Cartridge advice: For SME 3009 SII (non-improved)

larrydata

larrydata

Member
Hi Folks,

I'm hoping to get some advice on matching a vintage SME 3009 S2 (non improved) tonearm matched to a good cartridge for a TD124MKII. I know this is a classic TT/tonearm combination, but I'm a bit confused on my options.

The TT is new to me, and came with the SME arm but not a cartridge/headshell.

My current setup is TT>Audible Illusions Modulus 3A Pre (not the gold)>Tube amp>1966 Wharfedale W70’s. I mostly listen to bluegrass/folk/fiddle but also enjoy 60's rock, jazz, reggae, and some nostalgic 80's new wave. I like midrange and highs and don't care as much about bass.

My thinking is as follows:

Option 1: Get a new Ortofon SPU#1 MCC and have the vintage look and sound. My understanding is that this version of the 3009 tonearm should be fine, but since the SPUs are low-output I might have to pick up a SUT. This TT has a non-magnetic platter, so no issues there.

Option 2: Go for a high output MCC and figure out a matching headshell. I really have no clue about modern or classic MCC options.

Option 3: Stick with a modern or classic MMC and compatible headshell and not worry about SUT issues. But again there are so many options I'm lost as to what to do.​

I'm hoping to stay in the $600 range, but can go higher for the right combination of sound and performance.

Thank you!

Larry
 
Register to hide this ad
tnsilver said:
Ortofon SPU's are way too heavy for an SME 3009 S2. I now use a Dynavector DV 10X5 with the same TT/TA. It's sweet and on budget and being a HOMC does not require a SUT. In fact, I can use it in my 47KΩ MM input, but prefer the 100Ω MC.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tom. Did you have to raise the arm to accommodate the height of the DV? How did you mount it to your tonearm? Could you share a picture?

Larry
 
tnsilver said:
Ortofon SPU's are way too heavy for an SME 3009 S2. I now use a Dynavector DV 10X5 with the same TT/TA. It's sweet and on budget and being a HOMC does not require a SUT. In fact, I can use it in my 47KΩ MM input, but prefer the 100Ω MC.
Click to expand...

Tom,obviously it's working for you,but isn't the compliance (12?) a little low for that arm?
 
larrydata said:
I thought the 3009 s2 unimp liked low/mid compliance cartridges?
Click to expand...

That is why I'm asking. I always thought that this arm preferred high/mid compliance cartridges. On my own Series II (unimproved) I've always used high compliance types,the present one being a Shure M95HE at 30cu.
 
I've been working on nearly the same project for the past week. A TD-124 and SME3009 S2 (Non Improved).
I have a spare Grado Reference Sonata 1 and asked Grado if it would work. They said it should be no problem. Same for the new Sonata2 series (slightly heavier). Both 20Cu compliance.

I cut, drilled and sanded an armboard out of maple and test mounted everything to see what it looked like. The arm balanced fine with a single rider weight at zero and the main counterweight approx. halfway between the pivot and the end. The lateral balance bar is almost fully extended, so I'll see what happens with the additional rider weight attached.

I am currently spraying glossy black lacquer on the armboard as weather and time permits. That should be done within a week. At that point I will mount the spare Grado, have a listen and report back.

The spare Reference Sonata1 is high output (4.5-5.0 mv) MI. The phono preamp I will use isn't critical (to me) because I don't plan on using this cartridge for my final setup. I have a few spare preamps available to evaluate the cartridge/arm compatibility.

If the results are favorable I will use either
1. Grado Statement Sonata1 (0.5mv) through my Simaudio Moon 110LP (60db gain). This setup is currently in use on my Harman Kardon T-65C and I am very pleased.
2. Grado Statement Sonata2 (1.0mv) through an Audio Research PH3 (53db gain).

I can't speak for the Statement Sonata2, but I found the Statement Sonata1 to be very sensitive to proper alignment.

I'll keep you posted.

Good luck.
 
Instead of worrying about specific cartridges and compliance, start at the beginning, know that the literature says the SME 3009 S2 is a 12.5 gram effective mass tonearm. It will accommodate a cartridge with compliance of 14 to 32 cu with resulting resonance frequencies of from 12 down to 8 as you go up in compliance. Source: http://www.analogue-classics.com/html/sme_3009___3012.html

One thing to keep in mind is the frequency of the compliance spec. Standard is 10Hz but many Japanese cartridges are tested at 100 Hz and the conversion factor is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 so multiply the 100 Hz result by 1.75 and you should be good. As you increase the mass of the headshell, the resulting resonance frequency will come down. Information: http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php and for evaluation of specific cartridges many specs but not all and lots of cartridges not just currently available: http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database.php Put in your requirement for MC, maybe low and high output separately, or not and put in your compliance limits and see what shows up. Lots of stuff will show up. Work to get to what is 1) available today, 2) price (see the web), 3) the correct compliance spec and none of these has sonic characteristics.

That tonearm is very versatile and will handle many different cartridges. I would look for one that has the sonic signature you would like as opposed to one that fits. There are so many that fit, in your price range, I'd evaluate the sound, too. You want a fast cartridge for that bluegrass, not something laid back that would not provide the quickness of the instruments. I'm putting an Ortofon MC-10 Super on my SME 3009 S2 Imp and that should match just fine.

Maybe discussions about the knife edge bearings and their particular issues would help here since @tnsilver mentioned the vibration with a 12@100 compliance number. Does this vibration remain as the cu goes up or down from that number?
 
Last edited:
Blue Shadow said:
Instead of worrying about specific cartridges and compliance, start at the beginning, know that the literature says the SME 3009 S2 is a 12.5 gram effective mass tonearm. It will accommodate a cartridge with compliance of 14 to 32 cu with resulting resonance frequencies of from 12 down to 8 as you go up in compliance. Source: http://www.analogue-classics.com/html/sme_3009___3012.html

One think to keep in mind is the frequency of the compliance spec. Standard is 10Hz but many Japanese cartridges are tested at 100 Hz and the conversion factor is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 so multiply the 100 Hz result by 1.75 and you should be good. As you increase the mass of the headshell, the resulting resonance frequency will come down. Information: http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php and for evaluation of specific cartridges many specs but not all and lots of cartridges not just currently available: http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database.php Put in your requirement for MC, maybe low and high output separately, or not and put in your compliance limits and see what shows up. Lots of stuff will show up. Work to get to what is 1) available today, 2) price (see the web), 3) the correct compliance spec and none of these has sonic characteristics.

That tonearm is very versatile and will handle many different cartridges. I would look for one that has the sonic signature you would like as opposed to one that fits. There are so many that fit, in your price range, I'd evaluate the sound, too. You want a fast cartridge for that bluegrass, not something laid back that would not provide the quickness of the instruments. I'm putting an Ortofon MC-10 Super on my SME 3009 S2 Imp and that should match just fine.
Click to expand...

Thanks...I will digest that info. Much appreciated!

Larry
 
tnsilver said:
I now use a Dynavector DV 10X5 with the same TT/TA. It's sweet and on budget and being a HOMC does not require a SUT. In fact, I can use it in my 47KΩ MM input, but prefer the 100Ω MC.
Click to expand...

I've ordered the DV10X5...I'll report back on my experience.

Larry
 
Thought I'd share this, maybe something to consider while choosing a cartridge....it's weight.
I finished and mounted the armboard for my SME 3009 S2 NI the other night.
Then I mounted my spare Grado Reference Sonata1 so I can set up and test the arm for whatever cartridge I finally decide on (leaning toward another Grado, this time a Statement Sonata2).
While mounting my Reference Sonata1 (weighs 7gm w/hardware according to Grado) to the SME without the extra rider weight, the main counterweight was a little more than halfway back to zero the balance. More importantly however, the lateral balance bar had to be nearly fully extended to keep the arm from drifting in or out..
I've never used one of these arms before but it seems like a better idea to keep the weights closer to the pivot rather than have them "wagging" further away from the pivot point.
So I mounted the additional rider weight, thus bringing the main counterweight and lateral balance bar closer to the pivot.
The new Grado Statement Sonata2 cartridges are even heavier (11gm), which means the extra rider weight becomes necessary for an 11gm cartridge.
I haven't listened to a thing yet, but I thought I'd pass on my findings to those of you still shopping.
Of course, I'll let you know what I think once everything is up and running.
 
