helomech, The Germans have this curious opinion: ''if theory and practice coincide than both are probably false''. I own the FR-64 designed by Ikeda san but also Ikeda 345 . Both have the same 'S' shape but the later is without the lateral weight. So, it seems, Ikeda was not convinced about (theoretical ?) advantage of this ''lateral weight'' by his previous arm. Your own ''bias'' is obvious because you used the expression ''the slightest weight bias'' with intention to belittle the issue(grin). I would say ''it depends'' , among other, from the weight of the headshell as well the cart. I own ''some'' which are above 30 g.
|
Nandric, I was just recently examining the shape of my FR64S. Would you say it is more "J"-shaped than "S"-shaped? That's what I concluded, J. An S-shaped tonearm generally has two curves in it; the FR64S has one bend. Either way, we know Raul hates it. He hates it with an intensity that seems inappropriate for an inanimate object. I, for example, only hate certain politicians. And yet, they pass for human.
How do you set the lateral weight? I just have mine in close to the pivot.
|
Dear @lewm : You are rigth, it's a J shapped design. Now, FR designed that lateral weigth balance mainly to compensate a non-perfectly leveled TT. Normally in the FR design that lateral weigth is not used if the TT is rigth on level. FR explained in its manual.
Other tonearms designs use a lateral balance for different issue.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear Lew, If there was something wrong with lateral balance or shape by FR-64 Raul would of course mention this many times instead of ''damping problem''. I made a considerable profit on his recommended MM carts because those increased in price as result. So I expected the opposite regarding the FR-64 because I am still looking for the perfect sample. Alas this never happened. You must be better in mathematics than I because everybody is better in mathematics. But regarding the shape which I guess has something to do with geometry (?) I am like this Serbian hunter and chakster: ''still a goat !'' (aka S shape). I hope your FR-64 is not mounted on one of your own made plinths? The only way I know to adjust the lateral weight is to lift the front side for about 10-15 cm and then move the weight in the opposite direction in which the arm moves ''on its own''. Till you get the arm in equilibrium. If whatever moves ''on its own'' then there must be some ''will'' present. Why not by inanimate objects? How do some(?) particles know where the other are (grin)? |
Thank you for that input, Raul.
And thanks for your response too, Nandric.
I don't have the FR64S owners manual. So I assumed that the lateral weight had to stay mounted on its post; I therefore have shoved it up against the pivot as far as it will go, on the assumption that my turntable is level AND that even in the extreme position, the lateral weight is doing something greater than zero to compensate for the J-shape, assuming that is a good thing to do.
I too wonder whether Raul's opinion of the FR64S has damaged its value, but since I am enjoying mine, I really don't care very much. I would not want to be one of those who recently paid a premium for the FR66S, however, where the asking prices are up around $6-7,000. But this is no reason for Raul not to express his honest opinion, his right to which I do defend. Nor do I doubt Raul's sincerity. |
rauliruegas
7,976 posts
07-04-2017 6:20am
Dear @lewm : You are rigth, it’s a J shapped design. Now, FR designed that lateral weigth balance mainly to compensate a non-perfectly leveled TT. Normally in the FR design that lateral weigth is not used if the TT is rigth on level. FR explained in its manual.
Raul, you are wrong. The lateral balance weight should be set 5mm in from the end of the shaft on the arm pillar. This is the neutral position. It explains clearly in the manual ( page 6 ) that that if you adjust the vertical balance to 0 ( floating ), lift the turntable slightly and check whether the arm floats in or out then you adjust the balance in or out from that neutral position to compensate. By reverse logic, if the arm mounting is perfectly level, then the weight should be at 5mm from the end of the shaft. I have proven this by placing a gap checker under my arm board, and as expected when I tilt the arm board even a few micron the balance has to be adjusted in or out from that neutral position. Furthermore when the arm is mounted perfectly level, and the Lateral Balance weight is 5mm in from the end of the shaft, the anti skate force required will be optimised. It is disappointing that you would spend hours commenting on the merits of the Fidelity Research FR64S tonearm when you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand how to set the FR64S up correctly. You hold yourself out to be an expert, when clearly you are not, and many folk who make the false assumption that that you are correct will be now setting their FR64’s up incorrectly (with the Lateral Balance removed ). This is not the first time that you have made big mistakes in setting up your equipment, I previously highlighted to you that you had installed your Dynavector Karat Nova with the cartridge holder mounted on your arm upside down. Please find attached a video demonstrating where you went wrong on that occasion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-imxZHS8 |
lewm
5,479 posts
07-04-2017 1:34pm
Thank you for that input, Raul.
