I own both the FR 64 FX and the FR 64 S. Great arms, both of them. It seems that more and more people are aware of them, and the are becoming ever more expensive. I agree with @mulveling that a stone-body Kuetsu sounds great in an FR 64 FX, silver cable version. I run an almost 40 year old Kondo Audio Note Io ii in my FR 64 S, and on many recordings it is pure magic.
... the first recommendation was to change Stevenson in Baerwald geometry. I have no idea why the most Japanese tonearms followed Stevenson. To get Baerwald the spindle-pivot distance need to be increased to 231.5 mm which result in eff. length of 246 mm.
In my case it’s the other way around, to set-up Baerwald (instead of Steventon) we have to move the arm closer to the spindle for a few mm (or to move the cartridge forward in the shell). Pivot to spinde distance on FR-64FX is 230mm, i use Dr.Feickert protractor, so i can chose Baerwald, Loefgren or Stevenson. Ikeda-San use Stevenson for this tonearm by default with correct pivot to spinde distande (230mm). The Stevenson points are closer to the spindle than Baerwald points. So when i put the needle to the Baerwald, without changind pivot to spinde distance, i have my needle a few mm behind the Baerwald points, which means the 230mm is too much (and must the shortened by a few mm).
You said it must be increased from 230 to 231.5 as your German reviewers said, but it must be shortened to about 228 as i can see to set up tonearm by Baerwald with Feickert protractor (which is a great, precision tool).
P.S. I use Stevenson by default with several tonearms, no problem with that.
Dear @chakster : " I use Stevenson by default with several tonearms, no problem with that. "
I don’t know what you mean with no problem with that/Stevenson.
Always is a real problem to align any tonearm with Stevenson A choice and the problem is that even if you can’t detected or if you are quite satisfied with Stevenson A alignment is the alignment choice with the higher distortion levels that the other standard alignments ( and by a wide margins. ): Löfgren A or B all over the LP surface but the last 3mm of the inner most IEC groove standard distance that normally comes with out recorded grooves. Makes no sense to use Stevenson A: higher distortions all over the LP surface in favor of WHAT.
FR alignment specs comes for Stevenson A alignment and Mr. Ikeda as other Japanese brands that use Stevenson A are plain wrong. They have no idea about, they just did not understand how theose different alignment choices works. High ignorance level in this regards.
But those Germans are not only ignorant but stupid too when said that Löfgren A alignment for 246 effective length the P2S distance is 231.5mm. Totally wrong, it’s not.
If we want Löfgren A alignment in a FR tonearm using the FR effective length 245 spec then the P2S distance must be: 228.137mm , overhang : 16.863mm with an offset angle: 22.421°
But we can make Löfgren A calculations for a little longer effective length, say 247mm. This little change improves/lower the distortion levels.
Of course your Feickert protractor is rigth, no problem with. Dr. F. is not a stupid gentleman as other ignorants.
@mulveling , you can choose the P2S distance is convenient in your TT that permits the cartridge stylus to achieve the Löfgren A alignment. If you choose 247mm for the FR effective length then the Löfgren A/Baerwald gives you a P2S distance of: 230.283mm with 16.717mm on overhang and 22.23° on offset angle.
That is a way way better alignment than the Stevenson A choice or the ignorant " germans ".
You only has to send Yip MINT LP that build the Löfgren A/Baerwald protractor for that P2S distance and the TT spindle diameter measure.
Avoid to use FR/Orsonic/or the like headshells and you can improve that tonearm / cartridge sounds quality levels not only with that kind of alignment but re-wiring the internal tonearm cable and setting up the VTF in static way to avoid the ringing mechanism in that FR balanced design.
@chakster this last sentence is one of the advantages in the GST 801 over almost all the balanced tonearm designs but the MS. You left go a way superior tonearm in favor of your " new kid " FR. Well, I know that you are a seller too. Good.
@mulveling I have tried three different headshells with my Koetsu RSP and FR-64S (copper). Yamamoto HS-4 (carbon), Yamamoto HS-6 (titanium) and Ortofon LH-8000. Of the three, I like the Ortofon the best in my system. It has the right balance of detail without brightness, midrange beauty and bass extension. I use PASS XP-15/XP-10/XA30.5. I know that the RSP is different than the stone Koetsu (which I would love to hear!) but maybe you should give the Ortofon a try?
