It made it more present, with apparent increased bass. Like if we were listening closer to the instruments - we could think it was a different mastering. Just for you that are a SME person - something in the same scale of difference as going from SMEV to SME 3012R.
SAT Direct Drive Turntable!
- Thread starter lordcloud
- Start date
It made it more present, with apparent increased bass. Like if we were listening closer to the instruments - we could think it was a different mastering. Just for you that are a SME person - something in the same scale of difference as going from SMEV to SME 3012R.
Thanks for that. Most interesting. I realize it is only your opinion, but I appreciate your sharing it. Bass amount and listening perspective are two things I hear as quite variable in the systems I have heard recently. Are you suggesting the 3012R is more like the SAT, and the SME V is more like the Graham in this sense of bass enhancement and listening perspective, or visa versa?
IMHO the SAT is more SME3012R, the Graham is more reserved, like the SMEV.
Thanks. I completely agree that Fremer's comments and that digital comparison were quite interesting. He is certainly devoted and works hard to share his opinions. I appreciate his efforts.
I also realize that vinyl has much do to with preference. I am amazed at how easy it is to alter the sound with adjustments to the cartridge/arm set up and with such things as loading. Of course, small changes to speaker position can also drastically change the sound of some systems. Don't know about accuracy per se. Tape is closer to the source, except for perhaps direct to disk LPs. Digital is also about accuracy, though the DACs I have recently heard all sound quite different.
I don't think "people" figure your opinion contradicts Fremer's. It is just I, alone, who is curious that you describe the SAT arm, admittedly in this one, unusual, and unique, setting, as enhancing the sound, relative to what the Graham did in a direct comparison. That language seems quite different from the way Fremer has described the sound of the SAT arm in his various comments. He describes it as retrieving the sound from the grooves, being very accurate, low in distortion, etc. That's all. No big deal.
Thanks. I guess what is more important to me is which has less sonic signature, or in other words, which allows more of an individual recording's attributes to come through and be experience by the listener. There might well be a difference of opinion here too. I don't see how a component that "enhances" bass or moves the listening perspective forward can also be more transparent to the recording, but neither would be a component that is more reserved with what might be a lessening of bass performance and a more recessed listening perspective. For me, the "better" component would be the one which has less of an identifiable signature, which in your one listening session, seemed to be the Graham, at least in your opinion.
So here we are again. Different sonic attributes, different preferences, and what matters more in terms of one's own priorities. This is precisely why we often disagree in these threads, and about what we like in general. What would be discuss on audio forums if we could all agree?
Thanks, Fransisco.
Peter,
I think that this dubious definition is the source of many disagreements. Less sonic signature does not mean that it should carry more information. The process of sound reproduction is selective - the information carried in the recording is always manipulated, some information is fortunately lost during playback , as it would affect our enjoyment and illusion and other is enhanced, making it more easily perceived. One of the main problems of some digital is the excess of recording information, making it sound artificial and tiresome.
Consider for example, the stereo image. It would not exist as we like it if did not add the reflections in our room. It is known that this process will mask some information - it is why most professionals listen in the near field, in a very absorbent room.
The whole process of stereo is too imperfect and subjective to allow such dogmatic definitions. Except for those cases of evident coloration or distortion, rankings of sonic signature (our the damn neutrality) are meaningless as they depend mainly on listener preference.
Well, I qualified my statement by writing "...what is more important to me...." I am not trying to define anything or make the connection you are suggesting and I highlight in BOLD. All I am saying is that I prefer systems and individual components, that impart less of their own sonic imprint on the music. I'm sure my system and components are flawed in some or many ways, yet I have chosen them because during auditions in my system with most of them, they got me closer to my recordings. I have recently experimented with cables and power cords. Some sounded great but made each recording sound similar in both listening perspective, some tonal aspects, and soundstage information. I selected the combination which revealed greater differences between my recordings, regardless of how much "information" the component revealed, although, there was usually a correlation between information retrieval and transparency to the recording.
Perhaps my definitions are different from yours and we may have different priorities. Certainly, we each choose things we prefer, for whatever reason we decide.
If you describe the SAT arm as "enhancing" bass and presenting a closer listening experience, that is an interesting observation to me. If it was only based on one recording, then I agree with you that it doesn't say much about how it would sound with other recordings nor how transparent to recordings in general, it is.
I must have presumed this was a sonic attribute of the SAT arm, and not how it sounded relative to the Graham on just one recording on vinyl and then compared to the same recording on tape. Yours was a very specific observation and not a general one. I apologize for that misunderstanding.
In Munich, I asked Marc Gomez about the price of his new turntable. He said the final price has not been set but expect it to be in region of TechDAS Air Force One turntable.
comparing my Phantom to the 3012-R - I would agree. I much prefer the 3012-R. Sounds like I would like the SAT as well
6k for the technics motor and 100k for the plinth.
YHO is totally off the mark micro. I already setup 4 AS2000's with both SAT & 3012-R side by and there's absolutely no sonic commonality between the SAT 9" or 12" and any of the SME tonearms, specially the 3012-R! You don't even need side by side comparison you can hear them on separate turntables and you'd know that they come from different worlds, both in target sound and ergonomics are total and complete opposites. I've setup several Graham's too, it's closer to the SME's than many other arms I've tried and not so reserved at all.
david
People who like the SAT tonearms find them to sound very high in resolution, very detailed and very transparent.
People for whom the SAT is not their particular cup of tonearm tea find the SAT tonearms to sound analytical and to sound less natural, less like real music than the 3012R.
People for whom the SAT is not their particular cup of tonearm tea find the SAT tonearms to sound analytical and to sound less natural, less like real music than the 3012R.
