, why not learn about the differences? The similarities are conceptual. The differences in construction and parts are very different. The costs cannot be similar.

To move from at home assembly to an outside location must increase costs. and requires a considerable financial investment. At some point costs can decrease as efficiency increases and ordering parts in larger numbers also brings costs down, but there's the middle period---the dangerous growth time--- that Supatrac and any company seeking to move from "garage' to small remote assembly facility—must go through in terms of rent, insurance, staffing, etc.

The original "introductory" Blackbird price was unrealistically low, or perhaps Mr. Braine priced it as a "loss leader" to get the ball rolling. I don't know, but comparing the Blackbird initial price to the Nighthawk's $16K price is an unfair comparison.

I don't know what arm compares sonically to the Nighthawk at its current price. The design will always look semi-DIY because of how its conceived and the advantages of one piece construction with no joints to act as "vibration walls" is something Wilson-Benesch discovered in its costly research and its part of what makes the Supatrac arm sound as it does along with the "why didn't anyone think of this decades ago?" bearing design.

Mr. Braine is correct: if you don't like it, buy something else! What else can someone in his position say? He told me that following my review, he found himself 90 arms behind. He's just catching up. So why would he say to you anything else? You sound more like an enemy desirous of disparaging the product and the entrepreneur. If you think that's not true, go back and read your thread!

 

[mtemur]

Had you bothered to read my original review of the Blackbird you'd have noted that I was very critical of the product's presentation, documentation and other things. My review was not a "love fest" nor did I cover up the many presentational and other deficiencies, most if not all of which have since been greatly improved.

The Nighthawk is considerably different than the Blackbird though it might not be readily apparent in a quick look. You reference scratches but not which: i see a few minor ones on the arm and the usual ones where the point contacts the thrust box. That will have no bearing (no pun intended) on sonic or mechanical performance. It's the inevitable result of the point's movement during set-up and adjustment.

Many of the comments here about costs, DIY, etc. demonstrate very little understanding of how these small start-up businesses operate or the arc of their cost and pricing considerations. This began as a "home based" enterprise and retail cost projections proved to be way off. Mr. Braine decided he'd like to make this a profitable enterprise and so had to raise prices. So many similar businesses manufacturing excellent products fail. No one who owns one of these arms would want to see that, I'm quite sure.

Mr. Braine is not the enemy nor is he trying to make a 'quick buck', which seems to be the tone here.

Early buyers got both a bargain and an even more primitive build quality and presentation that was DIY for sure but you have to hear this arm to understand its sonic power. It's not hype you're reading in the reviews. Before proclaiming the Nighthawk as "not too different" from the Blackbird, why not learn about the differences? The similarities are conceptual. The differences in construction and parts are very different. The costs cannot be similar.

To move from at home assembly to an outside location must increase costs. and requires a considerable financial investment. At some point costs can decrease as efficiency increases and ordering parts in larger numbers also brings costs down, but there's the middle period---the dangerous growth time--- that Supatrac and any company seeking to move from "garage' to small remote assembly facility—must go through in terms of rent, insurance, staffing, etc.

The original "introductory" Blackbird price was unrealistically low, or perhaps Mr. Braine priced it as a "loss leader" to get the ball rolling. I don't know, but comparing the Blackbird initial price to the Nighthawk's $16K price is an unfair comparison.

I don't know what arm compares sonically to the Nighthawk at its current price. The design will always look semi-DIY because of how its conceived and the advantages of one piece construction with no joints to act as "vibration walls" is something Wilson-Benesch discovered in its costly research and its part of what makes the Supatrac arm sound as it does along with the "why didn't anyone think of this decades ago?" bearing design.

Mr. Braine is correct: if you don't like it, buy something else! What else can someone in his position say? He told me that following my review, he found himself 90 arms behind. He's just catching up. So why would he say to you anything else? You sound more like an enemy desirous of disparaging the product and the entrepreneur. If you think that's not true, go back and read your thread!

First of all, Mr. Braine is not right in the way he responds to customers who raise concerns about build quality. He, or any manufacturer, cannot simply say, “If you don’t like it, buy something else!” I don’t need his—or any other manufacturer’s—permission to make that decision. That kind of response is snobbish and condescending in my opinion. What is reasonably expected from a manufacturer is to take such concerns seriously and respond in a constructive, explanatory manner.

Second point is, nobody is questioning your Blackbird review or accuracy of the the review, at least I don't. But why are you responding in such a defendant way? Manufacturer of Supatrac supposed to do that. From that perspective, your replies come across as if you’re speaking on behalf of the company. If you don’t think that’s the case, I suggest re-reading your own post.

 

[TrackingAngle]

We have to realize that Supatrac has gone from a personal endeavour to a small one man company to what now requires full scale production, support and distribution in less than a year. This is a very demanding process which comes with much higher costs involved while also having to provide their global partners with proper margins.

/ Marcus, www.perfect-sense.se

you do make perfect sense

 

[TrackingAngle]

First of all, Mr. Braine is not right in the way he responds to customers who raise concerns about build quality. He, or any manufacturer, cannot simply say, “If you don’t like it, buy something else!” I don’t need his—or any other manufacturer’s—permission to make that decision. That kind of response is snobbish and condescending in my opinion. What is reasonably expected from a manufacturer is to take such concerns seriously and respond in a constructive, explanatory manner.

