You’re right he doesn’t say. IMHO the idea behind that depends on better reading of lower bass information in the grooves by safir 9 (that’s the claim of writer not mine).
Since safir 9 has higher mass than almost all tonearms existed, resonance frequency drops to approximately 5Hz for possible candidate cartridges. IMHO writer tries to say that better bass performance and lower resonant frequency of safir 9 requires a high mass turntable because a high mass turntable has a lower resonance frequency, lower rumble, noise etc compared to a lower mass turntable. That’s not always true and mostly depends on implementation and design of the turntable. Writer also recommends immovable object of an equipment stand. IMHO again it is recommended for the same reason, better lower bass reproduction by eliminating air borne and structure borne vibrations. I think a turntable with vacuum hold down option should be considered with safir 9 because high mass tonearm would load suspension of the cartridge more and sometimes very hard on warped records compared to a low mass one.
Your comments are interesting, but I cannot attribute them to what the "writer" meant to say but could not. The product and the reader deserve better coverage.
Edit-orial: I believe this particular magazine is used by many in the industry as 'practice grounds' for newly launched products, before submitting them to the scrutiny of the real press. It is not uncommon to see first reviews at hifi+. If the manufacturer receives anything less that blanket praise he knows perhaps his product is not what he thinks it is, or to be wary of who subsequently may write a real review.
Last edited: