2. analog
  3. 134929-245

SAT 30K+$$ TONEARM: W O R T H T O H A V E I T ?

http://www.swedishat.com/

That is the everywhere touted and very expensive tonearm. Touted by all professional reviewers and obviously " satisfied " owners ( around 70 of them. ).

Here some reviews:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2014/06/sat-swedish-analog-technologies-tonearm.html

http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/AirForce%20III_SAT_HiFi+_0817.pdf

and you can look elsewhere the TAS one and others.

Obviously that the proudly owners started to buy the tonearm because those reviews and trhough audio shows but mainly for the " great " reviews.

It was ranked class A in Stereophile and I know are coming two new models that inludes a 12" tonearm.

Other than the very high price I never was interested on the tonearm design due that is totally out of my budget. Its price cost what a decent whole audio system cost.

Anyway, a few months ago in an other analog forum and through a TT review the SAT appeared in that discussion thread and was here when I decided to analize this regarded tonearm design where I found out that those 30K+ dollars are a true money lost and does not matters of what reviewers and owners think about where there are not clear facts all of them are extremely satisfied with the SAT.



Let me explain a little why I said that through my post to MF:


"""""""

from your Stereophile review the SAT specs are as follows: P2S: 212.2mm, overhang: 22.8mm, offset angle 26.10° with an effective length: 235mm.


Those numbers tell us that you are listening ( with any cartridge. ) way higher distortion levels, that you just do not detected even today, against almost any other tonearm/cartridge combination.


Obviously that the SAT needs a dedicated protractor to make the cartridge/tonearm set up but we have to analize what those specs/numbers has to say:

the SAT maximum traking error is a really high: 3.09° when in a normal ( Jelco or Ortofon. ) 235m Effective Length tonearm Löfgren A alignment ( IEC standard. ) is only: 1.84°

the SAT maximum distortion % level is: 2.67 when in that normal tonearm only 0.633

the SAT average RMS % distortion is: 0.616 when in normal tonearm only :
0.412 ( Löfgren B even lower: 0.37 ).

All those makes that the linnear offset in the SAT be 10mm longer than in a normal tonearm ! !

All those are facts and you or Mr. Gomez can’t do nothing to change it. Pure mathematics reality.

You posted in that review: """ Marc Gomez has chosen null points of 80 and 126mm instead of the more commonly used 66 and 121mm. """

that’s a deep misunderstood on tonearm/cartridge alignment input/output calulations in the overall equations used for that alignment:

NULL POINTS WERE NOT CHOOSED BY MR. GOMEZ BUT ARE PART OF THE OUTPUT DATA ON THOSE ALIGNMENTS CALCULATIONS.

In the same is not true your statement: """ the more commonly used 66 and 121mm. """

that " commonly " just does not exist and only depends of the standard choosed for the calculations.

There are several other things in that SAT design that not only are not orthodox but that has a negative influence in what we are listening it:

he said that the tonearm owner can change the bearing friction levels and this characteristics could tell to you that’s a " good thing " but it’s not but all the way the opposite because makes not a fully 100% steady bearings.

Ask you a question?: why the best top cartridges use cantilevers of boron and not carbon fiber, it does not matters that laminated carbon fiber the SAT has.

Carbon fiber is way resonant no matter what. In the past existed cartridges with CF cantilever and sounds inferior to the boron ones. ....................................................................................................................................................................... the designer was and is proud that the tonearm self resonance happens at around 2.8khz, go figure ! ! !. It happens way inside the human been frequency range instead to stays out of that frequency range. """"



Dear friends and owners of the SAT: way before the mounted cartridge on it hits the very first LP groove and against any other vintage or today tonearm you have way higher distortions that per sé preclude you can listen a real and true top quality level performance and does not matters the audio system you own.


What we can listen through the SAT is an inferior quality performance levels with higher distortions. Obviously that all reviewers and owners like those heavy distortions but that does not means they are rigth because and with all respect all of them are wrong.


Some one send the link of what I posted to the SAT designer and latter on ( I do not knew he read my post. ) I ask for him for the information about the effective mass of the SAT. He gave me a " rude " answer and did not disclose that information that in reallity was not important in that moment.



I have to say that at least two professional reviewers bougth the SAT tonearm., both with the Continnum/Cobra TT/tonearm. At least one of them say the SAT outperforms the Cobra one ( maybe both, who knows why bougth it the other reviewer. )

The credentials of the SAT designer are impecable and really impressive ones but no single of those credentials speaks about audio and certainly not on analog audio.

