Sme tonearm 3009 instructions series#
I thought it sounded better on the SOTA with SME 3009 Series II arm than it did on the Rega P7 with an RB700 arm. When I sold my Rega P7 after I bought my SOTA Star Sapphire, a Benz Glider M2 was the only cartridge I had on hand. I have heard others express a preference for MM carts on the classic SME arms as well. Originally Posted by NightOwl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You can find more impresions at, , and the Vintage forum and Vinyl forum at I have read of more than one person who has successfully used the highish-compliance Audio-Technica AT OC9 moving coil with the Improved arm. Other new cartridges which have received recommendations with your arm are:Īudio-Technica AT440 mla (a little bright) A new replacement stylus is available from Jico and is said to be as good or better than the original. This cartridge is discontinued, but readily available used on ebay, Audiogon, etc. To the OP, the best match I ever found with the Improved was the vintage Shure V15 typeIII. It's been many years since I've had these arms and I've never had the experience of listening to newer model moving coils, such as yours Jerome, on these arms. Noted audiophile Thorsten Loesch, on the other hand, loves his DL103 on the SME 3009 mkII. The mid range was lush and euphonic, however. This was in comparison to a Rega RB300 and a Linn Ittok. The mass of the 30 mkII were fine, but I found that the knife edge bearings and the detachable headshell reduced the dynamics and speed and softened the frequency extremes of the moving coil. The Improved was too low in mass to match with low compliance moving coils. Keeping in mind that the listening experience is personal and completely subjective, I was never happy with moving coil cartriges in any of my 3009's. I've had the original SME 3009, the first 3009 mkII, and the SME 3009 mkII Improved. That being said, I'm also surprised that it works in the Improved arm. I've found that a multiplier of 2.2 gives you a fairly accurate approximation in converting the compliance from 100hz to 10hz. The compliance of the DL103 has been guesstimated at 11 x 10-6 cm/Dyne at 10hz and this is what should be used in the resonance calculator. Actual compliance will be higher at 10hz. The resonance evaluator is based on 10hz. The Improved is even lower mass.Īre you using weight plates on your arm to add mass?ĭenon (like Audio-Technica) states their compliance figures at a frequency of 100hz. I thought about buying one myself until I looked at the resonance evaluator and decided it would not be a good fit for my 3009 Series II. I'm a little surprised that a DL103 would be a good match for a low mass arm like the SME 3009 Improved. Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif