Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
toucanf16
 
Posts: n/a
Default SME 3009, Which is considered best, Series I, II, or III?

I purchased a Thorens 124 MKII turntable and need a tonearm. I have a
collection of old old Seeburg background music records and choose the
Thorens 124 because it plays at 16RPM.

Now I need a tone arm. There seems to be a plentiful supply of SME
3009 tonearms out there. Which is recommended; series I, II, or III?
Also, what would be a good cartridge to use with my tonearm/turntable
set up?

Thanks,

Matt
  #2   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Series III, naturally. The Dynavector 10x5 is a bargain.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"toucanf16" wrote in message
...
I purchased a Thorens 124 MKII turntable and need a tonearm. I have

a
collection of old old Seeburg background music records and choose

the
Thorens 124 because it plays at 16RPM.

Now I need a tone arm. There seems to be a plentiful supply of SME
3009 tonearms out there. Which is recommended; series I, II, or

III?
Also, what would be a good cartridge to use with my

tonearm/turntable
set up?

Thanks,

Matt


  #3   Report Post  
Kalman Rubinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The choice of arm is interconnected with the choice of cartridge.

Kal


On 15 Jan 2005 16:14:35 GMT, "toucanf16" wrote:

I purchased a Thorens 124 MKII turntable and need a tonearm. I have a
collection of old old Seeburg background music records and choose the
Thorens 124 because it plays at 16RPM.

Now I need a tone arm. There seems to be a plentiful supply of SME
3009 tonearms out there. Which is recommended; series I, II, or III?
Also, what would be a good cartridge to use with my tonearm/turntable
set up?

Thanks,

Matt

  #4   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 16 Jan 2005 16:21:38 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:

Series III, naturally. The Dynavector 10x5 is a bargain.


Why 'naturally'? The Series III is a disaster for low to medium
compliance carts.

"toucanf16" wrote in message
...
I purchased a Thorens 124 MKII turntable and need a tonearm. I have

a
collection of old old Seeburg background music records and choose

the
Thorens 124 because it plays at 16RPM.

Now I need a tone arm. There seems to be a plentiful supply of SME
3009 tonearms out there. Which is recommended; series I, II, or

III?


The II is an advance on the I, the III is a completely different
ultra-low-mass design, well suited to high-compliance carts such as
the excellent Shure V15.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #5   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jan 2005 16:21:38 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:

snip



The II is an advance on the I, the III is a completely different
ultra-low-mass design, well suited to high-compliance carts such as
the excellent Shure V15.


Second Stuart on this. I used one for years with the original XLM, which
was the equal of the Shure in compliance. The III is one of the few low
mass arms still around.



  #6   Report Post  
michael
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The II is an advance on the I, the III is a completely different
ultra-low-mass design, well suited to high-compliance carts such as
the excellent Shure V15.


This may be old news, here, but Shure is stopping V-15 production.
Evidently they are unable to source beryllium fabricators for their
cantilevers. They have, instead, discontinued selling bodies but will
use their remaining stylus assemblies as replacements over the next few
years.

On a kind of related note, with Qauntegy filing for creditor protection
we have another analog source going south. According to a WSJ article
last week Qauntegy claimed that the pro open reel business was actually
profitable, but other products (was it VHS tape?) brought them down.

michael
  #7   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The III is the nicest of the arms even if it is the lightest. I would
not call it a disaster by any means. Simply supply the right cartridge
and a bit of weight if needed and you have a very nice rig. I agree
that a medium mass arm is more universally easy to set-up and that the
II is not a bad arm, but the I is not what I would consider a great
arm and to answer the original poster's question...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jan 2005 16:21:38 GMT, Uptown Audio
wrote:

Series III, naturally. The Dynavector 10x5 is a bargain.


Why 'naturally'? The Series III is a disaster for low to medium
compliance carts.