You left go a way superior tonearm in favor of your " new kid " FR. Well, I know that you are a seller too. Good. A seller of what? My own cartridges and stuff in upgrading process? As much as you and others.
My Lustre goes to an old friend in the neighbourhood, i'm very positive about FR64fx with FR-7f, can't do anything about it.
Makes no sense to use Stevenson A: higher distortions all over the LP surface in favor of WHAT.
If favor of "7 inch records as one of the reason, they are much smaller than "12 inch, and all musical information located as close to the spingle as the last track on LP surface. Less distortion in this particular area is more important than in the area outide of the '7 inch circle. But Stevenson was more concerned about classical music where crescendos moment (the most complex passages) located towards the inner side of the record. It's here in theory paragraph
If we want Löfgren A alignment in a FR tonearm using the FR effective length 245 spec then the P2S distance must be: 228.137mm , overhang : 16.863mm with an offset angle: 22.421°
@nandric correct, i trust my eyes, you should try feickert First points of loefgren and baerwald are so close to each other, so roughly 228 +/- is pivot to spindle distance if we don't use stevenson method.
Dear @chakster : Well, 99.9999% of the audiophiles in the world always listen the normal LPs not 7"inch records.
As I said Stevenson A is based on ignorance. Period.
Btw, don't " listen " to that so stupid people like those germans that have no idea to calculate Löfgren/Baerwald alignment. Not only ignorant but stupid.Period.
@invictus005 I have all kinds of tonearm (super light, mid, heavy mass) for my academic research.
Actually FR-64fx is not heavy mass, it's even said "low mass dynamic balanced tonearm", unless you're using W-250 counterweight with FR-7f cartridge (or SPU). Same with Lustre GST-801 with its 3 different counterweights, or AudioCraft tonearms etc.
For me everything FR related started with FR-5e MM cartridge, then FR-6se MM, then PMC-3 LOMC, and finally FR-7f LOMC praised by my rich buddy Nandric. This old and heavy monster with original LineContact stylus (in perfect condition) is something special. I think FR-7f sounds better on FX tonearm, but maybe my 64FX is in better condition than my ex Lustre 801 which was nice for my MM cartridges like Pioneer PC-1000 mkII or AT-ML series. The FR-64fx tonearm is primary for FR-7f cart in my system.
I want to keep two different arms on each turntable, light mass with MM and high mass with MC to learn more about different concepts.
Well, 99.9999% of the audiophiles in the world always listen the normal LPs not 7"inch records.
I don’t care about audiophiles with their reissues, CDs or files. There is a certain kind of record collectors who’re mainly into 45s (7inch singles), because most of the music from the 60s/70s on 45s (7 inch) never released on LPs.
I also like LPs, but i’m not a typical audiophile, i believe. I came from record collectors world and i used to play my records in public for 20 years, also on radiostations. The 45s is my main format when i’m playing here or abroad, they are easy to carry (one song per side).
BTW the old Technics standard is very close to Stevenson, i think they are still using the same 52mm plastic gause for the GAE tonerms? If the arm geometry is the same as the old SL1200mkII series, then we got almost Stevenson on GAE? Or did they change it to Baerwald?
Dear @chakster@mulveling : You can try the cartridge/tonearm alignment in that FR with these parameters:
overhang: 16.5mm, offset angle: 21.95° and P2S: 233.5mm. The distortion levels goes down again as tracking error. That is Löfgren A/Baerwald alignment but now with and EL: 250mm.
@lewm you can try too. Of course if the headshell and tonearm permit it, my unit is not mounted so I can’t test if works but if works with no problem with the cartridge alignment then is a true improvement. improvement.
@chakster : I'm not against which alignment is what you choosed. What I'm against it is that you posted " no prlem with Stevenson A alignment ", could be no problem for you but for almost all audiophiles exist a huge problem when in any tonearm the choice is Stevenson A alignment.
Btw, if Technics is what is using then they are ignorant of the real problems in that Stevenson A regards.
Btw, 20grs. on effective mass is not " low mass " tonearm as you said.
@karl_desch I actually already have an LH-8000; I’ve had it for several years now! That’s impressive that you preferred its sound to the Yamamatos. I never did sound-quality headshell comparisons on the FR64fx, but I do know that the LH-8000 certainly sounds very good, especially with Ortofon silver leads. I’m actually interested in trying out the LH-9000 (carbon fiber + magnesium). There’s nothing else out there, really, that looks "normal" and is made from higher-end materials (how did you cope with the Titanium Yamamoto’s mounting holes vs. slits?).
I enjoy the debate on alignments. I’m probably gonna splash out for a SMARTractor, and go with a Baerwald alignment (maybe with the longer than 230mm S-P distances, as has been suggested). Fortunately the CA turntable facilitates easy adjustment of S-P distance. And I never play any 7" discs, and I don’t want to cater to inner grooves at the expense of the rest of the record, so no Stevenson for me.
"overhang: 16.5mm, offset angle: 21.95° and P2S: 233.5mm. The distortion
levels goes down again as tracking error. That is Löfgren A/Baerwald
alignment but now with and EL: 250mm.
"
Yes, but we need very very long headshell (I do not know such a
sample) and we can not use Ortofon SPU and FR-7 cartridges.
My choice for FR64S is P2S 230mm. Löfgren A/Baerwald aligment via headshell: overhang: 16.7mm, offset angle: 22.25°,
effective length
246.7mm. If I use Ortofon SPU and FR-7, I am just on Stevenson geometry (by the way with great results).
Normally i prefer to use manufacturer recommendations first, then i need some time get used to the sound, then i can make changes (maybe). But i can't hear any single problem with Stevenson for FR-7f, at the moment FR64fx + RF-7f is a great combination. What i realized is thast my new First Watt F2J power amp and First Watt B1 passive preamp makes huge different compared to my tube gear i used before. The resolution is so high, First Watt gear must be neutral, tube gear was colored (i believe). Even my belowed WLM Phonata mm/mc phono stage sounds completely different with new First Watt amps. It was much darker with tube gear, but with high resolution First Watt gear it's just great.
@mulveling Well I guess you have no excuse not to try the LH-8000. I admit I was surprised too about my preference. It’s one of those things that was subtle but I kept going back to the Ortofon headshell and ultimately that’s where the RSP sounded best and where it ended up staying. I was able to use the Yamamoto HS6 despite the mounting holes because I can adjust overhang with my table’s sliding magnetic armboard.
I find it extremely difficult, with Koetsu, to see the cantilever well enough to adjust lateral angle at the null points. I rely on the cartridge body sides assuming they are parallel to the cantilever. I know this is a compromise. Let us know if the SmarTractor allows you to visualize the cantilever on your Koetsu if you end up grabbing one.
@invictus005 First Watt B1 is a passive buffer preamp to solve impedance issues, but it has no active gain. It has no sound signature, just the link between your source and power amp.
Japanese have always used Stevenson or Stevenson like alignments. They are the worst. Both Lofgren A and B are significantly better in distortion and real world sound. Raul is right.
Dear @ibelchev: Your alignment is rigth and better that use the Stevenson A.
Problem when we use 247mm/250mm Löfgren A alignmemntb is not the tonearm/headshell but those cartridges you and other persons like: SPU or FR7. This is the real problem on alignment.
So all of you not only are not hearing a top cartridge quality level performance through the FR7s and you can't have that top quality performance because inside the dedicated FR cartridge the wires/connectors to permit the signal pass through makes a severe degradation to the signal and this is part of what you like. Additional the cartridge is mounted in a non-damped tonearm in a way resonannt one that additional comes with a VTF ringing mechanism and that if not enough with that using Stevenson A way higher developed distortions and tracking error.
At least you don't use Stevenson any more.
I'm not against of what you like it because that is your privilege.
@chakster : I don’t know where is your common sense because I know for sure you are not a stupid gentleman as other.
Look, you said that for you Stevenson A alignment is the way to go due that normally listen to 7" recordings and that’s why the need of that alignment. I don’t know who or how you arrived to that conclusion because even with 7" recordings your assumption about is totally wrong and let me explain it:
I own several 7" recordings that I don’t listen and these size of recordings comes with a surface recorded length of 30mm ( around it. ) and the inner most recorded groove stays at 55mm so using Stevenson A you can get a little lower distortion levels in the last 8mm of those recorded 30mm surface.
