SME 3009r headshell advice

[mjkelshaw]

Hi,
I've just noticed this thread - not been on AOS for a while.
The main difference between the earlier SME h/shells and the later 'R' type ones, ignoring the attachment of the finger lift, is the addition of a lower locating pin, i.e. earlier h/shells have one pin on the top of the connector, the latter 'R' types have 2, the lower one being offset towards the front of the h/shell connector.
Regardless of the number of pins, both types of h/shell will fit either the 'R' type or the earlier versions of the arms.

Regards
Mike Kelshaw

[pidge22]

Hi,
I've just noticed this thread - not been on AOS for a while.
The main difference between the earlier SME h/shells and the later 'R' type ones, ignoring the attachment of the finger lift, is the addition of a lower locating pin, i.e. earlier h/shells have one pin on the top of the connector, the latter 'R' types have 2, the lower one being offset towards the front of the h/shell connector.
Regardless of the number of pins, both types of h/shell will fit either the 'R' type or the earlier versions of the arms.



Regards
Mike Kelshaw

thanks for the information ...

[tinear]

The problem I have with these headshells is the rubber spacer (seemingly bonded-to with the S2-R) which SME presumably introduced due to less exact assembly/manufacturing tolerances.
However, a mid '60's SME 3009 appears so well engineered that no spacer is required; even with the single draw-pin in the S2 it creates a one-piece bond with the arm-tube.

[Barry]

The problem I have with these headshells is the rubber spacer (seemingly bonded-to with the S2-R) which SME presumably introduced due to less exact assembly/manufacturing tolerances.
However, a mid '60's SME 3009 appears so well engineered that no spacer is required; even with the single draw-pin in the S2 it creates a one-piece bond with the arm-tube.

I have a couple of SME S2-R headshells. The rubber washer is easily removed.

It's presence (on both the S2, S3 and S2-R shells ) has nothing to do with assembly/manufacturing tolerances. Alastair Robertson-Aikman (who designed the arm) thought that a small amount of decoupling was beneficial. Whether you agree with him or not, the rubber washer is easily removed.

[tinear]

Well, I've noticed if the rubber spacer is omitted then the headshell (have a few) will 'wobble' as it doesn't make intimate contact to the arm-tube end...possibly the fault of my particular mid-70's 3009 improved, then - or, as Audio T said, a few years previously, 'its gone all plasticky..'
(an additional problem is that the rubber compresses unevenly with the single-pin S2 - so the headshell is no longer in alignment with the arm-tube)

[Barry]

Well, I've noticed if the rubber spacer is omitted then the headshell (have a few) will 'wobble' as it doesn't make intimate contact to the arm-tube end...possibly the fault of my particular mid-70's 3009 improved, then - or, as Audio T said, a few years previously, 'its gone all plasticky..'

Interesting. I have five SME arms (two 3009/IIs, a 3009/II ()improved, a 3012/II and an M2-12R) as well as 10 SME headshells (mostly S2, an S3 and a couple of S2-Rs) and all mate securely regardless of whether the rubber washer is present or not.

The same was found with the ADC LMG cast magnesium headshells I used to use in the '80s.