advertisement


sme 3009/denon 103

A

anderson4209

pfm Member
Hi all, im trying to fit a denon 103 to my sme s2 non improved arm, im finding the counter weight needs to be way back on the arm rod to balance the cartridge, will the rubber coupling joint be under too much strain to use like this, at the moment im using a shure m75ed and the weight is far more forward, thanks for any help, best regards, peter.
 
Is the head-shell detachable? Do you also have the rider weight, as seen here?

You can get that join restored or refreshed fairly easily. The 103 can work in the S2 but you have to load up the arm to balance the weight, especially with an custom cartridge body.

sme002.jpg


sme001.jpg


http://www.analogue-classics.com/html/sme_3009___3012.html
 
Have you got the additional rider-weight (see bottom pic above)? Ideally you need that.

PS 103s like mass so a heavy headshell or headshell weight is a bonus.
 
Not really, no, especially given the 103 likes some mass at the headshell end. The rider weights do crop up for sale, usually about £35 or so. Here’s a NOS one. You could try phoning SME too, they still had them a few years back.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
I used my 3009-2 with a denon 103R and a heavy head shell even with the extra rider it was fairly well back but it was fine

IMG_2870 by Alan Towell, on Flickr

When I got my micro Sieki arm I needed more weight to balance the same headshell & cart so I just used stainless steel washers

20180607_220656 by Alan Towell, on Flickr

Alan
 
I've often thought about bending a new arm tube out of stainless steel to accommodate such cartridges but I gave up that notion when I said goodbye to the 103. Could there still be a market for such a thing if it was cheap enough?
 
24573070931_3d2d6aaba2_b.jpg


That’s a 103 in a stock SME shell with two additional 4.4g SME weights above the cart in the headshell to add mass. In hindsight I think one was maybe better, but it shows there is plenty of scope to balance out the cart. With a 103 having the counterweight a fair distance from the arm bearing is probably an advantage as it likes high effective mass.

PS Anyone know for sure if the stock weight and rider weight can balance an SPU? Always wondered about that, but academic now as I’m perfectly happy with my MP-500 MM!
 
I think you need two rider weights for an SPU with all the gubbins in its own head shell Tony. I’ve always thought the idea was to balance the weight across both halves of the knife but how you’d know exactly I’ve always considered a bit of a guess.
 
Chops54 said:
I’ve always thought the idea was to balance the weight across both halves of the knife but how you’d know exactly I’ve always considered a bit of a guess.
Click to expand...

The whole rider weight assembly can be adjusted sideways, the idea being that if you lift the rear of the arm up from underneath with a pencil or whatever held exactly level it should lift out of the knife edge bearing flat without rolling to either side. This isn’t always possible though as a lot of the time moving the rider out far enough means it will hit the cueing arm at the end of side, so really it is just a question of getting it as near as possible. The further back the counterweight assembly the more likely this is to work. The manual suggests it is non-critical anyway. I think SME made a mistake moving to the one piece counterweight in the late ‘60s, the older split-weight is far more sensible IMO (sadly I haven’t got one!).
 
Yes, thanks Tony, I was aware the whole assembly can move sideways but I was never sure I had the thing properly leveled out as one operation always seems to alter the other. You do have more patience than most others too lol.
 
Although SME never went into such detail, relying instead on their graduated scale, the accepted method of accurately setting lateral balance with 'S' or 'J' shaped tonearms is to defeat the bias, balance the tonearm such that it floats clear of the plinth/obstructions (helps if platter is removed as well the arm rest of classic SME) and then raise the back of the turntable by 15 to 20º. With offset angled vertical bearings, such as on most S-shaped arms, the rider weight will be in the optimum position when the 'virtual' line between pivot and stylus tip is parallel to the side of the plinth. Should the floating arm list outward (anti-clockwise rotation), for example, then the outrigger need be positioned slightly outward, and vis-versa for an inward listing arm. On the J-shaped SME arms with their none-angled vertical bearings, the line is 'literal' in that it extends from pivot through the straight portion of the arm tube. IOW, adjusting the rider weight inward or outward until the straight portion of the arm tube is parallel to the side of the plinth will result in perfect lateral balance.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that Craig. I'm just finishing rebuilding a Focus One and I'll be setting up its 3009 tomorrow evening all being well. I'll report back when I've done.
 
A lovely thing that! Looking forward to hearing how you make out.

BTW, I noticed a slight error of logic in my previous post, but I am prevented from editing them beyond one day. As such, here follows a correction...

With S-shaped tonearms, the lateral balance weight is on the LH side, whereas, with J-shaped arms they are on the RH side. As such, where I said; "Should the floating arm list outward (anti-clockwise rotation), for example, then the outrigger need be positioned slightly outward, and vis-versa for an inward listing arm.", I was referring to J-shaped arms like the SME 3009.

Again, this tendency to drift outward or inward will be apparent with the back of the deck raised by 15-20º with the tonearm floating freely.

HTHs
 
Last edited:
Well I didn't quite get there this evening. The arm was in a pretty poor state and its taken me a while to get it sorted but it's finished and just needs setting up which is tomorrow evenings task.
 
I had a DL103D (same weight, higher compliance) in a 3009/S2 (unimproved) back in the day and never had a problem with the counterweight. Even with an ADC solid headshell (heavier than the S2), I didn't have to have the counterweight all the way back or go into any heroics to balance it(?)
 
The difference is likely down to the fact that many users of lower to medium compliance MC cartridges add extra headshell mass in order to raise the net arm/cartridge effective mass of their 3009. This must be balanced by both the counterweight(s) as well the downforce/lateral balance outrigger weight(s) on classic SME. Although heavier than the stock S2 shell, your magnesium ADC was considered 'light' in its day (typically 7g ±.5g), the main selling features being low mass combined with very high rigidity.

Tony L, for example, decided to go with the standard S2 shell 'with two additional 4.4g SME weights above the cart in the headshell to add mass' (post #9 above). That would necessitate not only positioning his counterweight further back, but also require an extra outrigger weight in order to laterally balance the tonearm. Also, zooming in on Tony's Thorens pic above suggests that he was using the longest proper socket head stainless bolts that he could get his hands on.

Another possibility is that your S2 may have been an early version with the 56.1g (including rider) weight plus the optional 66.3g weight added on; a total of 122.4g vs. 111.2g (including rider) of the later norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top