Second point is, nobody is questioning your Blackbird review or accuracy of the the review, at least I don't. But why are you responding in such a defendant way? Manufacturer of Supatrac supposed to do that. From that perspective, your replies come across as if you’re speaking on behalf of the company. If you don’t think that’s the case, I suggest re-reading your own post.

I didn't say you or anyone questioned the accuracy of my review, which contained many negative comments, nor do I think what I wrote was 'defensive' (which is the word I think you meant). Actually I went on offense because the posts about this product and the manufacturer's are offensive, for some reason adversarial and way off the mark.

Not necessarily for Supatrac alone but for any start-up in this realm. Again, the comments claiming his pricing is designed to "make a buck" are wrong. I wish you'd have addressed the more important issue of claiming the two arms look similar and so the price of the more costly one is excessive, and while those are not your exact words, they were what you claimed.

I just wish you'd go back and read your comment that prompted my "defensive" response because I think it goes to unnecessary places about motives, in part because you didn't know the fundamental differences between the two arms that resulted in the higher price, especially compared to the unrealistic original price!

 

[SUPATRAC]

Criticism is always useful to hear. As I've explained above, the finish of my arms is not my highest priority, whereas the best musical performance is. If I charged the same price as SAT I could probably set about not using 3D printed parts, which often contain inconsistensies, like knots in wood. Another priority which is well above finish is the maintenance and service, especially DIY maintenance in service, because most of my customers are overseas, and if they are anything like me, they will prefer not to have to send their wonderful SUPATRAC arms across the oceans repeatedly.

I heard of one SAT customer who loosened the bearings before shipping the arm back. Yikes. I didn't want to make a fragile product, I wanted to make a robust one which would last for centuries, and I think I have.

I accept that the finish matters more to some people than some other aspects of a design, but there is no shortage of beautiful tone-arms out there from manufacturers who take finish very seriously and charge much more money for a hand-crafted tone-arm than I do.

This all said, most of the parts are coated with Cerakote which is a hard-wearing ceramic paint with a very nice wipe-able finish, and in general I don't think the finish of SUPATRAC arms is bad at all. The price reflects the work involved in designing, making and bringing them to market.

Even very expensive arms are not Fabergé eggs.

Michael is right that I priced the Blackbird as a loss-leader to get the business started, and he's right that it's tough for a small business serving a market which is a niche of a niche of a niche to stay afloat, let alone pay me and my elves more than minimum wage. If you saw my patent lawyers' bills you would wonder why I bother.

Anyway, cheers and happy listening to all, whether you're a SUPATRACker or not!

 

[SUPATRAC]

I've finally uploaded a very rudimentary installation video here:

All criticism, good and bad, gratefully received.

 

[adyc]

I recently received the Nighthawk and inside the case there is a piece of straight rod which I have to bend to make the arm rest according to not so clear instructions in the manual. I am not happy about that I need to make the arm rest myself with such an expensive arm.

 

[SUPATRAC]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. In most cases the arm rest is not necessary at all because the arm sits quite happily on the lever lift platform. Whether it is needed depends on the position of the arm board hole relative to the platter. I have tried to make the arm as universal as possible, not just for the wide range of decks out there, but also for customers who decide to change their decks and keep their SUPATRAC arms.

Due to the nature of the SUPATRAC bearing, the pillar orientation is determined by the correct skating force window, and this means that the arm rest position is a moveable feast. This affects not just the initial angle of the rest at the locking end, but also the slope at the loose end.

The rest is easily bent and re-bent, and we can offer replacements if you get in a tangle. It's a practical solution to a highly variable requirement, but I will look for others. I will also make a more detailed video about viable ways to bend it.

 

[beaur]

IMHO, we’re witnessing another SAT case here.

After receiving a positive response to the marketing of the $3,000 DIY-looking Blackbird, a not-too-different Nighthawk was quickly released. DIY aesthetics and modest build quality may be acceptable at a $3,000 price point, but at $16,000, concerns were understandably raised.

When the build quality didn’t convince some members, like @thekong and @SCULLERHBW, they pointed out scratches on the finish. One would expect the manufacturer to promise an investigation and improvements, but instead, @SUPATRAC responded by suggesting those unhappy should look for other brands.

Similarly, one might expect a reviewer to take such complaints seriously and stand with customers—after all, $16,000 is hardly a bargain for a tonearm even in today’s hi-fi market. Instead, we got a joke from @TrackingAngle, comparing scratches on a sellable, manufactured product to the lines on the face of a human being.

The original arm's price was essentially doubled from his original asking and is still available. The newer/upgraded arm is the one I believe you are talking about. Don't know if that one is worth the extra cash but the market will determine that.

I have the original and while I haven't been able to use it that much (armboard issues) it's well worth the $5K cost for it currently. I got in on the ground level and I am glad I did but I would still recommend the arm to anyone looking in that $5K range.

Beau