SAEC Making Tonearms Again!

@invictus005: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/sme/3009.shtml 

R.

Good work, Raul.  Of course, the SME V may not have continued to use a knife edge bearing.  I'm sure we will be told.

Halcro, I've never owned an SAEC tonearm, but my recollection just from reading on this site, VE, VA, is that the 308N is the one with the confounding geometry that gave a "bad name" to the whole line-up.  I am not sure what I thought about the 407/23, but by all accounts, the 8000/ST was designed for one or another of the 3 major "acceptable" alignments, and is not at all problematic.  But the 8000 is rare and expensive.  Am I correct in these beliefs?

Invictus, No one who seriously examined an SME V would not say that it is a very high quality product, in terms of construction, but just to be accurate, ABEC7 is not the highest possible precision rating.  If that's your fetish, you want ABEC9.

Dear @lewm : "  Is it shameful to use a knife-edge bearing? ", well it's not the best bearing type.

When I bougth my Sao Win  SMC 10 the cartridge manual has a warning: don't use knife-edge tonearm design type and S.Win told it by very good reasons. Btw, the SMC 10 is a really fine LOMC cartridge.

@neonknight stay away from SAEC tonearms the Technics is way superior tonearm design.

SAEC tonearms are very good looking but that's all. 

I bougth my 3 SAECs because I like it what I saw and in those times I was convinced that were if not the best tonearms out there one of the best.

When I learned through several experiences with other vintage and today tonearms I just sold it.- The worst is the 8000 and if I have to choose between the SAEC line then will be the 407/23 but the Technics 250 is not only way superior to any of the SAECs but is very competitive against any other tonearm.
If I was you I will take/get the 250.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I think the problematic is the Saec Ceramic Headshell which is very expensive, but it’s impossible to twist the cartridge using this particular headshell. It must be a different headshell to make re-alignment with 308N (short) or 308L (long) tonearms. There is a thread on audiogon where verything has been told about those arms long time ago.

this is what @t_bone said long time ago:

Personally, I had always assumed the 23 was for ~23cm length (the way the 506/30 has a ~30cm length). It is true that at 233mm, to get Baerwald alignment, it almost has to be 23 degrees offset angle, but that won’t get you the cart straight in line with the headshell. And there is no way that the 506/30 is going to have a 30-degree offset angle...

I am not sure of your question. You can twist the cart in the headshell on all the SAECarms (and it might make more sense to change the mounting distance too) to bring them to Baerwald. All but the 317 have original mfr geometry specs which are more aggressive than Stevenson alignment as far as I remember.

There is also Saec 308SX version: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/saec-308n-vs-308sx