And thanks for your response too, Nandric.
I don't have the FR64S owners manual. So I assumed that the lateral weight had to stay mounted on its post; I therefore have shoved it up against the pivot as far as it will go, on the assumption that my turntable is level AND that even in the extreme position, the lateral weight is doing something greater than zero to compensate for the J-shape, assuming that is a good thing to do. Lewm, Please read my previous post to addressed Raul. Like Raul you clearly do not understand how to set up the FR64S correctly. The neutral position for the Lateral Balance weight is 5mm in from the end of the shaft. By "shoving the lateral weight up against the pivot as far as it will go" you are running the arm out of balance and your set up is compromised. In a good quality system this should be clearly audible. I would suggest you review the set up of your FR64S again to ensure that you are hearing the FR64S is it was intended to be used. |
Dear Dover, ''there are many ways to skin a cat'' but this philosophy does not apply for the lateral balance by FR-64. I have no idea why this distance of 5mm is mentioned in the user manual. By using the expression ''Apprrox 5 mm'' the manual is as ''exact'' as this prescription. Not as curious as Raul's ''leveling the TT'' with the lateral balance but it is difficult to judge which ''advice'' is worst. BTW why should anyone use ''approximation'' when the correct method is describd in the same manual? The possible exception is our ''exceptional Lew'' because his plinths are exceptional qua weight. Those can't be lifted (grin). ''The less the better or the heavier the better'' are both curious rules. Those are probably ''deduced'' from Aristotelian ''essences''. There is this principle called ''reduction of the complexity'' but this has nothing to do with Aristotelian ''essences'' because he was proven wrong by Galileo reg. physics and by Frege reg. logic. I also missed your opinion about shape. I like Lew very much but I think that he and, more in partucular Raul, are/is wrong with their ''J'' guess. Compare the (old) SME arms with FR-64 so even blind people will see the difference. Looking at the back side tube by FR-64 one can see the (slight) deviation to the right seeing from above. To get the innicial balance between the bearings the ''S'' shape is needed. The ''J'' kinds always need lateral weight for this purpose. The later Ikeda arms can obviously do without. This to me means ''S'' shape, |
|
helomech, You are sportmanlike if your comment is meant as I would like to understand it (grin). |
Nandric,
There is a lot of myth in audio. The most common theory is that S shaped arms evolved from J shape to place the horizontal centre of mass of the arm tube/cartridge perpendicular to the 2 horizontal bearing points at the arm pivot closer to the centre. If you look at the J shape it places a high mass further to the inside and loads up the inside vertical bearing relative to the outside vertical bearing. As you lower the cartridge onto the record with a J shaped arm it will try and lift the inside bearing. With knife edge bearings such as the early J shaped SME's this means the inside bearing is unstable. Lateral balances are provided in some vintage arms to help correct the offset centre of mass of the arm tube/cartridge.
Straight arm tube arms are more common now, but a key point is that along with straight arm tubes most modern gimbal bearing arms now have offset bearings; that is, the vertical bearings at the tonearm pivot have an offset angle that matches the optimum offset angle of the cartridge determined by the pivot to stylus distance.
Most vintage arms including the FR64S do not have offset bearings.
The disadvantage of non offset bearings is that when the arm goes up and down a rotational force ( twisting ) is applied to the cantilever - the use of a lateral balance never eliminates this effect, but it can reduce it somewhat.
The lateral balance on the FR64S has multiple implications, because apart from providing adjustability to the inside cancelling force, the distribution of mass around the bearing housing alters the loads on the bearings, and ultimately the forces, both rotational and lateral, on the cantilever as the arm moves up and down and back and forth on eccentric records.
For this reason rather than second guess ALL the engineering considerations that have gone into the design of the arm, one should set an arm up as per the manual in the first instance. We have a saying "a bad workman blames his tools" - this is so very true of poor tonearm and/or cartridge set up that all too often leads to indifferent results.