So you choiced to have a little lower distortion level in the 26.7% of the recording surface in favor to have higher overall distortions? makes sense to you to have higher distortions levels in the 73.3% of all those 7" recordings? ? ! ! ! Because is that what you have !!!!!!
You are listening everywhere higher distortions in your system and that’s what you like and said there is no problem.
That’s why sometimes when you made recomendations on inferior quality items against top ones I normally post to you that: have no idea of what you are talking about and obviously you can have because you are listening with higher distortions that almost all audiophiles around the Earth.
Btw, "
It has no sound signature, ...""" how is that? because passive or active everything has signature. Obviously that with all those higher distortions you are accustom to you can't detect that kind of " signature ".
Raul, i have various tonearm and some of them designed with Baerwald like my Reed 3p "12, some of the others i can readjust easily with my Feickert. But as i said, i trust manufacturers. For example SONY PUA-7 has its own geometry and its own protractor, look here. I’m not so paranoic about distortion level in my system, but i want to learn (and i want to hear) why one geometry is better than another one. I have time to learn this process slowly with different arms and cartridges. If it’s clear for you it’s not clear for me yet.
Have you ever read Stevenson’s explanation about his method ?
P.S. Passive amps is easy to check for coloration, we can simply connect our source directly to the power amp to play some quiet tune, then we can add preamp in between to compare the sound signature. If we don’t need a buffer to solve impedance mismatch then there is even simplified device like the LightSpeed Attenuator. Using devices like First Watt B1 or LightSpeed Attenuator with a proper power amp we can save at least $2000 on active gain preamps. I like this concept, but i never tried the LightSpeed Attenuator, i use First Watt B1 passive buffer preamp.
It’s not a passive preamp. It’s a buffer. Passive preamps are horrendous. They have massive distortion and completely bastardize the original signal. They are complete and utter nonsense. Connecting source directly to amp will sound horrendous. In all honesty, you should really get a real preamplifier as buffers only are not the best either.
There’s nothing transparent about passive preamps as the potentiometer will have a significant impact on sound. And most of these potentiometers are worthless garbage. Especially today. Good stuff is no longer made and eBay pots are all 100% fake Chinese trash.
Passive preamps are made by people who know 0% about electronics and how circuits work.
@invictus005 You’re right it’s a buffer, but it has no active gain!
I think you should read this thread first before talking about true passive preamps. Some users sold their $8k active preamps for passive $450 Lightspeed attenuator.
But I’m talking about Nelson Pass gear, i hope you know who it is and maybe you’re familiar with his innovative design of the amps.
We're going off topic here, i'm not gonna discuss it here
About First Watt B1:
"This suggests the possibility of using a high quality buffer in conjunction with a volume control. A buffer is still an active circuit using tubes or transistors, but it has no voltage gain – it only interposes itself to make a low impedance into a high impedance, or vice versa.
If you put a buffer in front of a volume control, the control’s low impedance looks like high impedance. If you put a buffer after a volume control, it makes the output impedance much lower. You can put buffers before and after a volume control if you want.
The thing here is to try to make a buffer that is very neutral. Given the simple task, it’s pretty easy to construct simple buffers with very low distortion and noise and very wide bandwidth, all without negative feedback." -Nelson Pass
Nandric, I don't mind your allusions to what might or might not be my own beliefs and practices, but where did I ever say that I am "trusting the designers by assumption that they know what they are doing"? I really don't think I ever expressed that sentiment except perhaps in a specific context. For example, with tonearm alignment, I could do my own geometry, but life is short, so I do rely upon the maker of either the tonearm or the template. As a lawyer, you should expect an "objection" to your generalization which as a judge you would have to "sustain".
Anyway, when I purchased my UNItractor from you know whom, he advised me to set the P2S to 231.5mm for the FR64S and then to use the FR64S-specific alignment template supplied with the UNI. (For those who don't know, there is a separate dedicated template required for each and every tonearm, when you use the UNI; it comes supplied with a few templates chosen a priori by the buyer, and you buy any others that you need, separately.) In the case of the FR64S, I did do as I was advised to do. Sounds great.
Nelson knows his stuff, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of a buffer. But no way is a buffer better than an active linestage. And believe me, he knows this very well. Buffers are good for amateurs as they are simple to make and don't mess things up too much.
But that Lightspeed passive is nonsense. Putting a volume pot between your source and amp is so mind boggling stupid that I don't even know where to begin to explain why.
You’d better join the lightspeed thread to get the answer from the manufacturer or from the users.
What i don’t need is gain, even FW b1’s volume control set up no more than 9’oclock in my system, the sencitivity of my full range drivers is 101db. I have killer gain already with my First Watt F2J current source power amp. This is a way different compared to my ex push-pull integrated tube amp.
btw: this FW F2J power amp is not a "voltage amp", but a "current amp" for crossover-less speakers only. I'm blown away by its performance with my Zu Audio Druid speakers.
Voltage amp current amp who cares? And none of this has anything to do with gain. I don't need answers from the manufacturer or that thread, I haven't lost my mind yet.
Feeding a signal from source to amp through a volume control pot will massively attenuate and distort it. You'll have a major impedance problem. Source output will be bastardized in different manner depending where the volume is set. Things such as cables will have a tremendous negative impact.
Dynamic range will take a crap. There will be no sense of drive. A $10 receiver from the thrift store will sound better.
Forget about your gain, we use phono preamps as a source with super efficient speakers, all we actually need is a volume control between phono preamp and power amp, if there is no impedance mismatch. I use a buffer (with volume control) to avoid impedance mismatch, but people who uses LightSpeed Attenuator are not stupid.
Dear @chakster : Own geometry? where do you read that or whom tell you?. Sony is a japanese manufacturer and used Stevenson A alignment. There is no " dedicated " protractor for it, the one you have is a protractor where the manufacturer gaves to the customers but northing special.
Stevenson A is what you have there.
Again, I know you are not stupid but only with high ignorance level on that regards and because you are not stupid you always can learn. So do it !
Btw, which kind of question is that: " ave you ever read Stevenson’s explanation about his method ? """
please learn for you can’t make any more that kind of questions. If you don’t learn then you will cross that line of stupidity where some person here belongs. Take advantage that you are no there yet and do it a favor and learn or look for a good advisor/mentor/teacher in that alignment regards. I’m sure you can learn.
The only special-dedicated tonearm geometry/protractor I know is that one by SAT tonearm and with out any explanation yet by the manufacturer that alignment design was made it by ignorance.
@lewm, there are no " secrets " ( as you could think. ) about tonearm alignment subject only marketing that is bougth by people with not the rigth knowledge level on that regards. You can use the 247mm/250mm Löfgren A/Baerwald on your tonearm with great success and better on what you have now, using the parameters I posted here somewhere. Even the ivelchev that's Löfgren A choice works just fine. Anything but Stevenson A !. At least you can try and if you don't like it just comeback.
Sony PUA-7 does not fit to any alignments on my Feickert, so they use a different alignment for this tonearm. It is not Stevenson, Baerwald or Lofgren. If it was Stevenson then it must be dead on on Feickert’s Stevenson (with correct pivot to spindle distance), but it’s not. You know why? Because Sony protractor is different. I have the original one, not a printed copy or something. I know what i’m talking about, you’d better check it yourself in reality.
You remind me a soft of the dudes Nelson Pass is talking about, here is a quote:
So here we are in the New Millennium, and thanks to Tom Holman and THX we’ve got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.
Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp.
I suppose if I had to floor the accelerator to drive 55 mph, maybe I’d think the life was being sucked out of my driving. Then again, maybe I like 55. Nice and safe, good gas mileage…
Is impedance matching an issue? Passive volume controls do have to make a trade-off between input impedance and output impedance. If the input impedance is high, making the input to the volume control easy for the source to drive, then the output impedance is also high, possibly creating difficulty with the input impedance of the power amplifier. And vice versa: If your amplifier prefers low source impedance, then your signal source might have to look at low impedance in the volume control....
Because you have a different P2S mount distance. Try this: forgeret about the Sony protrcator and mount the PUA 7 at 235mm from the spindle and your Feickert protractor will works with any alignment you want.
@chakster Nelson doesn't sell passive preamps nor makes them. He only sells active preamps. B1 buffer was meant for DIY amateurs.
People who actually design circuits laugh at passive preamps. If this is something you want to use, go ahead. But you are seriously ruining any resemblance of good sound. And I honestly cannot take your opinion seriously on anything else.