Can you let us know if you found a sonic difference between the up tight weights and the 'wagging' further away weights?
The S2 Imp lateral balance weight (the one off to the side to compensate for the weight of the cartridge twisting the arm) is set based on the mass of the cartridge. No test to see if it is correct. I don't know the S2 NI arm.
 
If you think about what the lateral balance weight is doing, it's a little easier to test and set.

Here's an analogy:
You first zero the vertical tracking force by moving the rear weight till the tonearm w/cartridge floats level with the platter. This is analagous to an airplane flying level (nose and tail are level) but doesn't address whether one wing is higher or lower than the other...are the wings level too (laterally balanced?)
I've found two ways to check for lateral balance on my tonearm.
1. If it's wrong, the tonearm will drift in or away from the spindle when the VTF is balanced to zero. When it's right there's no drift.
2. With the proper VTF dialed in, lift the rear of the tonearm off the knife edge pivot just behind the pivot with something small, like an allen wrench. If the lateral balance is wrong, the arm will roll to the heavier side.

There's another way I read about having to do with tilting the entire turntable but I haven't gone there yet.

The drifting at zero VTF is what got me interested, it made sense once I thought about it like a airplane.
 
The tilting tt method is mentioned in the manual for the FR-64s that I had. Not a specific answer to the equal loading of the knife edges of the SME adjustment. Fortunately, my SME is calibrated but I like the second method you mentioned above checking the tilt of the arm after lifting it off those edges. I'll give that a try because my anti-skate ain't anywhere near what the manual says to use and that balance might be off, too.
 
Hi folks, quick update:

While I was waiting for my Dynavactor 10X5 I found that my TD-124 MkII needed some serious TLC: was noisy, wouldn't play at speed, etc. Just got it back from Jim Campbell and it's better than new now.

I just listened to Lydia Loveless, Frank Wakefield, and some of the Harry Smith Folk Anthology series and it sounds pretty amazing!

My other decks are a Thorens TD-166MKII (belt drive) and a Yamaha YP-D6 (direct drive), both with MM cartridges. I was feeling like my YP-D6 was up-front and warm but lacked detail, and my TD-166MKII had great detail but sounded kind of sterile and distant. The TD-124 with the Dynavector 10X5 is zippy and the sound is quite transparent but includes every detail. It's the best of both worlds for me.

TD-124 - 1.jpg
The plinth by Jim C as well. The SME headshell didn't come with the finger lift, so I got one and a plinth badge from ldvalve (Australia). I'm going to do a RCA conversion on the SME 3009 SII non-improved when the kit arrives from ldvalve.

Thanks to all for the advice.

Larry
 
larrydata said:
Hi folks, quick update:

While I was waiting for my Dynavactor 10X5 I found that my TD-124 MkII needed some serious TLC: was noisy, wouldn't play at speed, etc. Just got it back from Jim Campbell and it's better than new now.

I just listened to Lydia Loveless, Frank Wakefield, and some of the Harry Smith Folk Anthology series and it sounds pretty amazing!

My other decks are a Thorens TD-166MKII (belt drive) and a Yamaha YP-D6 (direct drive), both with MM cartridges. I was feeling like my YP-D6 was up-front and warm but lacked detail, and my TD-166MKII had great detail but sounded kind of sterile and distant. The TD-124 with the Dynavector 10X5 is zippy and the sound is quite transparent but includes every detail. It's the best of both worlds for me.

View attachment 852504
The plinth by Jim C as well. The SME headshell didn't come with the finger lift, so I got one and a plinth badge from ldvalve (Australia). I'm going to do a RCA conversion on the SME 3009 SII non-improved when the kit arrives from ldvalve.

Thanks to all for the advice.

Larry
Click to expand...
Very nice, going from a MM cart to a very good MC is very eye opening as well as ears.
 
Easy check for Lateral Balance on SME 3009...
Make a loop of ordinary thread
Loop it under the centered rod that holds the anti-skate weight
Lift so the knife-edge bearing rises clear of its pivots
It will tilt to the too-heavy side.
Adjust wayroad to correct imbalance
Repeat till it's right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom