My love to Ikeda & FR tonearms getting stronger. I'm a junkie about NOS vintage gear, i couldn't ignore Fidelity-Research FR-64fx in NOS condition in original box with documents (complete set). What a wonderful tonearm! Arrived this week, this is really a state of the art design. I like its black finishing, each time i compare it to the FR-64s i like the 64fx better. I've been using another sample with W-250 counterweight for FR-7fz. It's funny, but looking just for a small counterweight i ended up with another sample of FR-64fx (NOS) with this counterweight. So now i can use this arm with conventional cartridges (higher compliance). |
| Post removed |
I have the same set up as you. In my experience there is a clear sonic gain with the N-60 stabilizer nut. The added mass seems to benefits the 'bottom end' of the sonic spectrum and makes the whole presentation somewhat more relaxed. This can be observed with both the 64s and 64fx arms. Sonically the B-60 base does the exact same thing, with the added convenience of VTA on the fly. If anyone is interested, I have a spare N-60. It's a replica, but then again this is just a piece of machined stainless steel. No washer, but the same weight and same dimensions as the original. The only difference is that the original has a sticker with the model number. |
Anyone can tell me the exact weight of the original N-60 arm stabilizer nut ? I have FR brochure scan where i can see N-60 + additiona metal washer on the picture, the mass of the combo is 430g. But what is the mass of the N-60 (without metal washer) ? Is it possible that the mass of the N-60 is 370g ? It means the washer weight is 60g, is that true ? Would be nice to check, because the N-60 normally shows up for sale without washer. I’m gonna use N-60 for 64fx tonearm. |
Dear chakster, In my FR manual only the small FR-64S (170g) and heavy FR-64 fx (250g) are mentioned. I own, next to 170g, also 250 g weight for my FR-64S. The later is according to me the standard weight. I never needed heavier kind. But do use the 170 g for light cartridges. I mean MC kinds in my case but this should also apply for the most MM carts. |
@nkj nice, i wish i could add that B-60 base and N-60 stabilizer to 64s. The 64fx is good as it is, in its stock condition. I use Stevenson geometry with my FR-64fx + FR-7fz cartridge, as recommended by the manufacturer (Ikeda San). With this cartridge you can not change the geometry as you simply can’t twist the cartridge in the "headshell". With conventionel cartridge you can change the geometry, but not with a headshell integrated FR-7 series. |
I got my FR-64s from the postman today. Soon i’ll be able to compare FR64fx side to side to FR-64s. Both arms are in perfect condition, but my 64fx is almost like new. I’ve been using my FR64fx with original W-250 (30mm long) superheavy counterweight, this weight does not comes with the arm, it must be purchased separately and it’s extremely rare. The weight which i got on FR-64s is smaller (25mm long), probably it’s not the heaviest among those 3 different weight designed for FR-64s tonearm? Is that a medium weight @nandric ? I have not mounted FR-64s, but what i can say immediately from the first look is that the armbase design of the 64s is awful compared to the beautiful 64fx armbase ! 1) The base of 64fx is much bigger and thicker, it has two screws that does not require any tool to adjust/fix VTA of the tonearm quickly and easily. Actually there is no need for optional B-60 for 64fx! 2) The 64fx armbase has 3 vertical screws (tiangle) goes throught it to fix the armbase to the turntable base. The 64s does not have anything like that! 3) Then there is a huge nut under the base on 64fx. The nut of the 64s is much smaller and if we don’t have super expensive optional VTA on the fly base (B-60 for 64s) then mounting process is completely different compared to the 64fx tonearm. 4) Basically the 64s has some sort of thick washer and nut to fix the arm, the VTA can be fixed with two screws, but only with a tool. While the 64fx can be easily fixed manually first and then tighten up with a tool. 5) Tracking force ring on 64fx is much better! This ring works like an expensive safe lock, the movement of the ring is fixed step by step while the tracking force ring on the 64s has free smoth movement. 6) Curved pad of the armlift on 64fx is metal, while this pad on 64s is plastic (too bad). *** In my opinion the Fidelity-Research FR-64fx toneam build quality and usability is much better than 64s ! Many mechanical things were improved on "fx" version. The FR 64fx tonearm is more user friendly for sure. ** Now i understand why each owner of the 64s is looking for B-60, but the owners of the 64fx shouldn’t worry about it. * Later i will check is it true that 64s has better sonics than 64fx, but at the moment my choice is 64fx for many reasons described above. |
Dear @lewm : I podted because your comment that could make your own alignment and you are rigth any one can, that was an example. I'm posting here even that the FR tonearms are a bad design because the owners like you can improve the quality performance level in the FR tonearm. I know that you don't care then is not for you but for the ones that cares about making some " simple " changes in the overall alignment set up all can do it. @ivelchev did it with out changing the P2S distance. My take here in this alignment regards and with any pivoted tonearm is always that tif he arm board and tonearm headshell permit it set up the alignment choosing Löfgren A/Baerwald or B with a bit longer length that the manufacturer spec for effective length. How much longer?, as the set up permit it. In that way the tracking error will goes down as the distortions levels and these means that we will have/listen more groove recorded information with less/lower degradation. Worth to do it . That's why I told you to test 247mm/250mm on effective length using Löfgren A/Baerwald, you will receive better quality on what you are listening today. No doubt about. No, I don't care if you do or not. Again, I know that you don't care and like in your Dynavector tonearm set up you follows the manufacturer specs even with higher distortions but that's you. Through the years I learned the critical importance of turntable/tonearm/cartridge alignment set up and the importance that the set up be made it with accuracy. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @chakster : Yes, I know that but the protractor is the one that came with the TT/tonearm unit where they have a space problem to mount it. As almost all japanese manufacturers Sony did not cares to much of the importance of tonearm/cartridge precise/accurate set up according the standard alignments and that's why you said the PUA-7 comes with a special geometry. It's special because does not goes with any of the standards but it's even worst than Stevenson A. My advise is that you forget that protractor and make the tonearm/cartridge alignment set up using the Feickert you own, even if you choose again Stevenson A you will have lower distortion levels with the Feickert. R. |
Yes, and at 231.5 using the Feickert, I was easily able to achieve Baerwald. So in this case, I trusted Dertonearm (who advised me to use 231.5 instead of the FR recommended 230mm P2S) and not FR. On that other issue, it was actually due to my own experience that I came to the conclusion (right or wrong) that one ought to use the geometry for which the tonearm was intended by its designers. When I set up a cartridge according to Baerwald in my Dynavector DV505 which was made for Stevenson or something near to it, the cartridge body was naturally at an angle with respect to the long axis of the head shell. Twisted inward a bit. The result was distorted sound that I could easily hear. I then took the same set-up and re-aligned it according to the Dynavector recommended geometry. This effected a marked improvement. I theorized that when the arc of the motion of the cantilever is not in line with the arc of the vertical bearing, this creates assymetrical forces on the cantilever, and that is not a good thing. Such a problem may only pertain to the DV tonearms, where the two bearings (vertical and horizontal) are completely separate. In a more conventional pivoted tonearm, the unification of the vertical and horizontal motion in one single bearing may allow for compensation, force-wise. I don't consider my little experience to be proof of my hypothesis, but it fits the facts so far. |
| Post removed |
Raul, What the heck are you talking about when you say "UNIDIN"? Actually, after posting, I recalled that I used the Feickert protractor for alignment after setting the P2S at 231.5mm. Set to the Baerwald scale on the Feickert. Anyway, you hate the FR64S to begin with, so why do you care? I certainly don't care. |
@rauliruegas Dear @chakster : Your Sony tonearm normally was coming integrated to the Sony TT PSX series ( 70,60,50. ) and that’s why came with that protractor. It’s really weird to find out a stand alone unit like yours. My Sony PUA-7 tonearm is stand alone version with an integrated armlift, not a turntable integrated cheaper version. Yeah, i know it's very rare! |
It's always funny when you guys can comment on something you never owned, that's the quietest amp combo i have ever heard with the highest resolution ever, killer dynamics, it's pretty real presentation. But you're talking about noise and Raul is always about distortion. I believe Nelson Pass knows his stuff! |
Dear @chakster : Your Sony tonearm normally was coming integrated to the Sony TT PSX series ( 70,60,50. ) and that’s why came with that protractor. It’s really weird to find out a stand alone unit like yours. You can try 235mm on P2S distance and listen which P2S mount like you more. Btw: """ like Raul, pretends on absolute opinion ..""". Sorry you look me that way. My opinion is only an opinion and nothing more. It's like yours or every one else. R. |
@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. |
@rauliruegas 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? |
@invictus005 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! |
@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. ). 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 ! ! ! R. |
@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. |
@invictus005 You remind me a soft of the dudes Nelson Pass is talking about, here is a quote:
|
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. |
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. R. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. I am guessing the result is Baerwald. |
@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 |
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. |
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. |
@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 ". R. |
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. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
| Post removed |
@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. |
