New SME Flagship Model 60

[bazelio]

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.

 

[ddk]

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 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.

david

 

[bazelio]

Compared to AS2000 almost everything else will lack resolution

david

David, which tables come closest? New or old.

 

[ddk]

David, which tables come closest? New or old.

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

 

[mtemur]

It was this post of yours that I replied to nothing to do with anything SME.

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.

"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."

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.

 

[ddk]

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.

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!
As I mentioned clearly right at the start there's absolutely nothing in common between the two tables sonically or design wise aside from the vacuum and the floating platter.

david

 

[mtemur]

This is how people respond when they bullshit!!!

david

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.

 

[ddk]

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.

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.
Anyone with the least experience with the two would know that there are fundamental differences in the plinth mass, structure, form ie dispersion of mass and suspension between the two. The platters are fundamentally different with their individual materials and mass, even structurally their arm boards are completely different and you're claiming that the two still sound the same. The only scenario that would be true would be in a highly colored and low resolution system.

david

 

[mtemur]

You also claim to deal with Techdas but never mentioned in what capacity.

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.

The platters are fundamentally different with their individual materials and mass,

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?

you're claiming that the two still sound the same

no, I claim they sound similar. there is a difference between same and similar.
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.

The only scenario that would be true would be in a highly colored and low resolution system.

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.

 

[ddk]

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.

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 already said that platters are made of different materials but mass? AF1has 30kg platter and AF3P has 29kg. is 1kg difference of mass huge?

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.

no, I claim they sound similar. there is a difference between same and similar.

There's no similarity in sonic character between AF1 & AF3 because they're built very differently.

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.

There isn't one, can't comment on the AF0 but nothing similar between AF1 & AF3.

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.

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.

david

 

[mtemur]

AF1 & AF3

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.

 

[ddk]

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/AF1P vs AF3/AF3P same comments.
david

 

[microstrip]

I think your reformulation (emphasis added) of what the author probably intended is excellent.

Unfortunately the reformulation is technically meaningless and changes the very simple ideas of Hideaki Nishikawa. Anyone knowing about his participation in high-end activities knows that all we get are translations of his Japanese words and taking just a short sentence from context can be misleading. People wanting to know what is meant should read the whole paragraph and his interviews that state his opinion on digital - I am not interested in discussing alternative interpretations including "ambient noise". A short quote from a few paragraphs article of the HifiNews 2013 Year Book on the AF0 is not worth the time. If people want to know the real work of Hideaki Nishikawa they need to read about it elsewhere. Linguistics will not help!

 

[Loheswaran]

Hey guys - I thought this was about the new SME flagship. Not yet another one about the MS, AF1 and the AS2000.

I think I understand the change of SME direction insofar as they are possibly seeking to tap into the watch buying market - ie you don’t buy a Patek Phillipe then change the strap. Therefore I get the idea in respect of the new arm being part of an integrated package which clearly works.

The new owners seem to have done a U-Turn over some of their arms - although they have decided that adding a few 00's adds value! It may show a lack of understanding of the market - that said we may be wrong... The new owner looks at this as a business and is a multi-millionaire.

Perhaps they should do the 'integrated package' for the nouveau riche and another for the more seasoned audiophile who knows what they are doing.

Another trick that has been fundamentally missed is the ability to mount extra arms. I understand that the Graham arm works really well with the SME decks.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

 

[PeterA]

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 was once told that the suspension system is specifically designed for exact weights at each corner. Each tower is slightly different depending on the load at that corner. Adding another tonearm and armboard would necessitate a rebalancing of the suspension towers and the rubber band structure. This makes sense to me but there may be other reasons also.

We will have more to discuss about this new turntable once more people have heard it. Now that Michael Fremer has moved to TAS, it will be interesting to see if they do a review of this turntable and if he or Valin actually does it.

 

[Loheswaran]

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 -

 

[Audiophile Bill]

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 -

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.

 

[Loheswaran]

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?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

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?

The oil was removed in the new design. There was damping in the old legs.