SAE 1000E MC cartridge

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #80 on:** 14 Dec 2011, 02:06 am »

Who made those Micro Seiki cartridges?

sjaakhuijsman · « **Reply #81 on:** 14 Dec 2011, 07:12 pm »

Hello,

my setup is with the PS-X800, Micro Seiki MC4100/e, Cinemag SUT, Lehman BC with hefty DIY PSU, Kenwood Basic C2, Quad 303 and IMPULSE 44 Transmission line speakers (small dutch speaker factory).

I don't know who made the carts in those days.

They knew what they were doing, that's what I know

I'm a bit on the vintage side with my setup, that keeps the cost in control and offers me the biggest bang for the buck.....but you have to be lucky sometimes. _{Just like with (vintage) women}.

back on topic? I am a bit off...

FJK · « **Reply #82 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 01:20 pm »

Hope everyone is enjoying their SAE cartridges. I have two SAE cartridges that I will not be using. I have a brand new E and LT that I will put in classifieds.

.

midfi · « **Reply #83 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 05:46 am »

i wonder if it will work with the regular DUAL arm? I have 4 DUAL TT's (3 that are set up) but none with the ULM arm. I know that matching has something to do with suspension compliance. I'm running an AT-F3/III on a 701 so I'm guessing it would/should work?

catastrofe · « **Reply #84 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 12:51 pm »

Quote from: midfi on 7 Jan 2012, 05:46 am

i wonder if it will work with the regular DUAL arm? I have 4 DUAL TT's (3 that are set up) but none with the ULM arm. I know that matching has something to do with suspension compliance. I'm running an AT-F3/III on a 701 so I'm guessing it would/should work?

I purchased the LT version to use until I determine which "megabuck" cartridge I want, and to have on hand if/when my primary needs repair or stylus replacement.

neobop · « **Reply #85 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 02:12 pm »

Quote from: midfi on 7 Jan 2012, 05:46 am

i wonder if it will work with the regular DUAL arm? I have 4 DUAL TT's (3 that are set up) but none with the ULM arm. I know that matching has something to do with suspension compliance. I'm running an AT-F3/III on a 701 so I'm guessing it would/should work?

Hey Midfi,
How do you like the AT-F3/III ?

BTW, the SAE are just a little more compliant. The AT is 9cu @100Hz. That's about 17cu @10Hz. I think the SAE is 19cu.

BaMorin · « **Reply #86 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 03:16 pm »

Quote from: FJK on 26 Dec 2011, 01:20 pm

Hope everyone is enjoying their SAE cartridges. I have two SAE cartridges that I will not be using. I have a brand new E and LT that I will put in classifieds.

.

Any reasons?

midfi · « **Reply #87 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 07:56 pm »

Quote from: neobop on 7 Jan 2012, 02:12 pm

Hey Midfi,
How do you like the AT-F3/III ?

BTW, the SAE are just a little more compliant. The AT is 9cu @100Hz. That's about 17cu @10Hz. I think the SAE is 19cu.

I like it so far and I have not switched back to the 440MLa. The midbass on down is a little heavier than the 440, mids on up sound the same on my system.

Now onto the rest of your post, is "a little more compliant" a good thing?

Delta Wave · « **Reply #88 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 08:08 pm »

I just ordered the LT... looking forward to putting on my freshly tweaked SME S2I.

putz · « **Reply #89 on:** 7 Jan 2012, 09:57 pm »

Anyone using a SAE with a VPI Table/Arm?

neobop · « **Reply #90 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 12:06 am »

Quote from: midfi on 7 Jan 2012, 07:56 pm

I like it so far and I have not switched back to the 440MLa. The midbass on down is a little heavier than the 440, mids on up sound the same on my system.

Now onto the rest of your post, is "a little more compliant" a good thing?

If there are no problems with the F3/III, I'm guessing it would be OK with the SAE. I think your 701 also has some kind of resonance damping? The arm looks kind of light even though it's not a ULM. I can't say from experience, but ..... that's a definite maybe.

Seriously, I think it would be Ok but I can't guarantee it without experience of that match up.

I was trying to remember the arm I had the Adcom (HOMC) on. I think it was a Linn Basic + It was straight and around 12.5g eff mass. No problems with resonance.

Interesting comment on the F3/III. I would have guessed that the 440 was hotter up top. Which SAE are you thinking about, the E or LT?

midfi · « **Reply #91 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 04:16 am »

was looking at the e.

and nope, the 440 isn't hotter on my current setup over the F3. Jolida JD9 with Mullard tubes, obligatto caps, and 637/627/1128 opamps might have something to do with that(?).

madog99 · « **Reply #92 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 04:22 am »

Quote from: midfi on 8 Jan 2012, 04:16 am

was looking at the e.

and nope, the 440 isn't hotter on my current setup over the F3. Jolida JD9 with Mullard tubes, obligatto caps, and 637/627/1128 opamps might have something to do with that(?).

Go for the LT , haven't heard the E version but the LT has more detail , so others have said and is really good on older LP's , very quiet .

rotarius · « **Reply #93 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 06:38 pm »

Just got the LT yesterday and mounted it to the project arm on my Music Hall 5.1se. It took a little bit of effort to align it properly and 3 LPs later i have to agree it is very very good for the money. Better/stronger bass and a bit smoother than the denon dl110/160 carts and it is not even broken in fully. Pretty quiet as others have reported. Just for grins I attached a penny to the tonearm with blu-tac about 2.75 grams extra weight since the cart is so light and it improved the sound a bit. Cleaner mids while listening to classical, nice tweak for a penny

Load setting on the monolithic pre is 47K resistance and 100pf capacitance.

madog99 · « **Reply #94 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 06:50 pm »

Quote from: rotarius on 8 Jan 2012, 06:38 pm

Just got the LT yesterday and mounted it to the project arm on my Music Hall 5.1se. It took a little bit of effort to align it properly and 3 LPs later i have to agree it is very very good for the money. Better/stronger bass and a bit smoother than the denon dl110/160 carts and it is not even broken in fully. Pretty quiet as others have reported. Just for grins I attached a penny to the tonearm with blu-tac about 2.75 grams extra weight since the cart is so light and it improved the sound a bit. Cleaner mids while listening to classical, nice tweak for a penny
Load setting on the monolithic pre is 47K resistance and 100pf capacitance.

It does get a fair bit better after about 15 hr's or so , I also found I had to use a heavier headshell on the table I mounted it to originally to get the best sound .
cheers

catastrofe · « **Reply #95 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 06:56 pm »

Has anyone measured the mounting hole to stylus tip distance of the LT version for use with a Mint LP Tractor?

plastico · « **Reply #96 on:** 8 Jan 2012, 06:57 pm »

I used 2 grams of blue tack under the headshell as well. What loading value for the SAE1000lt are you guys running? I got mine at 47k.
cheers, Plastico

wgallupe · « **Reply #97 on:** 9 Jan 2012, 02:02 am »

Quote from: catastrofe on 8 Jan 2012, 06:56 pm

Has anyone measured the mounting hole to stylus tip distance of the LT version for use with a Mint LP Tractor?

The Mint LP protractor is designed to work with a specific tonearm pivot to platter spindle dimension. The location of the stylus tip in relation to the cartridge mounting holes is not important. (except for reaching correct overhand in some headshells).

catastrofe · « **Reply #98 on:** 9 Jan 2012, 02:06 am »

Quote from: wgallupe on 9 Jan 2012, 02:02 am

The Mint LP protractor is designed to work with a specific tonearm pivot to platter spindle dimension. The location of the stylus tip in relation to the cartridge mounting holes is not important. (except for reaching correct overhand in some headshells).

You've only got part of the story. . .

My arm is an SME, which has fixed mounting holes. Therefore, the mounting hole to stylus tip distance is critical because the cartridge cannot be moved in the headshell. For arms/headshells with slots, you're absolutely correct.

wgallupe · « **Reply #99 on:** 10 Jan 2012, 03:30 am »

Quote from: catastrofe on 9 Jan 2012, 02:06 am

You've only got part of the story. . .

My arm is an SME, which has fixed mounting holes. Therefore, the mounting hole to stylus tip distance is critical because the cartridge cannot be moved in the headshell. For arms/headshells with slots, you're absolutely correct.

Yes, of course. I forgot about the SME approach.

If not specified by the cartridge manufacturer, how do you accurately measure the mounting hole to stylus tip distance? I have never owned an SME but will someday