헤드쉘 교환이 안 되는 고정식의 SME 3009를 사용하고 있는 내게 윤세욱 선생(놈)이 그걸 수백만 원짜리 SME Series V로 바꾸라고 쌩난리를 친 지 오래이나, 난 그 통짜 톤암이 쉘 교환이 안 되는 것이기에 그에 대한 관심이 없었다. 그리고 LP보다는 CD의 편리성에 길든 내게 있어서, 그 쓰임새로 보아 가격이 천문학적(?)인 것이 마음에 안 들기도 했고...



그랬더니만 결국 SME IV가 적당한 가격에 나왔으니 사라고 난리, ㅈㄹ, 법썩을 떨어서 할 수 없이 샀다.-_- 하긴 뭐 내가 헤드 쉘 교환이 잘 되는 톤암을 사면 그 핑계로 괜히 쓸 데 없이 좋은 카트리지들을 사느라고 괜한 돈을 쓸지도 모른다. 그러니까 가격 대 성능비로 보아 어쩌면 최적인지도 모르는 IV 정도로 톤암을 교체해서 쓰면 그런 대로 괜찮은 결과가 나올지도 모르겠다. 하여간 그걸 하나 샀다. 염장은 아니고, 그냥 보고드리는 것.^^;  



사놓긴했지만 지금 사용하는 톤암에도 별 불만이 없으니 언제 SME Series IV를 소타 턴테이블에 장착하게 될지, 그건 미지수다.^^; 그거 장착하는 것도 손이 많이 갈 것 같아서 감히 손을 대는 게 겁난다.

SME Series IV의 사용 설명서(영문, PDF 파일)은 위의 제목 아래 Attached files에서 다운로드하시면 됩니다.

---

http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Series-IV-1342.shtml

It is quite extraordinary how. at a time when the whole of the audio world has been propelled into a quite new phase with the widespread adoption of digital techniques, the chase after perfection in more conventional analogue components has gone on unabated. Not only gone on, but in several areas seemingly even accelerated to surpass all previous attainments and in a few cases achieve truly remarkable levels. In the field of conventional LP record pressing, for example, one thinks of the Direct Metal Mastering process, now widely adopted and already almost taken for granted in terms of the quality which it can allow. In the analogue replay chain a number of first class components have seen the light of day turntables, cartridges and pick-up arms among them, but none that we British can be more proud of surely than the SME Series V tone-arm, which was reviewed by John Borwick in the September 1986 issue.

Superbly designed and made, the "V" offers a level of performance approached by very few and surpassed, surely, by no other competitors. Really the only negative aspect about it is its price: very audiophiles can even consider it, let alone afford for just one 'front end' component. To this would need to be added a turntable and cartridge of concomitant performance and more than likely price. Clearly those enthusiasts who can justify expenditure at this level belong to a pretty exclusive club, so the four-year research and development, programme which resulted in the Series V would have had a limited return had not SME had up their sleeve a somewhat simplified and much less expensive version to fill in the missing model number between it and the Series III.

At a first, or even a second, glance the Series IV and V look much the same apart from the fact that the new one is in a bright metal finish, contrasting with the V's satin black enamel. In fact many of the component items are common to the two models. I shall go into greater detail below but in essence the main differences are: (a) that whereas the V is dynamically balanced and the vertical tracking force applied by a spring, in the IV as in many previous SME designs, gravity is put to work and the downforce applied by setting the arm out of balance. (b) that the V has an optional fluid damping system which isn't supplied with the IV. (c) that the IV dispenses with one or two of the V's more refined setting up facilities. Really it is only to the first two of these areas that one might reasonably anticipate perceivable differences in the subjective performance. In all other respects the same component and build quality obtains and readers should refer to John Borwick's review of the V for in-depth descriptions.

