fonoman, You are 8 years late to the party. Raul is mellowed since then. I now own a 3160 Essential Phonolinepramp, and in my opinion it is the best sounding solid state preamplifier (phono plus linestage) that I have heard. For me it renders the aural distinction between a fine tube preamp and a solid state one, that formerly led me to choose tube over SS most of the time, irrelevant. However, I would never dare to claim that it or anything else in audio, not matter what it is made of, is perfect. I also continue to use and like my FR64S tonearm, especially with my Koetsu Urushi cartridge in an Ortofon LH9000 headshell. Urushi never sounded as good in any of several other different tonearms.
|
Dear Raul, I read your post of 4:51 PM on March 19. In that post, you merely quote your earlier post. What am I supposed to take away from that? Your post prior to mine seemed to say that you match discrete transistors in order to create the balanced circuit in your Phonolinepreamp. I responded that it must be very tedious to match transistors for a balanced circuit, by hand. I now realize that maybe you were saying that you DO use bipolar transistors (which contain two very closely matched active devices in one case) but that the ones you use are specially selected for you by a lab at Mexico University. Is that what you meant? And why should I think that this makes the 3150 unbeatable? Why must you then also throw in the insult that my system is not good enough for the 3150? You've evidently sold units to others with tube amplifiers, if that's the kernel of your disdain.
|
Raul, My source for the notion that you use the MAT02 in your preamplifier is.... you. You told me this in a personal email a few years ago. In the same email, you in effect congratulated me for choosing it. Or perhaps I misunderstood you; perhaps you just meant that you liked the MAT02 in general and did not mean to imply that you used it in the preamp. It doesn't really matter to me. I did not choose it at random; I chose it based on direct personal advice from Allen Wright, who told me he would use it in his RTP3C, if cost and availability were no problem. (Read his book "The Preamplifier Cookbook"; the MAT02 is now out of production, so far as I know.) If I am wrong in my thinking that you use the MAT02, thanks for the correction. It seems you are reluctant to divulge just what transistor you do use in your unit, but isn't the term "discrete bipolar" an oxymoron? The MAT02 and 03 are "bipolar" in that each contains two matched devices in one shell. If you use discretes, one for each phase, then you don't use a bipolar. Since the matching of the two halves in the MAT02 and like bipolar devices is fantastically tight, far tighter than one can get with matching tubes, I don't know what you gain by using discretes, except aggravation trying to match them. But that's your business and your preference.
In mentioning the CTC Blowtorch, Vendetta, and MFA Luminescence (which I think is over-rated by modern standards), I was only trying to side with you, by suggesting that your Phonolinepreamp may eventually assume similar long term "status", and therefore enhanced value, among audio aficionados, who are nothing if not snobbish when it comes to expensive yet unobtainable gear. I was not at all implying that your preamp is worse, or better, than any of the above.
And finally, neither you nor I nor anyone else can prove by winning some sort of verbal debate that one piece of equipment is better or worse than another. Words don't suffice. And, whether you like it or not, emotion plays a huge role in how one chooses one's components. |
Raul, Did you read my post from 3 PM today? In that post, I acknowledged that solid state devices can be put to good use in audio. Yes, the quote from the IEEE is an old one; I may even have posted it once before. When I come down adamantly on the other side, it is mainly because your attitudes are so infuriating, and I feel the need to be as dogmatic as you, only on the other side of the argument. There may be people who read this crap and take it seriously, and I don't want anyone going off with a bad impression of tubes per se. Yes, for sure, I use a balanced differential hybrid cascode at the input to my phono stage, using the very same bipolar transistor that you use, or used to use, in your phonolinepreamp, as the bottom half of the cascode. The MAT02. It is very quiet indeed, but the main advantage is tremendous high gain. (The MAT02 has a transconductance of about 500 with only 10mA of current. No tube can do that.) Because the gain is so high, I can anyway maximize signal to noise by keeping the volume control around 8 or 9 o'clock, where I even have enough gain for the Ortofon MC2000. But keep in mind, the top half of the cascode, and every active device downstream, is tubes.