|
I would not want to be one of those who recently paid a premium for the FR66S, however, where the asking prices are up around $6-7,000. I’m not sure if you are overestimating Raul’s influence Lewm (if I am understanding you correctly)...in suggesting that the prices of the FR-66s arms have gone down since other folk paid a ’premium’ for theirs...? I have two FR-66s arms (as well as a silver-wired FR-64s) and have seen their prices stabilise at about $9000-$10,000 over the last few years... http://www.topclassaudio.com/web/eng/used_product_details.jsp?gid=8068
That’s if you can find any available at all...... There is a badly beaten-up one available with missing items and without headshells for $5,850 from Otoman Vintage http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/352099982219?rmvSB=truebut this is hardly the quality that a serious collector or connoisseur will contemplate. At any rate....analogue-lovers willing to pay these prices for 35 year-old tonearms will do so knowing what these arms can do, And what they can do, compared to the very best ’modern’ arms....is still quite baffling! |
Dear dover, I am glad that I provoked this lecture about bearings. The sense of our forum is also to learn and not only to exchange our opinions. I have seen some info about Ikeda's new tonearms but missed the info about new kinds of bearings which he used in his new tonearms. My (wrong) guess was that he made some sevings by omission of the lateral balance. Even by such prices the argument of ''savings'' somehow seems to work (grin). |
Dear @dover : Of course I know exactly how to set up that arm. My post to @lewm was taking in count what the manual says: """ Note 2): the lateral balance device is provided to correct for the sideways tendency in tonearm movement that occurs when the TT cabinet is not used on a horizontal stand. Practically speaking no problems will occurif the TT is installed level. Therefore, you ordinary don’t need to pay too much attention to this adjustement ". yes the manual speaks about that 5mm.. In that same post I said that other tonearm designs use a lateral weigth for different reasons than FR. @lewm well I just found out the manual: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/fidelity-research/fr-64.shtmlIn the other side and I repeat it again because for you never had clear the explanation behind those pictures in an ad here in Agon and at very opportunity you have just come and try to hit me in any way, this only shows ( again and again. ) the very high level of frustration you have with me for long time because because many times showed you level of ignorance in discussions. That level of ignorance is different from my ignorance levels. Btw, you can’t hit me in that ridiculous way with the pictures or with the FR " unknowledge set up level ". Try to lead/surpass that high frustration levels in benefit of your self. For the people that unknow what’s behind those Dyna pictures here it is: I owned the Dyna Karat that comes with a " terrible/poor " dedicated headshell and I never used the cartridge with that headshell . When I put on sale I have to took pictures for Agon and I don’t care too much if the headshell position and that’s all. Who cares, cartridge sold but you took that pictures as a tool for your very high frustration levels. Good for you, live with. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @halcro : """
At any rate....analogue-lovers willing to pay these prices for 35 year-old tonearms will do so knowing what these arms can do,..... """
that's the " trouible " with FR owners that like you: DID NOT CATCH YET WHAT THESE ARMS CAN DO ! ! ! !
but I hope that before any one die can learn about. Don't be too late halcro.
Btw, @lewm : I used for a while the FR 66/64 and Ikeda tonearms since ( through the time. ) I learned the critical importance to mount a cartridge always in a well damped tonearm because is what any single cartridge asks for it can shows us its real and true quality level performance.
FR are totally all metal undamped design and additional has that " terrible " VTF resonant mechanism that preclude its use with a cartridge. This is just common sense and if you have a decent well damped design with the rigth audio system comparisons in between is really easy. You know very well when I say: " rigth audio system "..
I can't use any more a single piece of audio that I know for sure that in inherent way does not helps to lower distortions/colorations in the system but the other way around.
Lewm, knowing you I'm sure that if you already have ( that you have not, yet. ) that kind of knowledge/experiences you will do the same than me.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
rauliruegas
7,978 posts
07-05-2017 3:12am
Dear @dover : Of course I know exactly how to set up that arm.
My post to @lewm was taking in count what the manual says:
""" Note 2): the lateral balance device is provided to correct for the sideways tendency in tonearm movement that occurs when the TT cabinet is not used on a horizontal stand. Practically speaking no problems will occurif the TT is installed level. Therefore, you ordinary don’t need to pay too much attention to this adjustement ". Raul, It is clear that you do not know how to set up the FR64S correctly. "Adjustment" in English means 'do not move from the neutral position'. The 'neutral position' for the Lateral Balance is 5mm in from the end of the shaft as is explained clearly in the manual. rauliruegas
7,976 posts
07-04-2017 6:20am
Dear @lewm : You are rigth, it’s a J shapped design. Now, FR designed that lateral weigth balance mainly to compensate a non-perfectly leveled TT. Normally in the FR design that lateral weigth is not used if the TT is rigth on level. FR explained in its manual. In this post you were wrong when you advised people to "not use" the lateral balance. As regards the "Dynavector Karat Nova" you say rauliruegas
7,978 posts
07-05-2017 3:12amI owned the Dyna Karat that comes with a " terrible/poor " dedicated headshell and I never used the cartridge with that headshell .
Raul, How is it possible for you to conclude that the dedicated headshell provided with the Dynavector Karat Nova is "terrible" when you say that you never used it. That conclusion would appear to be fanciful at best. rauliruegas
7,978 posts
07-05-2017 3:12amI
the very high level of frustration you have with me for long time because because many times showed you level of ignorance in discussions. That level of ignorance is different from my ignorance levels. Raul, Thank you for those kind words. I leave you with a quote to reflect upon from Daniel Boorstin - “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” |
Dover : I can see that you return for more more and push me to give an answer, good.
"""
This is not the first time that you have made big mistakes in setting up your equipment, I previously highlighted to you that you had installed your Dynavector Karat Nova ..... """
what you have in your link it was not a SET UP in my system. Even in the other pictures in that Agon advertasing ( where you took your link. ) the cartridge was mounted ( just for the sale pictures. ) in a tonearm that was not mounted in my system or a TT. So the only purpose of your link is to " hit " me but you can touch me with that no-sense post.
"""
In this post you were wrong when you advised people to "not use" the lateral balance """
I'm not given an advise for not use it but only what is in the manual that maybe Lewm did not read ( I know now that he had not the manual. ).
"""
headshell provided with the Dynavector Karat Nova is "terrible" when you say that you never used it. """
Use something for me is to do it regulary and I never used the 13D with that headshell. Was enough when I received it to mount just as it came to decided to mount in other headshell. In those times I was convinced of the importance to mate a cartridge with the rigth headshell. but you did it the same because you used the Karat Nova with an Ikeda headshell in the Dyna tonearm.
Your recrimination posts proves nothing of what you want to prove.
Instead of follow losting your time with those kind of posts try to be a better audiophile growing up to do it. I know is not easy for you when exist one or more tubes in your system, with no future here but you can follow enjoying your " terrible " FR. Great combination: tubes and FR !
R.
|
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.
|
Genesis, I am using mine with a lightweight, non-FR, headshell, on which is mounted an Acutex LPM 320STR cartridge. I was prepared not to like this combination or to have a problem with bass response, at the very least, but I find that I do like it, and by this time I have been listening to it for nearly a year, off and on. The bass has great definition within the musical envelope, with no hangover or spurious rumble. From what I have read, the FR headshells by themselves are quite heavy, and I assume therefore that they account for a significant fraction of the OEM effective mass of an FR64S. I am also guessing that with my lightweight headshell, the effective mass is markedly reduced, although I haven't calculated it.
Finally, the basis for Raul's criticism of these tonearms seems to be that they lack damping. I have noted previously that in fact the pivot does seem to contain some viscous liquid that actually probably does provide a bit of damping. I infer this from the fact that at cold temperatures, the bearing becomes a bit stiff, overdamped in fact. So, I think what might be going on is that Raul has a fact and an observation that he believes correlate. Fact: the tonearm has no damping (he assumes). Observation: He doesn't like this tonearm. He is drawing a correlation between his listening experience and a principle of construction that may not be valid. We audiophiles commit this sin of attribution all the time. What is valid is his personal opinion that he does not like the FR tonearms, for whatever reason. I am fine with that. I wish he could stop by and hear mine. |
genisis,
I couldn't agree more with your observations. I discovered how sensitive my FR64S was to the positioning of the Lateral Balance weight by accident. My Final Audio Parthenon TT uses a gunmetal arm board and has no adjustment - the TT has no compliant materials in its structure and relies on precision machining of all components. One of my aftermarket custom machined arm boards was out only by a few thou of an inch and the net result was higher than expected anti skate force required. Experimenting around quickly highlighted that when the few thou error in the arm board was corrected the Lateral Balance ended up smack bang back in the recommended neutral position described in the manual and the anti skate minimal. This also suggests that the bearings in my particular sample are very sensitive.
I currently own the following arms - Eminent Technology ET2, Naim Aro, Dynavector 501, Micro Seiki MA505iii (low effective mass) and 2 Fidelity Research FR64S'. My preferred arms for ultimate performance are the ET2 and Naim Aro, but each arm has its plus' and minus' - the results can depend very much on cartridge matching, turntable and setup and this is the point often missed. I use the FR64S with an Ikeda Kiwame and Koetsu Black. My current reference is Naim Aro/Dynavector Karat Nova 13D or Eminent Technology ET2/whatever.
|
Lewm,
You are absolutely correct. Oil in the bearings will increase stiction and can even degrade the sound substantially at worst. I have no issue if Raul thinks that the FR64S is the worst arm he has ever heard in his system. However as you point out he cannot possibly ascribe the poor results he has experienced in his system to an attribute of the arm unless he has deconstructed the arm and run extensive lab tests trialling changes to the arm and measuring the results to isolate what each component and design element within the arm is contributing to any resonances generated by the cartridge on playback. Even then, the results can vary depending on cartridge, set up and arm board termination. Rauls' observations are only relevant within the context of the system in which has has heard the arm. He does not seem to grasp this concept and continues to make sweeping conclusions as you have alluded to.
With my Naim Aro the arm tube is purposely undamped, the designers intent is to transfer resonances as fast as possible to the unipivot bearing, where the bearing design and low centre of gravity from the underslung counterweight are designed to add mechanical damping by about 6-8db, from whence the residual is sunk to the arm board via mechanical grounding..
|
Dear Lew, The round plate before VTF adjuster has only decorative function. To get inside the arm this plate need to be removed. This plate is glued with a kind of ''weak glue'' but is, alas, not easy to remove . When removed the first thing we can see is the spring which has two functions. One is for the VTF adjustment the other is dynamic function of the arm. The mentioned spring is ''loaded'' in grease which can harden as function of time. Dertonarm advised ''watchmaker method'' to make the greas liquid: ''put the arm in the sun''. In my case this was not sufficient so I removed the old sticky greas from the spring and put new ''fresh grease'' instead. The VTF adjuster works smood since while possible resonances are supressed by the grease. Now regarding ''damping'' . I owned Triplanar VII for some years but never used ''damping provision'' with oil ''can''. Nor deed anyone else to my knowledge. So the Triplanar also lacks damping according to Raul. BTW you are wrong about ''inanimate objects''. ''Der Tonarm'' means the tonearm in English and both refer to an inanimate object but one of our former member has chosen this name as his member name. Yuo obviously ovelooked the real object of Raul's hate.
|
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.
|
Genesis 168, For those who swear by following the user manual you should mention that ''P to S'' distance as prescribed in the manual is 230 mm. Not 231,5 mm. The later is recommended by the first German review of the FR-64 S tonearm by ''Das Ohr" Magazine in April 1984. ''Our'' dertonarm was back than reviewer by this Magazine. This is of course the so called ''Bearwald geometry'' while Ikeda's 230 mm ''means'' Stevenson . |
Nandric, you are correct. I have tried both and highly recommend 231.5 especially on the dennessen.
|
I am using 231.5, because I took a cue from The Tonearm, several years ago. I even aligned it with the UNItractor, the official protractor of The Tonearm, also known to me privately as the Super Dennesen. Using the FR64S template in the UNI, also supplied to me by DT. Thus I must be in Baerwald alignment.
Nandric, When I received my FR64S from Japan, the bearing was "stiff". I actually followed the advice given, to leave it in the sun. A few hours on our kitchen table in the direct sunlight coming through the window was sufficient to loosen it up. Neither of our two sons tried to eat it. I've never had to do another heat treatment since then. |
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. |
Dear Lew, But you was not able to see the VTF spring and the greas in which the spring is dipped. So Raul may be right by assuming all kinds of resenances caused by the spring in your FR-64 . My got so much greas that it hardly can bread. So no resonances of any kind in my FR-64 sample. |
Dear @genesis168 : When you change the P to S tionearm distance ( in any arm. ) you are changing too the effective length and between some limit range on that alignment parameter number what you are doing is to increment or lowering the tracking distortion figure and tracking error too.
Using Löfgren A ( Baerwald ) and going from 245 ( FR spec. ) to 248.13 ( 231.5 ) means that you have a little lower distortion levels but you can play with those parameters and test for example: 256 on EL and this again will gives you lower tracking distortions figure and any one can do it. Obviously that we can do it between some limits due that the tonearms has a limited length and headshells too, so it’s only to make some tests to see where you can go with better results and I repeat you can do this for any tonearm that permits it.
We can do that it does not matters if we are using Löfgren A or B or Stevenson alignments.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear Nandric, Should I dip it in only the finest olive oil from Don Corleone? I am loathe to disassemble precision devices that I may not be able to re-assemble properly. In other words, my inclination is to let well enough alone. I went through this dilemma with the L07J tonearm from my Kenwood L07D. I was determined to upgrade the wiring and to create a continuous run from cartridge to phono stage, but I could not get the vertical piece of the arm structure to disengage from the horizontal piece, so as to get behind the one-of-a-kind Kenwood DIN plug and access the internal wiring. I got it loose, but the two pieces would not give up their death grip on one another. Rather than to risk total destruction of an irreplaceable item (as the bearings go rolling across my basement floor), I gave up. Discretion is the better part of valor, they say. Instead, I plan to run the new wire outside of the arm tube, totally bypassing the internal wiring.