He is a true " roockie " enthusiast ( and I say it with respect.) and obviously that is welcomed in the high-end " arena/area/ring " where all of us are learning at each single day. Any one that’s marketing an audio item has a true merit and this is not under discussion: SAT designer has his own merit for that.

You that are reading this thread permit me to ask: what do you think, overall, about?, at the end audiophiles are the ones that has the last " word " or should be that way.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.






Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
9,123 posts
 
Dear @jareko :  """  I bought it, because it is as much free of distortions as could hear, ....."""

How do you know with certainty that: " as much FREE distortions?  how do you know that those " free distortions " are not only new distortions levels listened for you by the very first time?  where are those facts that can tell you for sure about " those free distortions?

If you have the answers about you only have to share with every one including the designer and reviewers.

I will repeat what I already posted:

WITH ANY CARTRIDGE MOUNTED AND ALIGNED IN THAT TONEARM  AND  BEFORE THE CARTRIDGE STYLUS TIP HITS THE FIRST RECORDED LP GROOVE THIS TONEARM HAS HIGHER DISTORTIONS THAN ANY OTHER TONEARM IN THE MARKET .

That is a proved fact and objective one and till this moment nowhere the designer or reviewers  refute/deny with true facts that my statements here are wrong/false. I hope you can do something to put some ligth on that " free distortions ".


"""  This is another kind of "theoretical" discussion. Do the people that criticize the SAT arm design actually had the arm in their system ? ....."""


No sir it's not theorethical and I have to say that I don't need to listen the tonearm because your self and my self training in audio/MUSIC certainly is different and I know is different because your question that says you can't understand how in " hell " I can speak that way.
When you through your future audio/MUSIC self training experiences  permit you can understand that subject then you are " there " and you will know what I'm talking about.

Btw, I'm not diminish its build quality level and excecution of the tonearm, it's not the subject. No one charge 30K+ in a tonearm just for fun.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


chakster's avatar
chakster
2,482 posts
 
I think it’s not new that SAEC, SONY, even Technics comes with their own protractors for some reason, if we set-up those arms with their own "unique" protractors and then will put the needle on Stevenson, Baerwald, Lofgren if will be off!

Why those big Japanese manufacturers developed their own proctactors if they could simply use one of the well known at that time Stevenson, Baerwald, Lofgren @rauliruegas ?
invictus005
597 posts
 
@rauliruegas I disagree Raul. Hundreds of companies charge ridiculous amounts of money for all sorts of products and it's not because they're worth that. And sure some do it for fun too. 
perkri
39 posts
 
@rauliruegas
It would seem, that you have in your post, managed to reduce all who love listening to music to mindless sheep who have no concept of reproduction, or the validity of their ears when it comes to what they like to hear. Clearly, we are not to have an emotional response to the way music is reproduced in our homes, but rather, from the mouth of God to the ears of Stevenson, Baerwald and Lofgren we are to bow down at their subjective notions of what the "truth" is when interpreting information that has been embedded into a medium in a manner which is in complete opposition to how it is being reproduced (unless you are using a linear tracking arm which comes with it’s own set of challenges)... The whole is, when done properly, always greater than the sum of it’s parts. Throughout history, the "rules" that have been dogmatically perpetuated by myopic facilitators of a particular belief system, have been broken by those who have stepped outside of the box and have brought their own insights to how a "problem" should be addressed.

I have never heard the SAT, although I would love the opportunity to have it A/B’d so I might hear whatever benefit it may or may not bring to a recording. And I suspect, 30K is an amount that I will never be able to put towards a tonearm. That does not mean that I would ever dismiss it because a set of numbers do not, on paper, make sense.

The proof is in the pudding.

@chakster I tend to agree. Every device is unique and as such would benefit from its own implementation of geometry when translating what is essentially a straight line, into a portion of a circle.



larryi
1,972 posts
 
If one were to go by theoretical calculations of distortion or other performance measurements, why would one bother at all with vinyl?  By many orders of magnitude, digital reproduction has lower distortion, less problems with speed variation, etc.  But, we all know that measurement does not come close to correlating with what we hear and prefer.  There is nothing wrong with discussing the theory and engineering decisions made for the SAT arm, or any other arm.  But, drawing conclusions that it is impossible for the arm to sound good and/or that any purchasing the arm is a dupe, without having any actual experience with the arm, merely exposes one's prejudices, and that isn't enlightening at all.

I still don't understand whether the supposed geometry problems with the arm involve the setup tools that come with the arm or whether it is somehow built into the arm and cannot be overcome by using a third-party protractor.  Anyone care to explain?
More to discover