Like I also said above, if you want to lend me a phonolinepreamp, I would be pleased to audition it. If you would just stop being a butthead about tubes, we could have other serious discussions.
By the way, please tell me about some of the revolutionary new transistors that are so radically different from what came before. FETs and MOSFETs are no longer brand new. |
Just to be clear, by tweaking Raul for his nearly crazy hatred of tubes, I do not mean to imply a similar negative bias against transistors. Perhaps I went too far in that direction, in order to get Raul's goat. (Raul, there must be an equivalent phrase in Spanish.) I am quite confident that wonderful sounding gear can be built with either or both types of active devices. I like to think that I have an open mind in this regard. But it is simply not true that "tubes" are inherently higher in distortion than are solid state devices, which is Raul's mantra. On that point, I do insist. And anyway, this is a sidebar to the debate about the FR64S, which is also a sidebar to the OP's question about comparing the FR54 to the FR64S. Love it or hate it, the FR64S is meant to be superior to the FR54 by its makers. At least we got that much across.
I would welcome the opportunity to audition Raul's phonolinepreamp in my system(s). I was lately under the impression that it is out of production. Someone would have to loan me one. It is quite possible for a low production, high end product such as that one to become a "cult classic" with enduring value and even the potential for appreciation. People pay way over original price for such pieces as the CTC Blowtorch, the MFA Luminescence, the Vendetta phono stage, etc. (I owned two tweaked samples of the MFA Luminescence, and I much prefer my Atma-sphere MP1.)
|
Dear Raul, The below summary comes from the IEEE, not the "AHEE", your fictional bugaboo. Note the first bullet point under the heading "Transistors-Disadvantages". I don't want to go back and forth with you any longer. You are entitled to your listening preferences, whatever they may be, but you are not entitled to create your own set of facts. Vacuum tubes – Advantages - Highly linear without negative feedback, specially some small-signal types
- Clipping is smooth, which is widely considered more musical than transistors
- Tolerant of overloads and voltage spikes
- Characteristics highly independent of temperature, greatly simplifies biasing
- Wider dynamic range than typical transistor circuits, thanks to higher operating voltages
- Device capacitances vary only slightly with signal voltages
- Capacitive coupling can be done with low-value, high-quality film capacitors
- Circuit designs tend to be simpler than semiconductor equivalents
- Operation is usually in Class A or AB, which minimizes crossover distortion
- Output transformer in power amp protects speaker from tube failure
- Maintenance tends to be easier because user can replace tubes
Vacuum tubes – Disadvantages - Bulky, hence less suitable for portable products
- High operating voltages required
- High power consumption, needs heater supply
- Generate lots of waste heat
- Lower power efficiency than transistors in small-signal circuits
- Low-cost glass tubes are physically fragile
- More prone to microphonics than semiconductors, especially in low-level stages
- Cathode electron-emitting materials are used up in operation, resulting in shorter lifetimes (typically 1-5 years for power tubes)
- High-impedance devices that usually need a matching transformer for low impedance loads, like speakers
- Usually higher cost than equivalent transistors
Transistors – Advantages - Usually lower cost than tubes, especially in small-signal circuits
- Smaller than equivalent tubes
- Can be combined in one die to make integrated circuit
- Lower power consumption than equivalent tubes, especially in small-signal circuits
- Less waste heat than equivalent tubes
- Can operate on low-voltage supplies, greater safety, lower component costs, smaller clearances
- Matching transformers not required for low-impedance loads
- Usually more physical ruggedness than tubes (depends on chassis construction)
Transistors – Disadvantages - Tendency toward higher distortion than equivalent tubes
- Complex circuits and considerable negative feedback required for low distortion
- Sharp clipping, in a manner widely considered non-musical, due to considerable negative feedback commonly used
- Device capacitances tend to vary with applied voltages
- Large unit-to-unit variations in key parameters, such as gain and threshold voltage
- Stored-charge effects add signal delay, which complicates high-frequency and feedback amplifier design
- Device parameters vary considerably with temperature, complicating biasing and raising the possibility of thermal runaway
- Cooling is less efficient than with tubes, because lower operating temperature is required for reliability
- Power MOSFETs have high input capacitances that very with voltage
- Class B totem-pole circuits are common, which can result in crossover distortion