Re position of the lateral counter-wt on the FR64S: I think I do have a copy of the owners manual, but I never consulted it as regards the lateral weight. I will do so now. |
I asked Yip by the Mint tractor who already made two of those for my other tonearms to make one for my FR-64 but with ''P to S'' distance of 231,5 mm. According to him and the tractor I got this meant 246 mm effective lenght, Not 248,13 mm . But some persons knows everything better it seems. |
Dear friends: Stevenson made two different alignment solutions, one was A and the B that coincide with LÖfgren A ( Baerwald. ).
Almost all Japanese tonearm manufacturers choosed Stevenson over both LÖfgren alignmente solutions because they want that distortions at inner LP grooves goes lower and audiophiles took it at the " best " alignment when IMHO it's not and makes no real sense.
Stevenson A reduce distortions at the very end inner grooves but in the other 9/10 of the LP grooves distortions goes a lot higher than both Löfgren solutions. For some of you this makes sense and that's what you like and is the way you are using the FR.
My take here is: why and how is it that any one could likes higher tracking distortions ( 9/10 of LP. ) ( this is a fact a measured fact not an opinion. ) than overall lower distortions with both Löfgren alignment solutions?
Any one can put some ligth about? @lewm @genesis168 or some one else?
@lewm / @genesis168 , a little help to understand: both of you are using 231.5 on P to S distance. The overhang that you are using is: 14.8 with an offset angle : 21.15°? or these parameters are different?
Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
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.
|
Dear genesis 168, I actually don't believe in ''collective psychology''. I think that each of us has his own. But sometimes I am not sure because people also repait what some other have stated, Say that ''crescendo's by classical music'' are at or near the record end. I own nearly only classical music and have rarely seen any record with any music near the end of the record. Then the most composers of the classical music composed their works long before records were invented and introduced. So they must be clairvoyant such that they wrote the crescendos ''for the end'' of the record. If this is ''the argument'' for Stevenson than no wonder why most of us prefer Bearwald. BTW what happened with you preference for the ''P to S'' distance of 231,5 mm by FR-64 which is Bearwald and not Stevenson? |
Dear Lew, I thought that oil and grease are different ''animals'' but I am not an expert in this domein of knowledge. However I always try to be kind to you . That is why I deed not mention Wagner in my last post. I know about your difficult upbringing because your whole family was fond of Wagner. So you was probably forced to listen to even Wagner's soprananos. Curious but true your love for music was reborn by a trumpet. I was always wondering why this instrument is regarded as an ''musical instrument'' but this is the best illustration of the truth of the known saying ''one man poison...'', etc. Now back to Wagner. All his opera's are recorded on at least 5 records. This way the Germans cheated me with at least 20 superfluous records because I needed to pay for them while those ''5'' could be easilly ''put'' on 4 records. That is if they used, say,Stevenson instead of Bearwald. I don't believe that much imagination is needed to grasp that record companies prefer to sell more records than less. |
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. |
Dear genesis, Either you also dislike Wagner or my Wagner argument was not convincing. But if my Wagner argument make sense what sense then has Stevenson alignment? That is to say if there is nothing on those ''at or near the end of the record''. If you were an Wagnerian with all those superfluous records in your collection you would have more empathy for my position. Anyway for the financial kind.
|
As a rough generalization, older records tended to be cut with grooves that went closer to the label. As mastering engineers got better at altering groove spacing to match the groove modulation, more music could be packed into any given space, so the necessity of cutting close to the label went down. Also, narrower profile styli (e.g., Shibata, van den Hul, other line contact) and other cartridge developments have made inner groove tracking less problematic. That means that the issues Stevenson alignment addresses is less of a concern these days. |
Dear @genesis168 : All we know the Stevenson reasons but thank’s to confirm it.
Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the profesional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. No one cares about and the " trouble " for some cartridges at the very end grooves was magnified.
Today thinks changed and almost no one has true problems at the end of inner grooves and when they have it’s only that the set up is not accurate. Every thing is continuous movement/changes and for some reasons I can’t understand we never change and stay sticky to very old " fashions " that only goes against our hobby that is MUSIC.
My advise is to change and try to live in 2017 and next year in 2018. Is up to each one of us.
Many of those gentlemans with that kind of trouble bougth the great MINT LP protractor and the tracking trouble just vanished and MINT LP use regulary Löfgren alignment.
I have several LPs with very hard/high velocity grooves to track it and not only at the inner groves but at the first third part of the LP grooves and I tested all those tracks ( that are part of my personal test process. ) using those 3 normal kind of alignments and if you try it you will listen very clearly what Stevenson alignment in those " easy " ( this is what you said or I understand from your post. ) begining grooves shows you against either Löfgren alignment and what you will find out is higher distortions/colorations.
