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
Raul - all good and well talking theory - but have you heard an SAT?

If it's a cost/value vs performance question - I agree I think it is a waste of money. We know a 'law of demising returns' kicks in, but clearly the SAT somehow does have those further returns. 

People who have the coin, having optimised everything else are always in pursuit of that tiny bit extra - I reckon things like those harmonix record pucks fall into the same category of adding those 'last touches'.

If I was in the market for a cost no object tonearm it would have to be a parallel tracker - Schroeder LT, Thales, Kuzma Airline... As much as I love vinyl - the geometry issue is an achilles heal with nearly all tangential arms
parrotbee
...  As much as I love vinyl - the geometry issue is an achilles heal with nearly all tangential arms
You meant pivoted arms, not tangential, correct?
Many linear trackers fail to maintain tangency, btw, especially those that rely on a servo mechanism.

LOL - brain fade typing moment - yes - you have guessed right - pivoted arms

I only have pivoted arms - my only parallel arm is on a B and O 4002 that I am restoring to put in my wifes' downstairs AV system - I know I digress from the OP thread about the SAT arm, but Tim Jarman at HiFi News explained that the B & O carts unlike any other cartridges were designed to go into a parallel tracking arm, and contrary to snobish Audiophile beliefs the B&O's were in fact superb turntables that really were a 'complete approach' that delivered a very good sound.
Dear @parrotbee : No, I don't heard it yet.

"""  clearly the SAT somehow does have those further returns.
People who have the coin, having optimised everything else are always in pursuit of that tiny bit extra - """

everything has that " returns ". The main subject here is that even if we like what we are lisetning through an item like this what we like is something that's " severe " faulty by design. As if was made in on purpose.
Why something " faulty " could makes  that we like it?.

Well, first because is a new listening experience that sounds different of what we are more or less accustom to. Second, because we already bougth it and with a so high price tag we have to convince our self that is excellent. Third, because all ignorant reviewers said is excellent, so it " has to be ".  Fourth, whatever you want to say.

The real issue here is not if we like it or not but that the SAT alignment is totally wrong about the distortions generated against almost any other pivoted tonearm, even against Stevenson A alignment.

What is incredible and bording in the ridicolous is that in all the reviews made it in the audio magazines made it by in " theory " proffesional analog experts no one of them made it what a gentleman here who is a SAT's owner did it: he tested with a different kind of alignment.

That gentleman is @tli . He posted that did not like it what he listen and the main reason was ( maybe I'm wrong. @tli can tell us. ) because he made the different alignment tests with the same P2S distance.
That's why I recomended him and other owners to intent new tests with the rigth different alignment parameters and I gave to all of them. 

If the SAT is so good pivoted tonearm then makes no sense that with way lower tracking error and distortion levels with the different alignment can't performs way better. One thing is for sure can't performs bad.

Btw, one of those professional reviewers ( and that's why I speak of corrupted AHEE. ) followed with the SAT a different " protocol " that what he showed with other tonearms under review.

One of his latest reviews was a TT that comes designed with its own tonearm and he received with a top LOMC cartridge mounted and previously aligned.
Well, before he test it as the manufacturer gave to him  his first move was ( with out reason. ) to change the cartridge/tonearm alignment ! ! ! and through his SAT review time he never did it.
Even he bougth the SAT and did not do it as @tli did it whom is not a " professional reviewer but an audiophile as you or me ! ! 

Not only that,  those reviewers already know the SAT alignment " problem " and no one of them made it till now any comment to their readers but neither the SAT manufacturer or its dealers.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear friends/owners:   In other thread a gentleman ( @perkri )  who made a reference to this SAT thread posted:

""   Music, live or reproduced, is not about math. It is about ART ""

Yes, MUSIC is ART ( btw, has implicit maths. ) and as ART we like to preserve its integrity. It's like a paint and original one of say Goya.

What is what a museum or an owner has as main target and responsability?: to preserve ( over the time. ) the paint integrity in all posible ways.

With MUSIC is not different and we have the same responsabilities about and to preserve that cartridge signal integrity or at least  mantain at minimum its degradation the tonearm/cartridge/TT alignment is absolutely essential doing that alignment not only with accuracy but choosing the alignment that overall can gives the lower tracking error and lower tracking distortion levels,
That is a sen equa non condition when we are talking to play LPs.

Today all know that the dedicated SAT alignment is totally away from those premises and far away to preserve the ART.

I have no doubt that the SAT is a very good quality performer to accomplish that if we don't use its dedicated alignment parameters.

If your audio system/room target is to preserve that cartridge signal integrity ( ART . ) to stay nearer to the recording then you can  ( at least ) try the advices here.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.