- Less tolerant of overloads and voltage spikes than tubes
- Nearly all transistor power amplifiers have directly-coupled outputs and can damage speakers, even with active protection
- Capacitive coupling usually requires high-value electrolytic capacitors, which give inferior performance at audio-frequency extremes
- Greater tendency to pick up radio frequency interference, due to rectification by low-voltage diode junctions or slew-rate effects
- Maintenance more difficult; devices are not easily replaced by user
- Older transistors and ICs often unavailable after 20 years, making replacement difficult or impossible
|
My second system is located in our very large finished basement. I notice a benefit vs our living room, where system one resides. Plus the poured concrete floor of the basement helps a great deal. |
Recently, the movie "Heist", with Robert DeNiro et al, was shown on one of my cable channels. In that movie, DeNiro cracks an otherwise impregnable safe by first drilling a hole in the top, then filling the safe with water. He then drops a small explosive charge into the water-filled, sealed safe. This results in the bursting of the safe due to the lack of compressibility of water, much as you say would happen if you fired off an explosive in a small house. But I think there is a difference between dissipating the energy and hearing the extreme low bass frequencies. I think you do need "space" in order to propagate the frequencies as audible sound, where the wave length exceeds the dimensions of the closed environment. So, in a small room, you might get the worst of both worlds: unwanted energy that can feed back upon the equipment and failure to reproduce the sound as music.
|
bdp, Inside the chassis of each of my Beveridge amplifiers is the inscription, done in magic marker: "RM 1979". Knowing that Modjeski collaborated with Harold Beveridge back then, I have always assumed that he is "RM". With the help of an EE who owns a pair of Model 2 speakers, I/we have made quite a few improvements to the circuit, but there is only so much you can do, because the input stage is amazingly complex to begin with and for good reasons. He usually sends me long and detailed email instructions, and I print them out to have them at hand before doing anything new or trouble-shooting. I zapped my finger-tip once with 1600V; you don't forget that experience. When the speaker is fully assembled, the panels sit directly on top of the amplifier providing a direct connection between the two. The amplifier section effectively is the base of the speaker, for each channel. No loose speaker wires allowed. I bought a copy of the schematic from RM, a few years ago when I first acquired the Bevs.
There's at least one company (in Europe) that markets a ESL direct-drive amplifier which they claim can drive the Sound Labs, which is no mean feat, since the SLs require at least 5kV on each stator (and no one outside of the SL factory really knows exactly what the voltage needs to be). Ralph Karsten says he can make one, too. I am tempted. Maybe in my idle retirement years I will try it. |
I am a bit embarrassed and apologetic to the others as regards this exchange of insults in which I have participated. Fleib, your tone is no surprise to me; cut back on the coffee. Your level of certainty based on no data is also not a surprise. Raul, let’s just get one thing straight, if nothing else: you have never heard my Sound Lab speakers or any Sound Lab speakers that have been dramatically altered as have mine. My speakers have essentially no crossover, whereas the OEM Sound Lab speakers have an RC network to produce a high pass filter. The filter causes a major impedance dip at midrange frequencies. Furthermore, the resistor in the RC network robs amplifier power (Fleib). This robs the speaker of dynamics (Fleib), even when driven by a solid state behemoth, and really kills it with tube amplification. Please grant me this one thing, as I am willing to grant you that I have not heard your specially prepared and set up ADC speakers. If you want more info on the Sound Lab mod, we wrote about it on the Sound Lab Owners Group website. Dr. West modified his production speakers after thinking about what we had done, and why we did it, although he did not take our ideas as far as we did. ("We" is a guy in Australia and me, and then several other SL owners.) I found Dr. West to be a very fine gentleman. By the way, I would never use a transformer-coupled tube amplifier to drive ESLs. I use OTL tube amplifiers only, and my amplifiers are also one of a kind. I think when Raul dismisses tube amplification, he is really thinking about the imperfections of audio output transformers. My whole system upstream from the ESL has two capacitors in the signal path, one is 0.1uF and the other is 0.22uF (excluding the RIAA network of course). Both caps are teflon film and foil (VCap CuTf). Anyone who lives in my area is more than welcome to stop by for a listen, except Fleib.
Neither of us probably has any idea what the other is listening to. But, of course, I have two separate audio systems. The other one is based on a Beveridge 2SW with transmission line woofer below 80 Hz. The Beveridge is a direct-drive type of ESL in which the back wave is completely attenuated and the output from the front of the panel is refracted by a wave guide. NO audio step up transformer, no crossover above 80 Hz. (At 80 Hz, I use an active crossover with premium parts.) The Beveridge is quite dynamic (Fleib). Not the technicolor dynamics of a typical horn speaker, but definitely fast. The input and drive sections of the Beveridge direct-drive amplifier are solid state. Tubes are required in the output stage to achieve the +/-1600V needed to direct-drive the panels. (The FR64S is in this system.)
I promise that this is my last retaliatory post on this thread, and I do apologize to others for the sturm und drang. Now I think I will relax and enjoy the music. |
Wish it was practical to get rid of the transistors in both of my systems. The first transistor, by the way, was invented in 1947. The idea for the active devices you cherish is 70 years old. On the other hand, tubes go way back before the 1930s, even longer ago than what you wrote above. Probably the vacuum tube is more like 100 years old. The triode is inherently more linear than any transistor. This is not a matter of opinion. The age of the technology has nothing to do with it.
Do you really think that your system with 3 or 4 (not sure which) passive crossovers in the signal path is ever going to be optimal? What's better, no capacitor in the signal path or several very excellent capacitors (and resistors and inductors, required in order to achieve those steep slopes)? For me, the answer is "no capacitor". It's no wonder to me that you require a solid state amplifier to drive the complex and energy dissipating reactance of the crossover(s) you place between the amplifier and the speakers. What does the impedance curve look like? It must be a nightmare of low values, 2 ohms? 4 ohms? The question of what amplifier is optimal should never be decided out of context with the speaker to be mated with it, and you've created a monster that needs a high power solid state amplifier, to be sure. If you like it, that's fine. The whole world is wrong, and you are the only one who sees the light. Congratulations.
|
|
I'm still laughing from Syntax's post.
|
|
Dear Raul, Apparently, you would benefit from looking up the English definition of the word "respect". After that, try looking up "regards". You may be surprised to learn that you display neither quality. After that, please re-read any of my previous posts, because it seems to me that you don't read them with any sort of comprehension. In particular, please re-read my post of 01/27/17, posted at 4:03 PM. Or, try this, from 01/25/17:
"Raul, For the Nth time, I am only saying that MY FR64S sounds very good in my second system, which is very low in distortion and includes mostly solid state components in the chain from cartridge to speakers. Not that I agree in any way with your other diatribes, against vacuum tubes. But let's stick to the FR64S: My saying that I like my FR64S in this particular set-up does not mean that I think you are categorically "wrong" in your critique. Got that? I do recognize the theoretical importance of "damping". Until I put the stylus in the groove for the first time, I had no idea whether I would like or dislike the FR64S. I only knew that if I disliked it, I would have no problem re-selling it. But... I like it.
There are many cases in this hobby where components go against this or that widely held belief and nevertheless work well, and it is not always the case that they are perceived to work well only because they produce euphonic distortion. I understand that you hate the FR64S/66S. You are entitled to your feelings. Peace. Out."
Do you really think your system has lower distortion than a pair of Beveridge 2SW speakers directly driven by tweaked Beveridge amplifiers? I don't.
|
I had a go at re-wiring the tonearm on my Kenwood L07D, which has a separate part number, L07J. I gave up when I found that I could not separate the vertical shaft from the pivot housing, even after all fasteners that might have prevented the separation had been removed. I don't know what was holding them together, but I was loathe to exert total brute force. So, after several tries with "moderate" effort applied, I gave it up. With every pivoted tonearm, the delicate internal wires need somehow to get past the bearing at the pivot and must be installed so as not to impede the bearing in any plane. The job was too scary for me. I have conceived of a "quick and dirty" method, which I intend to apply to the L07J; one could run the wires entirely external to the arm tube but fixed to the arm tube with bits of tape, from above the headshell back to the pivot. Then fix the four leads right over the pivot point (so not to impede its motion) and run them maybe another foot back of the arm or all the way to the phono stage. I guess the same could be done with the FR tonearms, but mine has "Silver Inside", and I have no issues with short circuits. The L07J has Litz wire inside, which is commendable for low capacitance but I have always perceived a sort of sluggish coloration from Litz wire interconnects. The Kenwood, nevertheless sounds fine, but could it be better with "better" wire? This is what keeps us awake at night (for 5 minutes).
|
I'm not a customer for anything to damp my FR64S, as I have no reason to believe it's a problem in my system. (See any or all of my earlier posts here.) I am using a Dynavector headshell on my FR64S and an Acutex LPM320 cartridge, which is a light weight MI type. This tonearm/cartridge combo is arguably the most neutral of three other tonearm/cartridge combinations currently set up to work on 4 different turntables, in my two audio systems. If I was having a problem with resonant colorations, I would simply get rid of the FR64S, instead of putting a bandaid on it. (Actually, I would first try the FR64S with a very low compliance MC, which is theoretically a better match than the FR64S with Acutex.) The problem I certainly expected to have was to do with the mismatch of cartridge compliance (the Acutex cu = 42!) and tonearm effective mass.
Thekong, I have seen those photos by Thomas Schick. I was thinking about them when I composed my last post, trying to recall whether his photos revealed any stuffing in the FR64S. It's hard to know whether he removed some inert material before making his photos, so to clarify the situation with the wiring. One could ask him, I guess. |
dc, Raul owns or owned a DP75; there’s not much he hasn’t played with at one time or another. I own a DP80 which I’ve mounted in a slate plinth with a Triplanar tonearm. So far as I have been able to determine, DP75 = DP80. This is a wonderful combination that I never use, unfortunately, because my other four turntables take precedence. It’s ridiculously good, compared to what else you can buy for similar market value. When it was in regular use, I did prefer it to a Technics SP10 Mk2, also in a slate plinth that was nearly identical to the one housing the DP80, in terms of dimensions and mass (65 lbs).
After my last post, I started thinking more about the "lack of damping" of the FR64S/66S. It occurs to me that the pivot bearing does incorporate some sort of damping action; the lubricant captured in its bearing gets viscous after prolonged periods of disuse, which suggests to me that even when warm it has a damping action. Also, we seem to be assuming that the stainless steel arm tube is completely empty save for the wiring. I don’t know that it doesn’t incorporate any sort of "stuffing" that might also contribute to damping. These two points, if valid, would take some of the air out of Raul’s and J Carr’s criticisms. This is not to say that their dislike of the tonearm is not also valid. I only suggest that we are making an assumption about cause and effect. We don’t know that the objectionable qualities those two report are necessarily due to "lack of damping". We and they only assume that connection.
|
Nandric, Thanks for filling in the model number of the preferred Ikeda tonearm. I've never seen an Ikeda arm of any type, but in photos I don't see any evidence that they incorporate damping any more so than the FR tonearms. But I reckon the arm tubes may be internally damped, whereas the FRs are not. Just a guess.
|
In my post of 01/31/17, the one preceding Dover's last post, I should have written "because of", not "even with". It is because I am using a lighter than OEM headshell and a very lightweight MI cartridge that the CW has had to be moved so close to the pivot. Don't want to confuse anyone any more than necessary (heh-heh).
dcbingaman, Wouldn't it be the case that the FR64S and 66S are better suited for lowest compliance MC cartridges, because they are, respectively, higher in effective mass than the fx versions? So, you might say that the fx tonearms are best suited for low/medium compliance cartridges. I own an Urushi, too, and one of the reasons I bought the FR64S was to suit the Urushi, because I have read that the two are well matched. So far, I haven't gotten around to trying that combo, however.
I accidentally came upon the posts by J Carr, in which, like Raul, he mildly criticized the FR64S/66S tonearms for their resonant properties. Raul was not wrong in mentioning that he had J Carr on his side in the debate. J Carr seems to prefer the later Ikeda tonearms and some others, to the FRs, and he mentioned that Ikeda himself prefers his later tonearm designs to those he designed for FR. I think, in audio as in other pursuits, context is everything. I still have to go by what I hear in my system with the particular cartridge that I am using.
|
Dover, Your logic is impeccable. My memory was not, and anyway I should have thought more about what I wrote. The actual case is that even with a slightly lighter than OEM headshell and even with the Acutex (lightweight) cartridge, the CW is very close to as close as it can get to the pivot, with the assembly just balanced horizontally, at zero VTF. So I then used the dynamic to dial in VTF. If anything, I need a lighter CW. And your post reminds me that I did look for the W170 on eBay and Audiogon but have not found one.
I do in one sense like it the way I have it, because having the CW as close as possible to the pivot is a virtue in terms of minimizing effective mass, in view of the high compliance of the Acutex.
I suppose that to make a light CW heavier, you could also use those lead weights that are normally used in wheel balancing. They would tape right up against a cylindrical CW, like the one on the FR64S.
|
Haha!
You're probably right, 2channel. I plead guilty to letting the exchange degenerate into a mano a mano. However, someone wrote very early on that the FR64S is generally considered to be far superior to the FR54, and I, for one, assumed this is a given. The FR64S/66S were Fidelity Research's best efforts, along with the fx versions of the same tonearms. Most end users also have written that the FR64S is superior to the FX version, by a wide margin. I cannot attest to that, either way.
With any tonearm capable of dynamic balancing, it is usually not imperative to use the dynamic mechanism; one can optionally achieve the desired VTF by re-positioning the counter-weight, just as with any tonearm that lacks dynamic balancing. Among those who have an opinion, dynamic balancing is controversial. One would have to try it both ways with any particular combo of tonearm and cartridge. I do use the dynamic balance with my FR64S, largely because the Acutex cartridge is so light in weight that I cannot otherwise achieve VTF. I looked around for a heavier FR counter-wt, which would make it possible to balance the tonearm mechanically, but did not find one.
|
Ok. This is absolutely, positively, for sure the last time I will respond. I do not perceive that the FR64S causes any sort of audible distortion when used on my Victor TT101 with the Acutex LPM320 cartridge. I have heard the Acutex in several different tonearms; it was never so neutral as it is now in the FR64S. Earlier, I gave some reasons why even an undamped tonearm can avoid distortion caused by resonance, if the resonant energy is sinked properly into a much higher mass, such that the energy is dissipated as heat and not vibration. I believe this is the case with my system; the FR64S is mounted into the FR B60 optional base, which adds mass. The B60 is mounted into a custom made aluminum arm board which in turn is firmly anchored into a massive aluminum brace via a 1/2-inch diameter bolt that screws directly into the arm board from below the plinth. The energy transfer coefficient for this total ~6-lb mass taken as a whole is 1.0 or close to it, because it is all made of the same material or material that is closely related in terms of energy coefficient. Perhaps this is why the FR64S appears to add zero coloration.
The signal is ultimately heard over Beveridge speakers. These are among the lowest distortion transducers ever built.
|
I bow to your exclamation points!!!! |
Andrew, I'll have what you're having. |
Reveal some data, Oh great one! |
Raul, For the Nth time, I am only saying that MY FR64S sounds very good in my second system, which is very low in distortion and includes mostly solid state components in the chain from cartridge to speakers. Not that I agree in any way with your other diatribes, against vacuum tubes. But let's stick to the FR64S: My saying that I like my FR64S in this particular set-up does not mean that I think you are categorically "wrong" in your critique. Got that? I do recognize the theoretical importance of "damping". Until I put the stylus in the groove for the first time, I had no idea whether I would like or dislike the FR64S. I only knew that if I disliked it, I would have no problem re-selling it. But... I like it.
There are many cases in this hobby where components go against this or that widely held belief and nevertheless work well, and it is not always the case that they are perceived to work well only because they produce euphonic distortion. I understand that you hate the FR64S/66S. You are entitled to your feelings. Peace. Out. |
Raul, You just couldn't resist the dig about distortion-lovers, could you? Some day you may wake up and realize that your consciousness is not the only one in the universe. I hope that happens for you, soon. We are not all figments of your imagination. I expressed my opinion on the DA307 design, not its performance, and my opinion still stands. For what it's worth, I have indeed heard the DA307, in other systems over my lifetime. It's certainly not a "bad" tonearm, and I never said it was. As to the FR64S, I am reporting my listening impressions, NOT my opinion of its design. You say (elsewhere) that you are always learning. How can you learn anything from anyone else, when your mind is so closed to all other opinion? In fact, can you name one other knowledgable audiophile who derides the FR64S/66S as much as you do? Perhaps you can name one other than yourself. I can name 10 who disagree.
Bdunne, Just to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my DA307. The guy who returned it was just looking for an excuse. I sold it to him at a very low price, and I believe he bought it with the idea of flipping it on Audiogon, in order to make a few bucks. When that failed, he looked for a reason to return it. Since I cannot be bothered with such charlatans, and since the amount of money involved was small, I took it back (and returned his money) in good faith that at least I would get it back intact (with an intact cuing lever). I have since replaced the lever (it's plastic and therefore easy to break) with a device I built myself, made of metal. If you want it, you can have it for a low price, but a price that reflects the fact it's in good shape. My DP80 is and was in mint condition, and so is this DA307. |
The DA307 is liked by many. So, my opinion about the damper may hold no water. On the other hand, the FR64S (don't know about the FR64, unless you meant to refer to the 64S) is liked and admired by even more audiophiles, Raul excluded. This is not to say Raul is "wrong". I own both of these tonearms. I love the FR64S so far, don't hear any problems related to the lack of damping, and I have never used the DA307 (it came as a throw-in, when I bought a Denon DP80). I sold it (on Audiogon) to some creep who then sent it back to me with a broken cue-ing device, claiming there was a problem with the bearings. I could see his screwdriver marks on the bearing housing, and he made no mention of having broken the cue. It's been lying around my basement ever since. |
FR tonearms notwithstanding, I would point out that the Denon DA307 has a much different design flaw in and of itself: It has a flexible joint in the arm wand, interposed between the headshell and the pivot. I always thought this was a bad idea, but obviously someone at Denon thought it was a good idea, because they went to the trouble of building it into the arm wand. In my opinion, you don't want the arm wand to flex at all, because flexing can cause unstable alignment of the cartridge. It also interrupts energy transfer from headshell to pivot. Anyway, have you given it a listen? Do you like it? Raul cites Denon promotional material in support of the DA307 design. Who else is going to support that design, if not Denon? I am not sure who used the word "goofy" and why, but this seems to have upset Raul.
|