Both of these pick-up arms were developed primarily to cater for the low to medium compliance (8-15cu. say) moving-coil cartridges which dominate the top end of the market these days. Previous SME designs had been designed in the first place to match higher compliance models, particularly moving-magnet types. as perhaps typified by the famous Shure range: in other words to cope with a broad range of compliances from about 15cu up to 50 or even 60cu. Up to and including the Series III, therefore, SME opted for increasingly low mass designs and were able to justify the use of relatively simple knife-edge bearings for movement in the vertical plane. Here, ball races are used throughout. Low compliance MCs place significantly greater demands on the pick-up arm if the ideals that (a) the arm be "perfectly unyielding in four out of six possible degrees of freedom" and (b) that in the two dimensions in which the record groove is modulated it should behave as a pure mass, are to be approached. It is in pursuing these objectives that the Series IV and V achieve such conspicuous success.

The main so-called tone-arm in both designs is a one-piece magnesium casting which incorporates the cartridge mounting platform at the front and the counterweight support cantilever at the rear. It is of circular cross-section, heavily tapered straight, and is internally damped. At the rear the counterweight is a tungsten-alloy block suspended on a damped two-point suspension within a metal housing and "underslung" to achieve the optimum centre of gravity. It is mounted close to the fulcrum to reduce inertia, only 19mm of movement being required to accommodate cartridges of between 5 and 16gm in weight. As with the Series V this counterweight can be moved to and fro by rotating a leadscrew thumb wheel and then locked in position by moving a clamp lever. Playing weight here is achieved by first balancing out the arm with the cartridge in situ and then adjusting the thumbhole accordingly, one full turn applying 0.5gm. Naturally, on an SME, this is extremely accurate.As has been noted above, many of the component parts of the Series IV are similar, if sometimes less rarefied, to those in the V. For example, bearings of ABEC-3 tolerance are used instead of ABEC-7. These special wide contact angle bearings are made for SME in Japan. The horizontal races are 10mm diameter with nine balls and those in the vertical plane 17mm with 10 balls

Both are widely spaced to resist tilt. The construction of the arm allows these bearings, so crucial to the final performance, to be adjusted before the unit itself is finally assembled. The horizontal bearing axis is directly in line with the playing surface, given a cartridge of average body height, and this is the ideal arrangement for minimizing wow with warped records. It is particularly important, too, with gravity-applied downforce designs such as the IV.

The excellent base clamping system is also common to both arms and was described in detail by JB in his review. One difference on the IV is that the arm height has to be adjusted by hand rather than via a "VTA screw". Thus it is not possible to make fine adjustments to the vertical tracking angle whilst a record is playing with this model. but that is really the only inconvenience and it is a small one at that. As before two clamp bolts on the base release the arm for adjustment in both horizontal and vertical planes. spring applied friction loading retaining the chosen settings until the bolts are finally tightened.Height is adjusted manually, then, but the sideways movement required to achieve correct horizontal alignment is via a rack and pinion system enclosed in the base "slideways" as before.

Height is adjusted manually, then, but the sideways movement required to achieve correct horizontal alignment is via a rack and pinion system enclosed in the base "slideways" as before. Once again, extremely precise setting-up is possible with the alignment protractor supplied, guidelines on the armtube itself facilitating the vertical adjustment while the horizontal setting is far more straightforward than with almost all rival designs.

Anti-skate, or bias, compensation is provided by a tension spring and filament arrangement as in the V, the calibrations on the dial corresponding with the playing weight selected. Below decks the IV also has the same damped swivelling output socket, this clever idea allowing the arm lead to find its own best position without compromising the spring settings of suspended subchassis turntables. Whereas the V is supplied with sets of both stainless steef and aluminium cartridge-fixing screws the IV comes with just the aluminium set. A finger lift is supplied with the arm and this is held in place by the cartridge-fixing screws. Its use is thus optional and the purist might choose to leave it off, although it is doubtful whether the difference will be audible. 1 much prefer to have the control it affords when cueing. Linear crystal oxygenfree copper litz-wire cartridge leads are fitted (in the V they are silver) and a generous 1.2m length LC-OFC balanced audio lead replaces the van den Hul D-501 supplied with the V.

Performance

As we have come to expect from SME, the instruction booklet is a model of clarity and good sense, its 20 pages providing a clear, unambiguous regime for obtaining the best performance. The mounting template supplied with the IV will be familiar to those who have fitted previous SME arms (the one provided with the V is more elaborate) and involves carefully marking the armboard with a long pin or needle to find the centre point for the oblong cut-out. Small errors here are fortunately immaterial, however, since they can be absorbed by the fore and aft adjustment provided on the arm base itself. All aspects of the setting up procedure are straightforward and readily accomplished.

Subjectively the Series IV is unquestionably a state of the art device, to use the jargon phrase, with an almost uncanny ability to separate out all the various goings-on-musical strands, textures, ambience details, etc. in a quality recording. I have owned and used a number of high quality pick-up arms over the years but none has provided me with this kind of resolution. Sceptics might question the degree to which such enthusiasm might be put down to infatuation with the product itself, for it is well known that in terms of finish alone, SME have no peers. But whilst owning to a deep admiration for the aesthetics of this product, I would still insist that the kind of subtle detail that it can convey, given appropriately chosen ancillary equipment, provides a degree of involvement with what is going on in a score which, with an analogue system, I have only experienced to a comparable extent when listening to master tapes under studio conditions. From a rock-solid bass to the most delicate cymbal 'zing' at the top end, the IV gives the impression of being totally neutral, seemingly adding no coloration of its own. Dynamic contrasts, too, are revealed to a frequently revelatory extent, where with less able designs everything is held within a more constrained envelope. And last but not least, record surface noise, the bane of so many people's hi-fi lives, is considerably less intrusive believe it or not!

To sum up

The SME Series IV offers the audio purist a level of performance surpassed, probably, only by its very much more expensive bigger brother. For the enthusiast with a treasured and substantial LP collection who is looking to spend, say, £1,500 on a turntable/arm/cartridge combination with which to exploit it, the Series IV leaves him with just two more choices to make.
IVOR HUMPHRIES. See more of SME's products: http://www.gramophone.co.uk

---

Another Review: http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/smeiv_e.html

SME IV arm
1000 pounds well spent?
[Italian version]

Product: SME IV arm
Manufacturer: SME Ltd. - UK
Approx. price: 1,000 UKP/1,500 US$ - Euro
Reviewer: Geoff Husband

A little history....

In the early eighties CD was about to sweep all before it, and yet at this time a new tonearm was launched that actually had more of an impact on the quality turntable market - the Rega RB 300.
Up until this point tonearms were generally basic garage engineering, i.e. most could have been produced, indeed many were, in a well equipped garage sized workshop. Superb arms like the Zeta and Alphason Hr100 started this way.
Even today if you look at most tonearms they are produced from a series of machined components, such as could be made on a small lathe/milling machine, coupled with a piece of tubing that is available off the shelf for use in such things as high pressure gas pipe. Components like bearings and headshells are then bought from OEM manufacturers and either glued or screwed into place to make the finished structure. Sometimes this technique can produce superb results and finish, but it is labour intensive and quality control is a nightmare.
Alternatively Japanese OEM manufacturers could produce tonearms by combining various components from their bit boxes to produce a bewildering variety at any price point, at the "High End" the ITTOK was perhaps the best known of all. These OEM arms totally dominated the budget arm market - look at a catalogue for the early 80's and you"ll find budget tonearms from AR, Linn, Alphason, Mission, Audio Technica, Goldring, Ariston etc etc, almost all of far eastern manufacture.

Look five years later and they're almost all gone - and when did you last see one? Why? CD? No - Rega upset the applecart by taking a radically different approach.
They had a successful turntable and were looking for a tonearm to replace the OEM one fitted at the time.
With a market already there for the turntable package they took the risk in producing the worlds first tonearm cast in one piece.
This obviously cost a great deal more to set up, but if volume could be guaranteed the tubes could be produced more cheaply than the fabricated tonearms that had gone before.
The big advantage was that with a one piece cast tonearm the tube could be tapered, reducing ringing resonances and there would be no joints between headshell and armtube to colour the sound.

The result was a runaway success, a tonearm that sold for entry-level money and yet was stiff enough and had good enough bearings to hold a top moving coil cartridge. This was an arm that on some turntables (not the LP12) could take on the ITTOK at five times its price.
The result? All other budget tonearms were wiped out almost overnight, leaving Rega the market to themselves. Not only that, more expensive arms suddenly found themselves in trouble and so the few that survived had to be something special beyond what the Rega could offer.

The Rega was not perfect and so could be taken on by expensive arms. That masterful tapered armtube contained the bearing housing but not the counterweight stub, which was a separate part. The thing had no VTA adjustment and the cables were pretty basic, after all, this arm sold for 100 pounds!
Though never putting a foot wrong the Rega often sounded a bit "grey" and undynamic", sounding safe rather than scaling the heights of the best.

In Britain the result was that in the mid 80's three manufacturers took up the challenge with, for the time, hugely expensive state-of-the-art designs. The Linn EKOS, was a beefed up ITTOK with glued rather than screwed headshell/armtube.
A perfect match for the LP12 but a rare beast on any other turntable. Likewise the Roksan Artemiz, was aimed specifically at the Company's own turntable. It was left to SME, the oldest arm manufacturer of them all, to take up the challenge of a top arm suitable for a wide range of quality turntables. The result was the SME V, closely followed by the simplified, but very similar IV.

So what was so special that made SME able to claim to make "The Finest Tonearm in the World". To find out I had SME send the cheaper of the two - the IV.

SME IV

When SME designed the V (1986) and IV (1987) I have a feeling their aim was to do a "Rega" to the top end of the market. They too adopted the expensive approach of using a cast armtube, this time in magnesium.
In this case a budget price point wasn't a problem and so they went the whole hog and the casting turned out to be a beautiful heavily tapered affair including the bearing housing and the counterweight stub. The process allowed not only the taper but different wall thickness throughout its length.
This arm has no joints whatsoever in the armtube with the inevitable exception of the counterweight which is slung and clamped under the counterweight stub. Below this there is a tool steel shaft where upright, massive and state-of-the-art ball bearing races form the bearing surfaces.
The bearing housing etc are also pressure cast, but this time from a massy Zinc alloy which damps out vibration. This makes the arm noticeably heavier than most, too heavy for an LP12 to be happy for example - more on this later... for a full technical description and history of the arm go to the SME website which is a fascinating read...

Just as the some arms are a sod to set up the IV is a joy. The arm upright being clamped in a 'sled". Undo two allen bolts and insert a splined lever in a hole and you can crank the whole arm back and forth to get perfect alignment - it takes seconds with the template supplied, no more farting about trying to wiggle a reluctant cartridge up and down some headshell slots then trying to tighten the bolts without the cartridge moving... I review cartridges and hate swapping them over.
It is a time of maximum risk and minimum pleasure! The SME "sled" and the template supplied mean I can now change a cartridge in about 10 minutes from play to play - absolute heaven... VTA adjustment is simply a case of pulling the arm up or down after finishing alignment, the arm holds itself at any level without the sled bolts being tightened so no risk of arm and cartridge crashing down...

The IV differs from the more expensive V in several ways. First there is a threaded VTA adjuster and damper available as an (expensive) option, the V has it as standard. Second the downforce is altered by a simple dial where with the IV you have to count turns on a tiny vernier as it winds the weight back and forth.
To be honest neither of these will effect the sound (see postcript!), merely make the already simple set-up even easier, though the damping does help some less well behaved cartridges....
Here some will argue that the sprung downforce dial is sonically superior to the simple see-saw balance of the IV.
Others argue that the simpler design offers less colouration, that the counterweight being closer to the headshell reduces inertia and that the V's performance would be better with the balance dial set at zero and the downforce set as with the IV. Having never done a comparison back to back I can't comment I merely point out the debate.
Interestingly the same argument rages between owners of Rega's 300 and simplified 250...