Since I run tubes, and will have a Koetsu mounted on my FR64S, I guess it will be a miracle if I can discern any music at all from the DISTORTIONS! I'm ready for the challenge!
@lewm : As I said to you in my post ( one of my latests to chakster. ) you have nothing special on what you bougth not even that " unique unidin ".
This I pasted from other forum:
"""
in 1938 by LÖFGREN and his solutions through his calculations/equations where the object was and is to calculate the overhang and offset angle in any tonearm/cartridge combination. These are the main outputs in those equations that between other things gives both null points in any kind of alignment choosed and distortion levels.
The input variables need it to make the calculations are:
1- most outer groove record distance 2- most inner groove record distance and 3- tonearm effective length.
Does not exist null points for Löfgren B ( example. ) as a one and only solution: NO.
Null points depends directly not the kind of alignment but which outer/inner most groove distances we choosed as inputs in the equations/calculations. If we change these inputs null points will change it does not matters which kind of alignment we are using.
For years those two inputs were specified by the IEC and latter exist other standard DIN and exist JIS too ( any one of us can have our self standard too. ). The IEC values are: 146.05/60.325 mm where the DIN: 146.3/57.5 mm
Through the calculations we achieve too the distortion levels that depends on where " are " the calculated null points. The calculations tell us the distortion levels in between the null points and outer both null points.
Overall the UNIDIN is higher in distortion level than Löfgren B in MF. example/picture.
Now, UNIDIN is it something special?: NO.
As I said everyone can have its " own solution " changing the inputs. If we use DIN against IEC standard the overall distortion level will be higher as is the uni-din.
So Löfgren or Baerwald has not an exclusive null points it only depends on the input choosed in the calculations ( there are several calculators over the net. ).
If we change the most inner groove distance input using IEC, this is that instead of 60.325 mm we take as input 54 mm then we have those null points in the picture as uni-din....""
and you are correct when posted: "
I could do my own geometry, " and you can do it in less than 5 minutes ! ! !
Nelson doesn't sell passive preamps nor makes them. He only sells active preamps. B1 buffer was meant for DIY amateurs. People who actually design circuits laugh at passive preamps.
Are you talking about Nelson Pass new stuff? You should know that he makes 100 units of whatever model and then it’s out of production. Each model is different all the time. All his stuff available for DIY community, he provides all info for DIYers. So ALL his amps can be made by DIYers including B1 or any super expensive models of power amps etc, but i have the originals made by Nelson Pass.
Remember Pass Labs ALEPH L ? Two different versions were made, first one was 100% passive, second version was a combination of passive + active circuit. The active has been used ONLY when you need it, so the last Aleph L became active depends on the position of the volume control knob.
It seems like you don’t understand that there is no universal solution, everything depends on our systems. You, like Raul, pretends on absolute opinion, that’s very bad!
Because you have a different P2S mount distance. Try this: forgeret about the Sony protrcator and mount the PUA 7 at 235mm from the spindle and your Feickert protractor will works with any alignment you want.
That's was my point from the start to tell you that SONY PUA-7 geometry is unique, the pivot to spindle distance is about 221mm and special template provided with the arm to set it up like that. It's was off from well know 3 alignment methods and we're talking about big difference.
You see 221mm and 235mm is not the same, it's a bid difference.
What makes SONY corporation develope their own protractor if they could stick to the old Baerwald?
@chakster When it comes to passive preamps, there is an absolute, they’re laughably bad! Think it through, it’s a simple Ohm’s law. You want low source output impedance (<200R) and high amp input impedance (>10K). So what happens when you put a 10K, 50K, 100K pot in between? Hint, 10K pot will wreak less havoc than 100K pot. And unless the 10K pot is completely open, it will create progressively a bigger impedance mismatch as it’s turned down. It’s a nightmare scenario.
On top of that, even minor capacitance in the pF region in cables, parasitic, etc. will significantly attenuate high frequencies.
And further, the pot will dominate the sound/noise quality. Wiper pots are very noisy.
And your current induced noise will go up drastically. Using this between a phono preamp and amp is beyond dumb.
With a passive preamp, you’re taking a high quality source component and a high quality amp and turning them both to complete garbage.
Universal solution is a competent active preamplifier.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
