Hi Ricardo
Just checked out the headshell on the SME 3009.
It appears to be removable with a small grub screw on the underside of the arm tube (have never removed it though).
The headshell is black and has lots of small holes perforated in the top and a series of holes of ascending size (front to back) on the sides.
Any cartridge recommendations for this arm Ricardo ?
Ones have heard people say work well include Garrott P-77, AT33PTG, Shure V15, Ortofon OM-30 Super, it's a bit of a mine-field and I would like to somehow pick a good one first off, zillions to choose from.
Some people say the best upgrade you can do to this arm is throw it in the dust-bin, others say with careful adjustment and the right cartridge it's hard to fault, and totaly up there.
Any thoughts on transformers with Salas phono, are they of benefit ?
Cheers Simon
Hi Ricardo
Haven't loosened grub screw, why is it there if not for adjustment, is the headshell glued or pressed in at the SME factory.
Has been mentioned that cartridge size has to be modest due to limited headshell space, but looks like loads of room to me. Poster said not so much room for Grado woodies and fitted an ADC XLM MKII.
Have got the Denon DL-103/103R, DL110, DL160 on my long list, seems some think DL160 offers more resolution than DL103 but is less musical.
Comments welcome.
I would like to get a cartridge from a consistent and reliable maker who doesn't discontinue their product lines every 5mins, for obvious reasons.
Cheers again Simon
Hi
Making stuff is most of this thread's volume and various evolutions and build journeys. To be specific with individual needs can't be easy. Especially those doubled up fet input higher gain builds are very sensitive in idss at hand and resistor values. And then people try parts etc. What I have done is to bring the core CCT from the older round up pdf up to date and throw in a trusty, easy to make it work V1 variable reg that can cater for two gain versions by just turning its trimmer. Those can work in spec easy, if you keep the idss as noted. Better ask for a matched 6pack and a few spares from dedicated jfet vendors than buy a bag and learn to find the adequate ones, also creating a pile of spares, if just targeting a phono build and no other jfet projects are on the horizon. One values table is 43dB for high out MC or MM and the other is 56dB for normal MC. The HiMC/MM is good for up to 2.5mV carts. If you have 5mV normal MM you make its R2=100R for 37dB. An LMC pre pre also to combine with the MM for 0.15-0.25mV carts. Other tweaked versions endeavours take experienced and tooled up approach and are specialized. I highly recommend p2p construction as any pcb attempt will be challenged for changes about better practical hum performance depending on experience and skill, also for passive parts tests which vary enormously in size and most builders will not resist. This post summarizes the best general advice I can give.
*If psgr is reading he can use those to update his pdf.
**PDF updated on Feb25 2011.
Hi,
the 3009 has a Vnotch horizontal bearing. I'm told that this does not allow a low compliance MC to operate properly.
The TD160 has a thin C formed steel plate connecting the arm base to the turntable bearing. This has very little torsional stiffness. This is likely to ring when the energy from a high compliance MC is fed into it.
I think the Thorens and 3009 better suit high compliance MM cartridges.
the 3009 has a Vnotch horizontal bearing. I'm told that this does not allow a low compliance MC to operate properly.
The TD160 has a thin C formed steel plate connecting the arm base to the turntable bearing. This has very little torsional stiffness. This is likely to ring when the energy from a high compliance MC is fed into it.
I think the Thorens and 3009 better suit high compliance MM cartridges.
Thanks very much Salas.
Hi Salas
Thanks for posting the PDF's, I shall download and study them this evening.
As a minimalist and firm believer in low parts tallys, your designs seem to do the buisiness, where others have as many components as mission control Houston. Congrats on that (cheaper & easier PtoP as well, Ha ha).
I am pleased you think PtoP is the best option as I was thinking along those lines myself.
I eventualy shoe-horned my 21 year long last phono evolution into an unbeliveably compact chassis and this time around am going to be building with a 1u 19" 340mm deep chassis in mind.
Ricardo recommended the Denon DL160 as a new cartridge to suit my deck and arm, and having been one on my list have checked out a few reviews and it seems to tick all the right boxes. Output is similar to my Goldring cartridge and the Ortofon on my Dual as well, so it will suit my existing phono stage.