"toucanf16" wrote in message
...
I purchased a Thorens 124 MKII turntable and need a tonearm. I
have

a
collection of old old Seeburg background music records and choose

the
Thorens 124 because it plays at 16RPM.

Now I need a tone arm. There seems to be a plentiful supply of
SME
3009 tonearms out there. Which is recommended; series I, II, or

III?


The II is an advance on the I, the III is a completely different
ultra-low-mass design, well suited to high-compliance carts such as
the excellent Shure V15.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #8   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The original poster, Matt ), said he wanted to use
the turntable for playing a

collection of old old Seeburg background music records


To me, this sounds as if top end vinyl playback is not an issue at
all! Raving about what the different version of SME can and cannot do,
when it comes to playback with top flight pickup cartridges seems a
total waste of time. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would put emphasis more on ease of use and general sturdyness for
this application, which I think the earlier arms from SME on the
Thorens fit like a glove!

Per,
who also happen to own a TD150/SME3009II/Ortofon OM20, but rarely used
these days.
  #9   Report Post  
michael
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:

Second Stuart on this. I used one for years with the original XLM, which
was the equal of the Shure in compliance. The III is one of the few low
mass arms still around.



Is the III still being manufactured? Another low mass design of some
popularity was the Japanese Grace 707 which featured a four point gimbal
design like those found on Dual turntables. Pioneer sold a low mass
carbon fiber arm under their Series 20 moniker in the late 70's which,
at least on appearance, looked kind of like the low mass ADC carbon
fiber arm. An interesting design, I thought, was the Technics EPA 500
unit which featured dedicated tonearm wands matched to various
compliance cartridges--low, medium, or high, take your pick.
Transcriptors at one time marketed their so called Vestigial
tonearm--imagine a low mass mass version of the Dynavector and you'll
understand.

For what it's worth, there is a guy on Ebay with what appears to be a
warehouse full of low mass Sonus Formula 4 silicone damped unipivot
arms; he offers one up for sale every now and then--I think they go for
about $150.00. I never heard of a Sonus version, but was familiar with
the Mayware product. JH Reproducers (I think that was the name) also
sold a Formula 4 tonearm at one time.

michael
  #10   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"michael" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Second Stuart on this. I used one for years with the original XLM,

which
was the equal of the Shure in compliance. The III is one of the few low
mass arms still around.



Is the III still being manufactured?


I don't think so, but a lot of them were sold and they were some of the last
made...so a lot show up on eBay in relatively good condition. That's what
my comment was based on.

Another low mass design of some
popularity was the Japanese Grace 707 which featured a four point gimbal
design like those found on Dual turntables. Pioneer sold a low mass
carbon fiber arm under their Series 20 moniker in the late 70's which,
at least on appearance, looked kind of like the low mass ADC carbon
fiber arm. An interesting design, I thought, was the Technics EPA 500
unit which featured dedicated tonearm wands matched to various
compliance cartridges--low, medium, or high, take your pick.
Transcriptors at one time marketed their so called Vestigial
tonearm--imagine a low mass mass version of the Dynavector and you'll
understand.


These were all interesting tonearms. I owned and used a 707 at the same
time as and SME III, back in 1980 or so. It was excellent. The
Transcriptors with an ADC XLM was an outstanding combo, although very
fragile. It was TAS's reference for awhile back when the mag was just
getting started. Anybody know why high-compliance has gone by the boards
for most MM's?


For what it's worth, there is a guy on Ebay with what appears to be a
warehouse full of low mass Sonus Formula 4 silicone damped unipivot
arms; he offers one up for sale every now and then--I think they go for
about $150.00. I never heard of a Sonus version, but was familiar with
the Mayware product. JH Reproducers (I think that was the name) also
sold a Formula 4 tonearm at one time.

michael




  #11   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No argument there. I don't want to be the one to insult his choice of
material, but if fidelity is not critical then it really does not
matter so much. If you want simplicity and robustness, then the RB250
would stand out like a billboard. These are all very nice arms for
general use. Perhaps those records are more important to him.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
The original poster, Matt ), said he wanted to
use
the turntable for playing a

collection of old old Seeburg background music records


To me, this sounds as if top end vinyl playback is not an issue at
all! Raving about what the different version of SME can and cannot
do,
when it comes to playback with top flight pickup cartridges seems a
total waste of time. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would put emphasis more on ease of use and general sturdyness for
this application, which I think the earlier arms from SME on the
Thorens fit like a glove!