But I tested too with LPs at inner grooves and in specific the Telarc 1812 where MC and MM cartridges makes its works with no dificult at all and tested these tracks with those 3 alignments and through Löfgren you can’t hear any additional coloration/distortions.
To be sure about we have to experience it making those kind of tests.
Now the measured tracking distortion levels of those 3 alignment solutions stay always if the alignment is " perfect "/accurate it does not matters the cartridge. Those numbers are the ones that always we have but because there is no perfect set up those distortion numbers goes up.
So, it’s really important accuracy and try to have the lower distortions as we can in the major LP surface.
At least for me is critical, numbers speaks for it self. I always want to be nearer to the recording and Löfgren puts me nearer way nearer than Stevenson.
The sellers that are behind those inner grooves alignment in reality are only sellers.
I agree with you that any one can choose whatever he wants.
Now, the ones that are using 231.5 P t S value and have 246.324 as the effective length of the FR that kind of numbers means are using Stevenson alignment and the ones that have 248.135 as effective length are using Löfgren A ( Baerwald. ). Obviously with thr rigth offset angle figure for each kind of alignment solution.
Btw, that's why what you posted is wrong:
"""
Nandric, you are correct. """ The P to S distance does not define a kind of alignment.
It’s clear that the gentlemans that are sticky to Stevenson or similar are unaware of the higher distortions are listen it and they like what are hearing. Maybe are unaware of it because they did not tests against other kind of alignments with a rigth test overall process.
I know that people do not likes I tal about distortions but again and again the posts confirm that many of us like higher DISTORTIONS ! over lower ones. That goes against MUSIC.
When I learned about those kind of alignments and its real importance along accuracy on it my set ups were and are around Löfgren solutions. No more Stevenson A or something similar.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
"Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the profesional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. No one cares about and the " trouble " for some cartridges at the very end grooves was magnified."
This is absurdly incorrect and misleading although it is revealing because it shows that raulruegas discovered the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a Music Reproduction System fairly recently and now that he has made that startling to him discovery he now portrays himself as an expert on the matter when it is actually clear that he is confused and I am being polite by using that word. The importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a
Music Reproduction System goes as far back at least as the earliest stereo records that employed the Westrex 45/45 system and early ariticles about the amazing Westrex 45/45 system almost always included information about the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment it is not a new or recent idea at all! In fact it was concern over not just proper alignment but that the problems caused by tracking error that the earliest linearly tracking arms/turntables were introduced. Rek-O-Cut made a linearly tracker in the 1950's and the Truline also dates to the 1950's and of course in the 1960's you had the original Rabco linearly tracking arms so to suggest that the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment is recent and that "no one"cared until lately is a patently false claim. Raul is way behind the times here and clearly lacks the experience and knowledge he professes in this group and the claim raises questions about the techniques he employs to measure the "DISTORTIONS" that he seems to always be shouting about in this group.
|
Dear @clearthink: """
This is absurdly incorrect and misleading although it is revealing because it shows that raulruegas discovered the importance of proper phono cartridge alignment in a Music Reproduction System fairly recently.... """
totally wrong assumption. Way before no one in this forum ( that I remember. ) talks in deep about the different alignment solutions I posted several times on that critical audio subject y through the time along other audiophiles we discuss in deep the overall subject.
"""
he now portrays himself as an expert on the matter when it is actually clear that he is confused ... """
first than all I never portrays as an expert on this issue. Through those years I posted where came those solutions for overhang and offset angle in the cartridge/tonearm set up. I don't want to repeat what I posted several times years ago ( not recently as you assumed. ) and only for your records and way before those linear tracking tonearm you name it was in 1908 when Harsanyi touched for the first time the subject on pivoted tonearm designs, Wilson followed him in 1924 and Löfgren in 1938.
You just came here trying to hit me in anyway but as many other gentlemans you just failed.
Instead of that why don't share to us why I'm wrong and with out know-how as you said. Please prove it not only post it with out true foundations or precise facts. Please enrich not only my ignorance level but the knowledge level of all other audiophiles.
Thank's in advance for your " ligth ".
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @larryi : Agree with you.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
rotaries
If the azimuth cannot be fixed by the limited headshell adjustment, you really need to return the cart you bought, you have a cartridge problem not a tonearm problem.
