It will be good if your friends using Graham and Triplanar on SME tables can produce the level of resolution of this EMT 30st with Heifetz Sibelius. Speaker's corner reissue so easy access
Neither arm is exactly a bellwether of resolution.
It will be good if your friends using Graham and Triplanar on SME tables can produce the level of resolution of this EMT 30st with Heifetz Sibelius. Speaker's corner reissue so easy access
Compared to AS2000 almost everything else will lack resolution but I always found the 927 had something unique in it's sound and and aside from low bass never fond it lacking really but this is neither here nor there.It does lack resolution comparing to the American Sound and also has different kind of bass. The EMT banana arm and Ortofon 297 that came with it lack resolution even more.
Compared to AS2000 almost everything else will lack resolution
david
There's still a clear audible difference but the original AS1000 then followed by MS 8000mk2 or SZ-1 won't leave you wanting in any department. AF0 is the only ultimate tt that I haven't spent time with so I can't comment on where it stands.David, which tables come closest? New or old.
please read from the beginning of the discussion. @PeterA mentioned how similar SME 30/12 and AF1 sound and I shared my opinions about that. my point about that discussion was how different SME 30/12 sounds compared to AF1.It was this post of yours that I replied to nothing to do with anything SME.
if that is your explanation of differences than here is my explanation of similarities: Other than air suspension feet and different platter materials there is no distinct difference between those turntables. please point out differences sonically."Aside from floating platters and vacuum which other completely different tts also have please point out a single commonality between the two models, physically or sonically."
This is how people respond when they bullshit!!! They turn the argument around like you keep doing! Next you want to argue that they're the same because their platters spin!please read from the beginning of the discussion. @PeterA mentioned how similar SME 30/12 and AF1 sound and I shared my opinions about that. my point about that discussion was how different SME 30/12 sounds compared to AF1.
nobody's after slight differences between AF1 and AF3P although they sound very similar. even AF3P is a better turntable than SME 30/12 let alone AF1. if you exclude SME from that discussion than you answered a question which was never asked.
if that is your explanation of differences than here is my explanation of similarities: Other than air suspension feet and different platter materials there is no distinct difference between those turntables sonically.
you answered like that first, I just followed your way of responding. there is no need to be rude. people usually become rude when they're out of answers.This is how people respond when they bullshit!!!
david
You never responded and and still haven't given a straight answer so I was blunt not rude! You also claim to deal with Techdas but never mentioned in what capacity.you answered like that first, I just followed your way of responding. there is no need to be rude. people usually become rude when they're out of answers.
I set them up as a profession and listen them hundreds of hours as a hobby. you also mentioned you deal with techdas. details please.You also claim to deal with Techdas but never mentioned in what capacity.
I already said that platters are made of different materials but mass? AF1has 30kg platter and AF3P has 29kg. is 1kg difference of mass huge?The platters are fundamentally different with their individual materials and mass,
no, I claim they sound similar. there is a difference between same and similar.you're claiming that the two still sound the same
I wouldn't be so sure about that on the contrary it is a very revealing system or I should say systems cause I heard techdas turntables with various systems many times. they are very hi end, high resolution and not colored systems. even a small mpingo disc's sound can be heard. additionally when we switched turntable to SME 30/12 sound changed dramatically. that's why I replied @PeterA in the first place.The only scenario that would be true would be in a highly colored and low resolution system.
Then as per forum rules you should make it clear in your signature that you're in the industry. I own them and set them up for friends and clients.I set them up as a profession and listen them hundreds of hours as a hobby. you also mentioned you deal with techdas. details please.
That't the point each material has a very distinct sonic character that's why on the AF1 multiple inner platters are offered and yes the 1kg combined with the bass mass has a direct impact on sound.I already said that platters are made of different materials but mass? AF1has 30kg platter and AF3P has 29kg. is 1kg difference of mass huge?
There's no similarity in sonic character between AF1 & AF3 because they're built very differently.no, I claim they sound similar. there is a difference between same and similar.
