Sorry to revive an old thread, but I wonder if anyone had an answer to Impulseh2 question.
In other forums I've met some impressions about strange geometry of the both arms:
FR64S: "The geometry is odd in that any cart I've used ends up skewed in the headshell even using their own alignment with null points at 59.2 & 120.4, Baerwald should offer the least distorsion but again the cart is skewed. This really makes me wonder when I fit the SPU Royal with the replicant 100 stylus as there's no way of adjusting offset angle that the other carts need for alignment. Even though FR produced the FR-7 with a line contact stylus for use in the 64/66 which is similar in that offset angle is not adjustable I'm starting to doubt if an SPU is compatable with the geometry of the FR64s."
Ikeda 407: "It was nicely made, however I was not convinced the geometry was correct as the armward curve/headshell angle in the armwand looks insufficient compared to other 12" arms, plus it seems to have some peculiar Japanese alignment."
Ikeda 407 :"The outer null point is not possible to reach, but think because of the length of the arm it does not matter that much. The sound with this setting is better than modifying to the baerwald or IEC norm with the two null points and the cartridge which is not parallel.I think it's not possible to put that 2 null points without turning the cartridge in the headshell."
About FR64S geometry I found Dertonarm's advice: "Set up with the Denessen Tractor and a pivot-bearing distance of 231.5 mm the FR-64s will bring you as close to perfecting in pivot tonearm geometry as is possible with a tonearm of about 10" effective length."
So, my questions are:
Do we have the right concept and the right Protractor for seting up the Ikeda 407?
If we take the above only for information and we dont believe too much about calculations, manuals and design - how do you find Ikeda 407 and FR64S in their presentation?
Thank you in advance.
L.