The only other difference is in the wiring. The the IV uses copper Litz internal wiring and the V silver, the lead out cable is VDH on the V, OFC copper on the IV.
Here there will be a sonic difference, the silver sounding brighter and a little more incisive if my comparisons of other silver cables are applicable.
This may or may not be an improvement depending on you system and tastes though the leadout is undoubtedly better, a possible later upgrade? To my mind this makes the IV better value sonically than the V. But - that VTA adjuster is a tempting proposition and its cost puts the IV much closer to the V...

Finish is beyond reproach, camera chrome, silver "paint" and styled to please, though I'm sure SME would claim "form follows function" - me I think they wanted to make it beautiful...
It is also a perfect match for my Gyro, the silver finish must come from the same pot, and the quality of engineering shines through on both products. Niggles? The arm is so heavily tapered, much more so than the Rega, that the clearance for warps is only 3-4 mms, if that is what it takes to give such an uncompromised performance then so-be-it.
The anti-skate dial is stiff and the cueing device works through a slightly odd arc. It also seems a little slippery, the arm often wanting to return towards the arm rest even after cleaning. Oh! the arm rest...
A little roller on the top of the plastic clip allows the arm to slip in like a Bentley door shutting - class!

Sound Quality
Well enough of the preamble, who cares what the thing looks like or how long it takes to set up - What does it sound like!

If you've only had a Rega before, or have never heard a top arm/TT combination you're in for a treat/shock... Here is an arm that has amazing control. With a top arm you know you are near the mastertape so low is the colouration, here the IV is better than any arm I've tried.
The Rega comes close, but is left totally stranded when it comes to dynamics. This is an arm that produces fireworks when the occasion demands, massive drum hits, cannons, rim shots - wow! In no way can it be described as "easy listening", but so low is the colouration that this display of muscle never becomes wearing.

Almost all my records are second hand and many misused in the past, but this arm crushes surface noise. Yet it has an extended top end, crystal clear without ever becoming sharp. Joe Morello's cymbal on Brubecks "Time Out" album showing shading and size impeccably.
Detail was as good as I've ever heard, backing vocals suddenly showing distinct singers, rather than a homogenised harmony, often stepping away from the lead singer.
On Nancy Griffiths "Last of the True Believers" Lyle Lovett's harmonies separated from Griffiths "fingernails on a blackboard" singing in a way I'd not heard before. Throughout imaging was always rock solid with no wandering, though I've heard other top arms as good.

At the bottom end the bass is seismic. Perhaps here more than anywhere else did the arm pull ahead of other top arms like the Artemiz, Alphason HR100, EKOS etc. Bass is massive but controlled, the lowest registers clean and fast, here I'm sure that it's capabilites are now well ahead of the rest of my system. An example... Marley's "Real situation". Here the SME made it sound almost as if another bass guitar was joining in - but no.
In fact it was the arm pulling out more of the fundamental, around 40 Hz, to go with the louder first harmonic. This was repeated time and time again on records that went low. The down side was that the arm plainly showed those records where the engineer had decided that fundamentals were optional to music.

I always feel that a good test of a component is if it can pick out the sonic signature of a recording. Here the IV made the best of recording but showed the different quality of each clearly.
Some LP's have a track list where songs are recorded at different venues and you could plainly spot the change.
Sting's "Nothing Like the Sun" is recorded at "Air Studios" in Monserrat. One track "We"ll be Together" is recorded at "Masterdisc" in New York. He should have stayed away from the "Big Apple", this track sounds harsh, tinny and compressed with no low bass.
It stands out like a sore thumb and in every respect is an obvious "filler". Bad enough to make me avoid the track altogether. The IV made this worse.

During the two months with the arm I've used an Ortofon MC20 Supreme, Shure V15, Dynavector DV20XL, Slate Audio Brazen and an AT33e. It coped with ease, each cartridge showing its strengths and weaknesses without prejudice. In this respect it is a reviewers tool "par excellence", it's greatest strength being that it has no overriding sonic signature to colour the sound, it just extends any cartridge to the limits.