So without making too much of a snap decision, it looks like the Denon DL160 which seems to be a highly regarded and popular cartridge is what I will be building for, and fits the bill of not being a problem output/loading cartridge needing bizarre operating conditions to work well.
I am sure your a busy chap with a thread like this going but two brief questions.
Do you think I'm nut's considering useing batterys to power the phono stage, and if not, do you consider shunt regulating batterys offers any benefit.
Also being an instant fan of your shunt regulator circuit, I would like to fit shunt regulators to my diy tube microphone & diy tube microphone preamp, phantom power as well as HT. I downloaded some schematics for HT tube versions, but again wondered if there is a prefered version for HT regulation, in addition to the phantom power my HT voltages are 160v & 245v.
Might as well shunt regulate every thing and get a good deal on a bucket full of FETS (might even do my fridge!).
Thanks Salas all the best Simon
Hi Salas
Thanks for posting the PDF's, I shall download and study them this evening.
As a minimalist and firm believer in low parts tallys, your designs seem to do the buisiness, where others have as many components as mission control Houston. Congrats on that (cheaper & easier PtoP as well, Ha ha).
I am pleased you think PtoP is the best option as I was thinking along those lines myself.
I eventualy shoe-horned my 21 year long last phono evolution into an unbeliveably compact chassis and this time around am going to be building with a 1u 19" 340mm deep chassis in mind.
Ricardo recommended the Denon DL160 as a new cartridge to suit my deck and arm, and having been one on my list have checked out a few reviews and it seems to tick all the right boxes. Output is similar to my Goldring cartridge and the Ortofon on my Dual as well, so it will suit my existing phono stage.
So without making too much of a snap decision, it looks like the Denon DL160 which seems to be a highly regarded and popular cartridge is what I will be building for, and fits the bill of not being a problem output/loading cartridge needing bizarre operating conditions to work well.
I am sure your a busy chap with a thread like this going but two brief questions.
Do you think I'm nut's considering useing batterys to power the phono stage, and if not, do you consider shunt regulating batterys offers any benefit.
Also being an instant fan of your shunt regulator circuit, I would like to fit shunt regulators to my diy tube microphone & diy tube microphone preamp, phantom power as well as HT. I downloaded some schematics for HT tube versions, but again wondered if there is a prefered version for HT regulation, in addition to the phantom power my HT voltages are 160v & 245v.
Might as well shunt regulate every thing and get a good deal on a bucket full of FETS (might even do my fridge!).
Thanks Salas all the best Simon
A friend of mine has built a simplistic MM for a 3009 equipped TT and argues that the best fitting carts he has used on the SME were the Goldring MM and DL-160. The 160 is easily besting the Goldring according to him. Its much more compliant than the 103.
Batteries with cap bypass have been initially tried directly and this shunt reg really jumped them. The 200mA CCS would drain batteries even if just used as DC source to a reg very impractically so. I would think that the low impedance of a high value cap filtered, heavy Tx, and fast rectifier scheme will be the best practical option for DCin to the reg. You can use CLC pre filtering if you fancy. There are Hammond high mA cheap chokes. Go double mono Tx & regs if you care for optimum results. Keep regs in same box with the phono, and PSUs in another.
About HT regs there is a thread also.
Batteries with cap bypass have been initially tried directly and this shunt reg really jumped them. The 200mA CCS would drain batteries even if just used as DC source to a reg very impractically so. I would think that the low impedance of a high value cap filtered, heavy Tx, and fast rectifier scheme will be the best practical option for DCin to the reg. You can use CLC pre filtering if you fancy. There are Hammond high mA cheap chokes. Go double mono Tx & regs if you care for optimum results. Keep regs in same box with the phono, and PSUs in another.
About HT regs there is a thread also.
Hi Merlin
I guess your very happy with the phono stage, have read some but not all of your tune up stuff, very good.
I made my last phono stage way back in 1988, and have listened to it (and messed about with it, Farad/Ohm/wire/PSU/bias swaping etc.) ever since.
It had been screwed to a book-shelf for 21 years (enough's enough I thought!) so last year I made a funky case for it which is now nearly wired up and finished. When the last blob of solder goes on, I want to seal the case like an ancient tomb, never to be opened again (am thinking to epoxy the lid shut, just kidding) and start making another one to mess about with, oh dear!