Per,
who also happen to own a TD150/SME3009II/Ortofon OM20, but rarely
used
these days.


  #12   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
Per,
who also happen to own a TD150/SME3009II/Ortofon OM20, but rarely used
these days.


I have the original SME 3009 (detachable head shell) on a TD125 and it works
like a charm with any MM or MI cartridge I put in it. I abandoned MC long
ago using a Mark Levinson JC-1AC, which I chucked with the trash.
  #13   Report Post  
toucanf16
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks for all the posts. I've also looked at Rega RB250 and RB300
tonearms. My hobby is collecting and restoring jukeboxes. Of course,
I had to get records to fill the jukeboxes. Now it seems the record
collecting has overtaken my time. The Seeburg background records I
mentioned were used in commercial sound systems in the 60-70s,
Seeburg's version of the Musak. The 16 rpm records I have are
new/never played. The music is, shall I say, not high fidelity by
today's standards, and I'd like to capture digital files before I play
the records in the Seeburg Background unit I have. I also a reasonable
collection (2000+) of 45rpm records and a couple hundred LPs (nothing
special though) that I'd like to play.

The more I look, the more I'm leaning towards a RB250 and RB300 for my
Thorens 124 MkII. Any further comments?

Thanks,

Matt W.
  #14   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I like the Rega arms but there are loads of Thorens tables with the
SME MkII arms on them out there. That was probably the most popular
choice. You also see some Grace arms, but I still fancy the RB300 over
those others. I use a P3 with the RB300 now, so I guess that tells you
that I put my money where my thoughts are. I have also collected
records for years and have thousands which I like to keep in nice
condition. The Dv cartridges work wonderfully with the Rega arms also.
On a Thorens, you will need to buy or fashion an armboard for the Rega
arm, of course. They will fit in an SME armboard slot but the height
is probably going to need adjustment via shims if you would rather use
the one you have.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"toucanf16" wrote in message
...
Thanks for all the posts. I've also looked at Rega RB250 and RB300
tonearms. My hobby is collecting and restoring jukeboxes. Of
course,
I had to get records to fill the jukeboxes. Now it seems the record
collecting has overtaken my time. The Seeburg background records I
mentioned were used in commercial sound systems in the 60-70s,
Seeburg's version of the Musak. The 16 rpm records I have are
new/never played. The music is, shall I say, not high fidelity by
today's standards, and I'd like to capture digital files before I
play
the records in the Seeburg Background unit I have. I also a
reasonable
collection (2000+) of 45rpm records and a couple hundred LPs
(nothing
special though) that I'd like to play.

The more I look, the more I'm leaning towards a RB250 and RB300 for
my
Thorens 124 MkII. Any further comments?

Thanks,

Matt W.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
d&r series 4000 mk II, what difference to former series 4000? matiss Pro Audio 4 March 19th 14 07:20 PM
FS: Grado Lab Series and Elac Studio Series....Turntables...? MGM2 Marketplace 0 June 29th 04 01:24 AM
FS: Grado Lab Series and Elac Studio Series....Turntables...? MGM2 Marketplace 0 June 29th 04 01:24 AM
FA: SME 3009 SERIES III S Tonearm * NEW IN BOX nh Marketplace 0 May 17th 04 06:05 AM
FA: SME 3009 SERIES III S Tonearm * NEW IN BOX nh Marketplace 0 May 17th 04 06:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"