The headshell provides more than enough adjustment. Unfortunately the difficulty and time it takes to merely come close to the accuracy of the Well Tempered tonearm as determined by the Fozgometer is laughable. On the other hand if one doesn't notice the difference in azimuth then close is good enough. |
anybody remember the "gerrard zero 100" turntable? |
Hi larryi, I think we won the dispute on musical ground (my Wagner story) and technical ground (your technical story). |
Dear @g_nakamoto: Who can't remember it? when The Zero ( for zero tracking error. ) was and still is a TT design with a truly extremely special pivoted tonearm with " zero " tracking error that when designed in the 70's was " thousands " of years a head on pivoted tonearm designs even for today top designs.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear friends: Almost all the time when I ask to other gentlemans that enrich or provide/contribute with real information that can help us in the subject we are under a dialogue those gentlemans ( that posted a critic or not so good opinion in the subject. ) just disappears, no additional post in the subject only " dead silence ".
Make no sense to me that kind of attitude because if I come to any audio subject dialogue is because I have something not to say but something that can help or enrich our learning level.
In this alignment on pivoted tonearms audio critical subject at least two gentlemans ( genesis 168 and clearthink ) decided no additional coments, yes this is their privilege.
Btw, Stevenson A alignment solution today is totally out of question. It gaves NOTHING to improve the quality performance level on any cartridge or any system or any tonearm. Similar alignment approaches today helps to NOTHING.
Stevenson maybe works in the old times but not today, contributes only to listen way higher distortions due to its inherent higher tracking distortions level.
@larryi gaves very good reasons about and you read information ( not just an opinion. ) I posted here and through the years in other treads.
So make your self a favor and a favor to the MUSIC: staying out of STEVENSON alignment. Of course it’s up to you.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
"
In this alignment on pivoted tonearms audio critical subject at least two gentlemans ( genesis 168 and clearthink ) decided no additional coments, yes this is their privilege"
I did not respond to you because it is patently obvious that you don't know what your talking about and when confronted with facts you respond in a way that clearly denies the facts that are readily apparent to literally everyone who reads this board. For example you wrote that "Now, in the old times the protractors or the ones that came with tonearms was not really accurated and people did not to much care making the cartridge/tonearm set-up because they ( including me. ) was only starting to understand the importance of that set up, even the professional reviewers not talked about in their reviews. " You admitted that you didn't care about alignment and even claimed that no one else did either but as I showed you in my response that is completely false it is only true that you did not know about it and after you discovered the importance of proper alignment you now want to instruct everyone here on your special knowledge of alignment which has actually been generally known for decades as I previously pointed out to you. So there is no point in responding to you when you are confused and pretend you know everything there is to know about this subject that you just learned about relatively recently in time and yet you take credit for enlightening everyone here about the matter as you shout that we should enjoy the music and not DISTORTION. |
Dear @clearthink: Unfortunatelly you are wrong in your assumptions of what I posted. Maybe becfause English is not my native language. am I confused, how? I and you can ask to audiophiles ( even today professional reviewers ) in this board what were their knowledge levels on the precise and critical understanding the different cartridge/pivoted tonearm alignments in the middle of 60's early 70's. Which kind of true accurate protractors were they using and what level of accuracy had the own tonearm pick-ups? and not only that but in how many of those vintage protractors they read a precise explanation of the importance of accuracy on that st up or the type of alignment the protractor showed or in the case of tonearm manufacturers that explained it along the protractor accuracy its protractor had? In which of those protractors came perfectly explained that what the audiophile has to align is the cantilever and not the cartridge sides? Even in 2015 M.Fremer when was " talking " of the tonearm cartridge importance of precise set up posted ( somewhere. ): """
If you buy a ‘table that’s been pre-drilled and fitted with a secondary manufacturer’s arm, it’s a good idea to check the P2S distance either by using a protractor that has a measuring beam (Feickert, Dennesen, etc.) or if you don’t have one of those, by using a ruler marked in millimeters.................................................................................... Fortunately, there is some room to compensate for P2S distance error here in the form of head shell slots........ """"
imagine how good could be the today clear understanding on the subject by us audiophiles ( not you. You are an " expert ". ) when MF has that kind of misunderstood and in this thread there are clear examples of different kind of misunderstood by more than one gentleman that posted here. Of course that for you is very clear where is that MF misunderstood, rigth?
Anyway, I re-read twice your two posts here and just can´t find out your " expert " level on the alignment pivot tonearm subject.
You only post part of stereo recording history but you did not shared nothing on the pivot tonearm alignment subject, that's what I'm talking in my last posts.
So, what are you talking about? what do you want to prove and where are precise facts that can prove what you think (?) can prove? Please show us who you are ! ? ! ? ! ?. Every day is a learning day.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