You asked me about the output of my cartridge, maybe you and other members can help me with some recommendations for my turntable.
I have a Thorens TD160b MK2, SME 3009 arm & Goldring 1006 cartridge.
Recently a friend of mine mashed the stylus into the deck and totaly busted it. This was quite heavy duty damage and although the arm seems to have survived, am not sure the cartridge has.
Since getting a new stylus is nearly as much as a new cartridge, I am thinking that I should try something different, not because I didn't like the Goldring but a change is a good thing.
I am sure that there are cartridges that would suit this deck/arm and Salas phono stage combo perfectly, but I have no idea out of the zillions available what to go for. Any idea Merlin ?
Since the Thorens is out of action and am currently useing my Dual, I am going to take as much time as needed to get the Thorens into tip-top order whilst I build the Salas phono stage.
Maybe you and other members have some good tips on how to best tune up the deck/arm with the chosen new cartridge. I am looking through diyAudio at the moment to try and find some related threads.
I am thinking of rewiring the arm with new RCA's and cartridge pins, doing any mains and motor mods that might be good, refinishing the plinth cosmeticaly and getting new lid, mat and disk clamp (recommendations on these are also most welcome).
I am considering powering the new phono stage with batterys (am I nuts?) but have not yet decided. I guess shunt regulating batterys is still a valid option, although wasteful of battery life, I can't work out if shunting batterys would be a performance improvement or not, ideas welcome.
I have also looked into Sowter phono transformers, and transformer attenuators, but am undecided (currently useing DIY Audio Synthesis PAS-02).
Quite alot of information here I know, I guess deciding on the new cartridge is step 1.
Thanks again for the post reply Merlin, keep up the good tuning work
Cheers Simon Mor MC ???
@ Simon,
I own a Denon DL103R & I'm happy, possible is not the ultimate resolution cart but very musical & combined with Salas NJFET RIAA sounds very good. Salas loves Transfiguration & Shelter top but I believe the Denon isn't too far & the relation quality price it's a bargain.
About batteries: mine advice go for Salas Shunt Low Voltage regulators, are very goods & ease to do it.
With Salas NJFET RIAA isn't necessary the step-up.
Let us know wich cart will use.
Hi Salas
Yes I had the Goldring 1006, it was high compliance, until it got mashed.
It was ok but I'm sure it can be bettered if the arm is set up real good (which I'm lead to believe is tricky). I'll have to find a thread about SME 3009 set up next, as I'm sure my previous set up strategies can be improved on.
It's claimed the micro-ridge tip on the Denon can reach into the groove more to retrieve information from worn records played with larger heavier styluses, resulting in way less surface noise. Which in my case is a plus (50% of my records are imaculate, the other 50%, well, nuf said).
I Don't mind winding the odd coil or two, but I think I'll let the people with the extra small fingers at Denon take care of this mission.
The D160 it is then, Quick order one and keep fingers crossed !
Batteries - "Yeah forget about it" as Al Pacino would say.
Thanks for the link to the HT regs for the tube microphone stuff.
Cheers again Simon
=MC sq.
Last edited:
Hi Salas
The D160 it is then, Quick order one and keep fingers crossed !
Cheers again Simon
I think its a wise non pocket ripping choice to test how it will go on your SME. And you can always try other R1 load than typical 47k.
Those CCTs I posted can be easily modded to exchange sensitivities by substituting some resistors, LED count, and by fixing the proper B+. Just fit the higher voltage local capacitors from the start. So you can even try normal MC in the future if all goes well. There is actually a DL-301 II out there that seems like marrying the higher compliance elliptical HiMC lines with lower impedance normal MC output coils and rigid bodies that I haven't experienced in the flesh yet. Interesting at the particular price point for matching better the 3009 instead of 103R. I picture it as a refined 160. Nice Denon video.
P.S. What kind of CCT is your valve phono? I have made some valve phonos too.
Attachments
Thanks Ricardo for your help
There are quite a few different models, I didn't realise there were so many.
I see what you mean about the headshell, Mine is the SME 3009/S2 Improved, the headshell is fixed and arm tube looks like stainless steel to me.
Salas's friend built a MM Simplistic Phono Stage and used this arm with a D160 which worked well for him, I think I will try the same.