There isn't one, can't comment on the AF0 but nothing similar between AF1 & AF3.AF2P has a different plinth, armboards, air suspension feet, 33kg platter (which is 4 kg heavier than AF3P) but still similar sounding cause there is a house sound of techdas turntables almost like any other brand and I like them a lot.
I'm not arguing just stating that you're wrong regarding the sound of the two AF1 & AF3, you're welcome to disagree of course but you're right that continuing won't resolve anything between us.I wouldn't be so sure about that on the contrary it is a very revealing system or I should say systems cause I heard techdas turntables with various systems many times. they are very hi end, high resolution and not colored systems. even a small mpingo disc's sound can be heard. additionally when we switched turntable to SME 30/12 sound changed dramatically. that's why I replied @PeterA in the first place.
this argument is going nowhere I suggest it's best to finish it.
maybe there is a misunderstanding cause you've written AF3 on all your responses but I was referring to AF3P (premium) all the time. or maybe you meant AF3P. it's not important we understand each other. and there used to be a AF2P which was a great turntable.AF1 & AF3
AF1/AF1P vs AF3/AF3P same comments.maybe there is a misunderstanding cause you've written AF3 on all your responses but I was referring to AF3P (premium) all the time. or maybe you meant AF3P. it's not important we understand each other. and there used to be a AF2P which was a great turntable.
I think your reformulation (emphasis added) of what the author probably intended is excellent.
Another trick that has been fundamentally missed is the ability to mount extra arms.
When you write "fundamentally missed" I'm not sure what you really mean. It must have been a deliberate design decision, for some reason, to foreclose the possibility of mounting other tonearms? I suspect there must be some well-considered business or design or marketing reason for this.
It's unlikely that they simply forgot about the concept of mounting more than one tonearm on a turntable, I think.
When you write "fundamentally missed" I'm not sure what you really mean. It must have been a deliberate design decision, for some reason, to foreclose the possibility of mounting other tonearms? I suspect there must be some well-considered business or design or marketing reason for this.
It's unlikely that they simply forgot about the concept of mounting more than one tonearm on a turntable, I think.
I meant fundamentally missed because the current high end trend appears to be the ability to mount 2, 3, even 4 arms.
I get what you say about the well considered business/marketing as you said. Perhaps you didn't pick it up from my post - that said it's the same business that did a u-turn over tonearm sales which was how its audio business started...
I am not for a second saying they forgot - that's why i say 'fundamentally missed'. I hope not to be repeating myself but the likes of AF, AS etc have the option to mount more arms. it's why i suggested the it as being an option given that one poster made the point about trying the new arm with his current SME or his current SME arm with the new deck. High end analogue has a lot of inveterate fiddlers.
As to a Fremer review... I find them of use in seeing what's out there only -
The only honest reviews are from HiFi Critic magazine. That said they are still a tad Linn/Naim centric.Not sure whether you read the hifi news review - my hard copy arrived last week. I was very disappointed indeed with the review. I always like the measurements section as they provide some objective criteria. The rest of the review I found boring and of little interest. I wanted a thorough description of the sound relative to the 30/2 and 30/12 and then some qualitative description about the sound vis a vis other reference TTs that he has had in room. It is a shame that Ken Kessler didn’t review it as he has been a long standing SME 30 owner and could have potentially filled in the blanks.
The only honest reviews are from HiFi Critic magazine. That said they are still a tad Linn/Naim centric.
The problem is that manufacturers pay for reviews and give say on the final press copy.
I have spoken to several cartridge manufacturers and most concur that you get to a certain level and with TT’s diminishing returns massively kick in.
I am interested in how they want to take the SME design philosophy forwards by just covering the O rings.
Call me an idiot if you want but my understanding of suspension derives from cars and springs alone (elastomers/springs/o rings) give an almost equal reaction to an input hence resonance can/does arrive. It is for this reason we have damping in the form of oils or air pressure release. I wonder if that is part of the new design?
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |