Curved and Straight Tonearms

As an owner of multiple FR tonearms including the FR66s and also have set u quite a number of FR arms for others, all I can say it is a very good Tonearm if coupled to the right cartridge. This is a very heavy Tonearm and best suited to very low compliance cartridges. Properly setting up the lateral balance weight is critical for that arm to work properly. There is a proper way of doing this. And honestly the weight almost always stays at the end of the shaft. That is from my vast experiences setting up these arms. 

Lewm, depending on cartridge compliance, you can easily match with different headshells. There are headshells from 8g all the way to 18g so you are pretty much covered. Yes both the 64s and 66s are amazing arms till today. I personally own over 25 arms (lost count) and that is still one of my top performer.

I have modern arms like the Reed, Dynavector, Graham Phantom 2 and Graham Elite and of course the SME V just to name a few and the FR is just as good or better when set up correctly.  

Setting the FR up properly is the key. In another thread the correct P to S distance for the 64s was said to be 231.5mm and best aligned with the Dennessen Protractor. I have several protractors for the arm. A Wally tracktor and the Dr Feikert and they do not sound close to what a dennessen does. I have mounted and set up many of the 64s for friends and clients and all of them are shocked what the arm is capable of. 

Finally since this thread is about straight vs curved arms, there is really no best but more different. All types have their pros and cons. Buy whatever that sounds good and works for you. That's why you need a turntable that has the capability to take more than one arm.

Nandric, you are correct. I have tried both and highly recommend 231.5 especially on the dennessen. 

Lewm, the uni is the only better alignment tool for any Tonearm. Noticeably better than the dennessen. But not that affordable. I own one because I do setups and installs and it's by far the best tool in the market as far as universality, ease of use and precision. 

There is a reason why the Stevenson alignment exists. Yes it is universally known that the Lofgren had a lower overall distortion figure across "most of the playable surface" on the LP. Have you asked yourself why Not only use Lofgren then? We all know the most difficult part of the LP to track is the inner grooves. The outer and middle parts of the LPs are relatively "easier" to track compared to the inner tracks. If you look at the graphs Lofgren vs Stevenson the distortion figures at the inner grooves are way lower hence making it easier for the arm to track. Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track so if you need to choose your compromise then I'd rather take the lower distortion on the most difficult parts to track.

Also, for those who listen to large scale classical music, the crescendo almost always falls at the end of the side. So huge dynamic swings at the most difficult part of the Lp to track. That's why Stevenson works. 

I guess everyone has heard of inner groove distortions and not outer groove distortions so that explains something. Inner groove=difficult to track. 

I am not for or or against any type of alignment. They all work. Stevenson did do his homework and made his compromise. Try it and decide. No sense listening to second hand talk from others. BTW, there is this "new" curve called the Uni-DIN which I like. There is nothing new about it but just a set of compromises taken at the different points just like all the other alignment curves. 

Lastly, there is no use plugging numbers in speadsheet and trying to make sense  at distortion figures and curves. Numbers don't usually tell the whole story. Numbers won't tell you what will sound good or bad. It's just a guide. If you like numbers you should all go and buy some Japanese home theatre receiver.

Nandric, if you read my comments near the end I mentioned that I'm not for any type of alignment. I urge users to experiment themselves and not just look at numbers. My post was not that Stevenson was the only way to go but that Stevenson method did make some sense hence it was adopted by certain tonearm manufacturers. That was it. 

For the record, I wasn't once on "that" post talking about the FR tonearms or the 231.5 PS point or the alignment on my system. Only talking about the Stevenson alignment in general that it made sense for what it was designed to do.