Sme arm "Bridge Removal"

Dear Neil,
I suppose that 'loading the bearings' is the same thing that Dertonarm refers to as 'pre-tension of the bearings' in the following (which,incidentally, is the explanation that convinced me to go ahead with the application of damping):
"While all done and designed in the best intention [= the SME V design],the shape of the magnesium armpipe with the widest diameter at the bearing does somehow amplify and ill-control armwand inherent resonance. The heavy pre-tension of the bearings doesn't ease things in this manner at all."
[http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1266367593&openflup&142&4#142]
I suppose that what he is referring to is the degree of tightness of the bearings in their sockets.
Exactly what the role of the bridge is in all this, I am not so sure. As you say, it is simply bolted to the yoke. When I decided to remove it (a long time before applying the external damping), I did so on the simple (and perhaps simple-minded) basis that it was just a cosmetic element (and in fact the arm does look better with it in place) which could resonate and degrade the sound to some small degree (after all there those who remove the fluidd damping trough for the same reason). Its cosmetic nature appeared to be confirmed by SME, who assured me that it played no structural role in the design and could be removed without untoward consequences.
Best regards,
Peter

Sme10 - I did not hear any of the changes you and others have reported. Frankly, if I did, I would would be more alarmed than pleased. But I'm still very anxious to understand what this "loading" terminology refers to, and hope someone will explain it.

Thanks.

Neil
.

The bridge removal was recommended by Roy Gregory in one of the early issues of HiFi+, for all of the reasons mentioned above. I do not believe there was any mention of bearing tensioning, although he did mention that you need to be careful not to overtighten when putting it back on in order to avoid deforming the cradle, thereby affecting the free movement of the bearing. I tried it on my SME IV, but I didn't feel comfortable leaving it that way. Although I "thought" I could hear a difference, my recollection is that it was not great enough to warrant marring the beauty of the arm. On the other hand, that was a long time ago, and some of my components, including my TT, have changed since then. I haven't thought about this in several years -- maybe I'll try it again and report back.

Enjoy!

Neil (no relation to the other Neil)

I have an SME V that I bought used here on a-gon with a wiring "upgrade?" sans head shell clips and the anti skate defeated. I went all the way and took off the bridge and listened this way for seversl years with a variety of carts and pres. Recently I sent it back to SME for a complete rebuild . It was returned to me as a brand new current spec V (bridge in place). The arm has never sounded better and I have no intention of modifying it in any way again. It seems to me if these tweaks were genuine improvements SME would have incorporated them over time into their current spec.

I have to agree with Rccc on this one. I tried it again and, to me, removing the bridge didn't change anything, except the looks of the arm. SME is not the kind of company that would continue to market a product for all of these years without remedying what would have to be characterized as an obvious design flaw (if, in fact, the bridge degraded the sound). That being said, SME have stuck with that van den Hul phono cable for all of these years and, although I think that it is the quietest cable around (perhaps because of its triple point grounding scheme), I have been able to better it in almost every other way with a variety of aftermarket cables, most recently the Harmonic Technology Crystal Silver Phono. I wonder why they have never adressed this cable issue. Is it just a cost thing, or do they really want the arm to sound the way it sounds with the van den Hul MC D501?