Conclusion
What can I say? This is the best arm I've ever heard. It has no significant faults or weaknesses. It would be impossible to better its fit and finish, merely to match it - the V is sexy black lacquer but would clash with my Gyro :-) To beat it an arm will simply have to do something - anything better and yet give nothing away. It is a hard thing to ask.

So who won't like it? Well perhaps if you like your sound a little rose tinted it may just be too forthright, but then SME have that covered with the prehistoric SME 3009... There is a caveat.
Because it is so rigid, with a very solid mounting it puts huge energy into a turntable. This sort of "passes the buck" to the design of the turntable. Some TT's like the LP12 deal with this by having a "lossy" armboard/chassis so that the LP12 is a good sonic match. The problem being that with all the steel and zinc alloy the arm puts the suspension under some strain (as does the EKOS incidentally...).
Others damp the whole thing with mass, or absorbent Carbon fibre. The point is not the method, but whether it is effective. I Have a feeling that here my Gyro may need its subchassis damped as it does ring...

So have SME a competition destroyer in the V/IV as Rega did at the budget end? Yes and no. I've kept watch on all the new turntable launches over the last ten years, and surprisingly there have been a lot.
With the exception of those turntable manufacturers who make arms (Linn, Wilson Benesch, Audionote, Clearaudio etc) all that I have seen have been supplied for review, and have had publicity photographs taken with one of the big SME's. Even some of the Roksan Xerxes X's were fitted with an SME rather than the company's Artemiz.
Thus the SME's have become the badge of a quality table, as if by putting an SME on it shows it is a "serious" product. And where are the other "ultra rigid/low colouration" arms?
Apart from the Ekos and Artemiz, forever tied to their own tables? The rare Zeta, the odd Kuzma, but otherwise they've gone and I'd bet a weeks wages that the SME's outsell any of these companies 20 to 1. But the "High End" allows manufacturers much more scope for alternatives than the budget end.
Where the SME does have rivals they have moved the goalposts, avoiding a straight fight by being unipivots of various kinds (Grahams, Wilson Benesch, Hadcock, Naim Aro, Morch), parallel trackers or just plain weird (WTA). Here I have to admit ignorance. I've heard and been impressed by some of these, but never in my system. They may take the SME's on sonically, but to do that they are going to have to be very, very good...

Postcript
You can guess that I was besotted by the IV, and taking my job seriously as a reviewer, its lack of colouration and ease of adjustment make it the perfect review arm. So yes I bought it - great excuse eh? Convinced my wife anyway :-)

However I decided to go the whole hog and buy the damper VTA adjuster too. At 150 pounds its hideously expensive for a trough and paddle with a couple of screw adjusters, but the way is snaps together to form an integral part of the arm goes a long way to justifying the price.
It's justification for me was that it allows you to alter VTA in tiny increments and to do it, and move the sled for alignment adjustment whilst the record is playing!
Now SME don't advise this, and children, if you do this at home you must have an adult with you, but by loosening the sled and being very careful, you can gently wind the arm up, or back and forth whilst finding the "sweet spot". Once there of course everything must be clamped up, but what a superb way of getting a setting spot on. With a normal arm this could take hours (or months...), and then one slip and you've lost the setting, or the cantilever!

But what I didn't expect was the effect of the damper. That trough of silicon gloop has a paddle that can be moved up or down to give a complete range of damping from nothing to enough to make the Shure V15's built in damper redundant. Its effect varies from cartridge to cartridge, but all improved with just a touch of damping. The V15 being very high compliance needed more, the Dynavector just a touch but it was an improvement in both cases well worth the extra 175 pounds.
With it there was even tighter control in the bass and the improvement was very noticeable. Too much damping and the sound could become a little 'sat on", but it takes seconds to get it right.
I have to admit that having declared the SME the "lowest colouration arm I've ever heard" to find that the bass could be improved yet further rather took me aback.

So for now I'm happy, the SME V is supposed to be even better, maybe one day I"ll find out, but for other manufacturers out there - "I'm ready to find a better arm", send all comers...

© Copyright 1999 Geoff Husband - http://www.tnt-audio.com


- 모양은 비슷한 309, 역시 마그네슘 암.