Cheers Simon
=MC sq.
Hi Merlin
Hi Merlin
Thanks for your interest in my setup.
I'm not going to mention the deck too much, other than to say for me it is a tireless workhorse, great suspension, no mechanical or electrical noise and built like a tank. I'm sure maybe there is a couple of % improvement to be had in it somewhere, but I don't think I'll know until I get the new cart on and the Simplistic Preamp built (I think Salas's pre will be a quantum leap over my previous one, and should come at the same time as the new cart). A new mat and disc clamp might be good also (recommendations ?). I'm definitely going to make it a whoping great mains filter just to satisfy my curiosity on that one. Apart from that a nice new paint job and lid and she'll look like she just left the showroom !
The arms a bit more up in the air it seems. I never had a manual to set it up by, and never checked out opinion on the net about it until now. I knew it was intended for a high compliance cart which the Goldring 1006 was, and I just set it up by eye, feel and ear which sounded great.
It seems that although it was one of the most popular quality arms ever made it didn't receive great press from the scribblers at the time (perhaps popularity was it's downfall, and it was not 'exclusive' enough to warrant praise from the golden eared reviewers of the time).
Bizarrely it seems that about 50% of opinion says it's an impossibly difficult arm to set up (can't understand that, I did it without a manual), the reviews complained of thin bass and lack of soundstage (not what I heard), the only thing to do with it is throw it in the bin !
The other 50% say it's easy to set up with any cartridge, even low compliance MC's, by adding mass to the head shell (which the detractors say looks like swiss cheese), and have come across many users who seem delighted with it useing the classic DL103 as you do (not what it was intended for, but do-able and highly musical nevertheless).
Salas pointed out that as well as the let's say medium compliance DL160 @10, there is also the D103 II @14, and of course the D103 @5. I thought this was a step in the right direction, but perhaps the medium DL160 is a safer bet after all. I can easily make accurate copper shims to add shell mass if needed, and apart from setting the arm up for the sweet spot, there is plenty of tuning to do in other parts of the setup, particularly in the phono stage as you do.
I love messing about with electronics and of course listening to music, but would like to fall in love with a new cartridge, as I have done with the Thorens / SME, and never have to think about another one again. Denon being the good reliable people that they are, will never stop producing the DL103 and there's a good chance I guess, that will hold true for the DL160 also, given it's obvious popularity.
I think that some of my worn records may spring back to life with a micro-ridge tip type stylus, but high / low / medium compliance seems to all be an option for this arm, judgeing by what real end users, not reviewers and readers, are doing with it.
What cart ? Dunno. I've got a bit more time to get confused while I polish up the deck and arm, and build the phono stage, and by that time the new Denon DL99999999999999 might be on the market and I might just fall in love with that.
Cheers Merlin
Simon = MC sq.
Hi Merlin
Thanks for your interest in my setup.
I'm not going to mention the deck too much, other than to say for me it is a tireless workhorse, great suspension, no mechanical or electrical noise and built like a tank. I'm sure maybe there is a couple of % improvement to be had in it somewhere, but I don't think I'll know until I get the new cart on and the Simplistic Preamp built (I think Salas's pre will be a quantum leap over my previous one, and should come at the same time as the new cart). A new mat and disc clamp might be good also (recommendations ?). I'm definitely going to make it a whoping great mains filter just to satisfy my curiosity on that one. Apart from that a nice new paint job and lid and she'll look like she just left the showroom !
The arms a bit more up in the air it seems. I never had a manual to set it up by, and never checked out opinion on the net about it until now. I knew it was intended for a high compliance cart which the Goldring 1006 was, and I just set it up by eye, feel and ear which sounded great.
It seems that although it was one of the most popular quality arms ever made it didn't receive great press from the scribblers at the time (perhaps popularity was it's downfall, and it was not 'exclusive' enough to warrant praise from the golden eared reviewers of the time).
Bizarrely it seems that about 50% of opinion says it's an impossibly difficult arm to set up (can't understand that, I did it without a manual), the reviews complained of thin bass and lack of soundstage (not what I heard), the only thing to do with it is throw it in the bin !
The other 50% say it's easy to set up with any cartridge, even low compliance MC's, by adding mass to the head shell (which the detractors say looks like swiss cheese), and have come across many users who seem delighted with it useing the classic DL103 as you do (not what it was intended for, but do-able and highly musical nevertheless).
Salas pointed out that as well as the let's say medium compliance DL160 @10, there is also the D103 II @14, and of course the D103 @5. I thought this was a step in the right direction, but perhaps the medium DL160 is a safer bet after all. I can easily make accurate copper shims to add shell mass if needed, and apart from setting the arm up for the sweet spot, there is plenty of tuning to do in other parts of the setup, particularly in the phono stage as you do.
I love messing about with electronics and of course listening to music, but would like to fall in love with a new cartridge, as I have done with the Thorens / SME, and never have to think about another one again. Denon being the good reliable people that they are, will never stop producing the DL103 and there's a good chance I guess, that will hold true for the DL160 also, given it's obvious popularity.
I think that some of my worn records may spring back to life with a micro-ridge tip type stylus, but high / low / medium compliance seems to all be an option for this arm, judgeing by what real end users, not reviewers and readers, are doing with it.
What cart ? Dunno. I've got a bit more time to get confused while I polish up the deck and arm, and build the phono stage, and by that time the new Denon DL99999999999999 might be on the market and I might just fall in love with that.
Cheers Merlin
Simon
= MC sq.
Those Denon published compliance numbers are 100Hz dynamic. 10Hz static are needed for the Fs formulae and the 103R came at 16 compliance on my Mission 774 after 11Hz Fourier on HFNRR test disc and back calculation. The 160 and 301II should be about 25-30mm/N. That is why the carts work on some seemingly impossible arms. For so many years people get confused and the hi-fi press could do some subsonic measurements on some disputed carts, see what happens. Instead, they wax away lyrically.
Some people say the best upgrade you can do to this arm is throw it in the dust-bin, others say with careful adjustment and the right cartridge it's hard to fault, and totaly up there.
Any thoughts on transformers with Salas phono, are they of benefit ?Simon
Hello Simon,
you're dealing with some edges but you can't get a circle here. My suggestion is to implement a new front end which is a well balanced and a base for your phono pre:
Search for a Garrard 401, place it in a good plinth and use a tonearm from Thomas Schick, cartridge Denon DL103. Later on you can upgrade if you like...
A transformer is quite a good idea and there are pro's and contras. I like transformers but they must be from the top league. The Salas design is somewhat quite and the sound comes out of the nothing so I'd recommend to use the 57dB version first and you can modify it later on to decrease the gain to 44dB and use a step-up transformer - if you like to do then ...
Denon DL160 works very well with SME3009 S2 Imp.
As Salas pointed out, it´s compliance is much higher than spec.
The arm is quite easy to set up. You can download it´s setup brochure from Vinyl Engine.
Off course there are better carts but not at that price
It works perfectly with the 47dB Salas riaa version.
As Salas pointed out, it´s compliance is much higher than spec.
The arm is quite easy to set up. You can download it´s setup brochure from Vinyl Engine.
Off course there are better carts but not at that price
It works perfectly with the 47dB Salas riaa version.
Hi João
Why should you use a setup TX with a 44dB riaa instead of a 57dB version ?
Mine is the SME 3009/S2 Improved, the headshell is fixed and arm tube looks like stainless steel to me.
Cheers Simon
Let me know wich is your arm pivot to spindle distance: 213.25 mm or 215.70 mm? so I can post your arm potractor
Because you have a better S/N-ratio and avoid one more active device. This means as well better distortion, a step-up TX owns, because of it's construction, different distortion - called linear distortion.
But this is my personal opinion and you know I like transformers - my amps all work with contionous interstage transformer couped.
Well, in this case we have the same number of active devices for 44dB or 57dB.
So the stepup TX just adds one more component in the signal path
I already experimented a Denon stepup TX with my 48dB riaa and liked it but it adds some hiss (imperceptible).
Off course I needed more cables and the signal passed on several more switches
A friend had hum problems with the same stepup device......
So the stepup TX just adds one more component in the signal path
I already experimented a Denon stepup TX with my 48dB riaa and liked it but it adds some hiss (imperceptible).
Off course I needed more cables and the signal passed on several more switches
A friend had hum problems with the same stepup device......
Last edited: