Orsonic headshell?. Welcome to the distortion biggest party! where the star is the " fabulous " FR tonearm matched by its " dearest " couple orsonics! . Free entrance. Don't miss it: unique highest distortion party ever! Welcome!
some one even already put a today price for it: 14K. I'm sure is promoting " something " as always.
Btw, one of the gentlemans FR advocates here that started to learn put on sale and sold its orsonic headshells for very good reasons. He has information that all the orsonic advocated has not, that's all about.
As with tonearm we need a " dead silence " headshell too and I mean " dead silent " that " along the tonearm could kills every single kind of resonances/distortions/noises/vibrations coming from everywhere including the tonearm/headshell it self. FR extremely resonant non-damped build material as orsonic are the highest focus of cartridge signal degradation you can find out else where against any other tonearm/headshell combination.
In audio we are and have to make a lot of " compromises/Trade-offs " and in any compromise/trade-offs audio items we choose for advcantages against disadvantages in the item to choose it. FR/orsonic has no single advantage.
Anyway, I was in that " party " and fortunatelly learned all about.
Btw, it is pity and unfortunate that the " audio cancer " be so easy to expand/contaminate audiophiles almost as a " cancer euphoria ".
No one likes to talk about distortions, this word is rejected and a convict promoted by the AHEE and all of us have very low information on distoritons and unaware of them because we are acustom to listening what " we like " against what is right and what is right ( everything the same ) is that that has the lower distortions of everykind from somewhere.
For years I posted that the real main differences in between any audio system quality performance level belongs/reside in how low are overall system distortions in between.
Any one of us can analize each one audio system link to find out the each audio system link distortions and try to lower it. There are always paths to lower distortions and if we don't know how or which distortions we can ask for help.
As lower your each link system distortions as higher the system quality performance level, no single doubt about. As lower system distortions as higher the music enjoyment level. As lower the system distortions as higher the music emotions in your whole body.
IMHO lower/lowest distortions is the real name of the game in audio. Problem is that we learned, were teached and are accustomed to way higher distortions elsewhere the audio system so it is not easy to achieve that system lowest distortions target because the first step is our each one ATTITUDE to change our audio way of living where we could be the main obstacle to do it.
R. |
Dear friends: The improvement system qualityperformance level is in your hands and in no ther hands: it is not in the audio item manufacturers or reviewers or audio dealers but in your own hands.
This ROUND BALL is in your side land and you are the only one that can play with.
Perhaps many of us know exactly how to play with squared balls, because that's what the AHEE teached to us and that's what we learned, and now we need to start to learn how we can play with a normal/vivid ROUND BALL.
One first step to play with this new BALL is to reject all what we learned and to reject all those advises coming from everywhere coming from square ball players.
So stay alert on those sqare ball players, they are easy to identify. Even are posting here and are proud enough to follow promoting that " square ball " when MUSIC only plays with ROUND BALL.
So, your turn.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, With all respect, this is your constant mantra. You are very consistent in your position vis a vis "distortion". The problem is, each of us needs a Raul doppelganger to come into his home to tell us what is distorted and what is not distorted. I have no opinion of Orsonic or FR tonearms. I only know that, while you are not alone in your dislike of Orsonic headshells (possibly confusing and unwarranted, due to the Chinese fakes), the FR tonearms are widely admired by most everyone but you. I have to wonder what it is that they all like and which you find so distasteful. On the surface, I can see your point as regards "resonance" of the structure. There is no damping to speak of, except I think in the bearings. On the other hand, they are structurally very stiff and there are many different shapes involved, so I can imagine that resonance of such a conglomeration could be benign, because it might be spread out broadly over a wide range of frequencies. It's not just the guys you don't like who do like the FR tonearms; lots of your internet friends do appear also to like them. |
Dear Raul, thanks for your very thoughtful post. I understand your point and certainly see why you think this way. However, I have to say that my priority is a bit different from yours and this should not come as a surprise since I like FR/Koetsu combination so much :)
I do think that Graham is a more neutral arm than Reed and since Reed and FR share some trait in common, I guess by default, Graham is more neutral than FR as well.
What I don't like (big disclaimer, according to my taste only!) for example, piano, on Graham, you hear the initial attack of the note very clearly and cleanly. However, you get a lot less decay from the string, even if pedal is fully engaged. I don't know if microphone, even placed over the soundboard/string bed, are not capable of picking this up or if they are lost once mixed in with other tracks for ambience etc. I practice on my grand piano pretty much daily and I am very familiar with this rich tone from a piano. On Graham, it just sounds drier, leaner like sustained pedal is not engaged or only half pressed. Reed and FR have these in spades. May be the data is not really there as much on recording and may be it is really distortion from the arm that give the illusion of this decay but I love it. I feel it is closer to what I hear every day on my piano. In fact, during the one year that I have Graham, I hardly ever play any piano recordings on Graham as I find it less bearable.
At the end of the day, we all have to make some compromise and pick and choose strenght of each stereo equipment and accept the flaws that appear the lesser evil to our ears. To my ears, to the kind of music that I love, I just find virtue and flaw of FR/Reed more to my liking and tolerable and since I am the one paying and listening to it and have to live with it, my taste rules in my living room :)
However, your point is well taken and I certainly take that into consideration when I audition a piece of equipment as well.
By the way, up to a couple of days ago, I only heard FR with Koetsu. I just mounted Air Tight on FR 64s/Micro Seiki and the result is quite interesting. It sounds a lot more different than when I have it on Reed/TW or my VPI Classic. I am still adjusting and fiddle with it so I am not quite ready to make up my mind yet but it sounds almost like a different cartridge to me. Good but in a very different way, go figure! |
Dear Lewm: As Suteetat posted:
+++++ " However, I have to say that my priority is a bit different from yours " +++++
that's all about.
Yes, my priority is to listen and enjoy MUSIC with the lowest distortions I can achieve because live MUSIC has the lowest distortions we can get. Normally there is only " air " between you and the Music ( near field. ) that is what Suteetat is enjoying every time he plays his piano.
He thinks and I respect him that what he is listening through its system is almost what he experienced live and said that he did not herad piano recordings through the Graham. I'm not a fanatic of Graham and I can't argue almost nothing on his statement because I never been there other that maybe and only maybe the Graham/cartridge combination was not a good one or that that combination performs nearer to the recording. What we like could be not critical but what we heard/hear and why we heard that kind of performance knowing that the music signal passed through a long recording process and through long playback process.
Complex? sure it's a little complex but we can take some help from digital technology using it as a tool to tell us which analog combination is nearer to the recording. You already know that as other audiophiles as Dover or Nandric because they posted and that's why I posted this:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10147&4#10147
yes, digital IMHO is an extraordinary tool to achieve information that will help to improve our analog experience. Only requisite: lates digital DACs technology player, this means: 32/192 or 32/384.
Anyway, all of us are in an audio long learning process every day and is through this learning process that our system improved and will improve with out doubt.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I forgot. A digital tool has lower distortions ( lot lower. ) and we can use it in repetitive way in real time and always we will hear the same performance quality through that digital tool.
Of course we have to choose good digital recordings that we have on LP too. As in all playback mediums there are awful recording in digital as some LPs too.
R. |
Dear Analog Lovers: The main subject here is not to find out which medium likes you more: NO, the main subject is to use digital as a tool it does not matters that you don't like it.
What to look for when we are comparing same recording in both mediums?:
look for the non obvious " sounds/artefacts/distortions ". All of us are accustomed to enjoy the music through our analog rig that we know perfectly where we are aware of the obvious and not so aware of the non-obvious because we not even know what is that non-obvious " distortions " because we almost never compare it against other kind of source different from analog.
A first step that I can recomemded when using the digital tool is to focus/concentrate in both mediums Bass Management looking for differences, some could be obvious and other not so obvious.
Why start/begin with that frequency range?, because normally the bass management quality performance in digital is not only more accurate and neutral but where the differences are more obvious against that same analog frequency range.
This are very good CDs that can help us and you can find out the LPs at least in Gladiator and The Mission:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10148&4#10148
please listen very well to Memories of a Geshia.
Now, you can use the DVDAs I already tested where you can find out the LPs because all those DVDAs has its LP counterpart. Here are those DVDAs, please " forget/don't read " ( it's not important. ) what I posted other than the digital/analog comparisons:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10142&4#10142
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10109&4#10109
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10228&4#10228
it does not matters if the kind of music you don't like it, remember that we are not comparing here what we like or the medium quality but we are looking for non-obvious differences trying to help to improve with some modifications/changes somewhere in the system our each one analog experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear friends: How could you improve your analog experiences?. IMHO improving the audio system resolution and this means lowering its distortions.
So to improve analog first you have to improve your system resolution: not a new cartridge or a new tonearm or a new TT or all these.
If we take Suteetat system he already has those great Q5 that certainly will tell him about improvements/degradations through any single system link changes and has a very good digital tool too ( that maybe even can improve it to 32/384 status. ) so what left down there, mainly electronics, room and cables and there we have alternatives to improve as go for tweaks through electronics: better fuses or caps or signal resistors or even tubes ( leave tubes for the last. ). All those changes helps to improve his system resolution even that he does not touch or touches the analog rig and IMHO he does not have to do it till the system achieve higher resolution.
Changes through tweaked electronics always are worth to do it and always gives huge rewards. We need the best electronics system quality performance: ¡ if for no other thing because through those electronics the cartridge signal must pass¡¡¡¡, so it's obvious that as better are those system links as better the analog experience. Of course that we can go to other electronic extreme and this is to change the unit but IMHO if we have the possibility to up-grade/tweak what we own this has to be the path to go that even if we want to change in the future we will know which kind of electronics quality performance we could need: certainly that can surpass/beats my upgraded/tweaked ones.
Then, we have room and cables where we have several paths to take to improve that system overall resolution.
In all those up-grade system steps the tool to use is the digital one because ( believe it or not ) has lower distortions and higher accuracy with lower colorations. Lower distortions means more MUSIC information.
When can we start to improve the analog rig?, when we can support/" enjoy " the digital alternative. When this happen then our system is ready first to enjoy the analog rig we own and then start to improve with the certainty that due to the " new " higher resolution system our analog changes/tweaks will be the right ones.
Right now in several of our systems the analog real experience is a lot better that what we are listening and we are satisfied with because we don't know that with the same system with small changes " here and there " we can have a huge improvements over what we enjoy today.
My message is to make a hard work to improve system resolution more than buy new analog toys.
Money is important to improve the system resolution but is more important your knowledge level because you have to decide what to do to achieve that system higher resolution and I can tell you that the answer is not on buy " new analog toys ".
You already have those toys and when you achieve that higher resolution your today analog rig will sounds as " new analog toys ".
You don't believe me?, well that's your prerogative/privilege but if I was you: why not try it. What can you lose ? even you can have a lot of fun!.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Raul,
First, I have to admit that I have a FR64S and I do like it very much. If that means I like high distortion, so be it! But that is not the main point of my post!
You have mentioned all this distortion caused by the design of the FR, so I am interested to know how you measure this distortion as compared to those of the other tonearms. Maybe I have missed it, but I donÂ’t recall you offered any scientific measurement on these distortions and resonance. If that is indeed the case, then how can you concluded that the FR has excessive resonance (just by the fact that it is undamped?), and these resonance caused the sound character of the FR?
I have no doubt you spent a lot of time comparing tonearms and headshelves, but if there is no scientific measurements (now I am not claiming these measurements can tell exactly how a tonenarm sounds), then you are no difference from anyone else here, in the sense that you also judge by what you hear. But then your conclusion would no doubt be affected by your own hearing / preferences.
Unless you claim your hearing is superior, or better trained, to others posting here, I don't see how you can insist that your viewpoint is right, while others ‘ are wrong or they just prefer the distortions!
Yes, nearly every audiophile, and nearly every audio designer, always claim they want to get as close to the actual performance as possible. However, judging by the variety of character of sound from the equipment and systems, I suppose we just hear differently! |
Dear Thekong: Very fair post.
Measurements?, I love it in the same way I love MUSIC but for different reasons.
I don't know where to start my answers to you but here I go:
Five-six years ago I started with my friend Guillermo another splendid and learning audio item " adventure ", this was and is a self tonearm design ( that today is finished. ) where the amin target is that be a Universal one ( this means ): " that any single cartrridge and I repeat any single cartridge mounted there must shows it at its best like in no other tonearm before ".
How any one could design and build a tonearm that can fulfil that target and to be sure the target was achieved?
forgeret about the design knowledge level/skills to do it and we ( you and me . ) concentrate in: " to be sure the target was achieved ".
Another important question: why any one could want to self design a tonearm with that target other than make money?
Well ( sorry that all these is a long history ), several years ago when we designed the Essential 3160 " second to none " active high gain Phonolinepreamp my inquetiude was to own the Phonolinepreamp that could honored the cartridge signal degrading the less: adding and loosing the less because what were in the market does not fulfil that cartridge signal needs and the marketed products trade-offs were non-aceptable by my priorities..
In those times , like today, I owned/own " hundred of cartridges ( mainly LOMC ones. ) that I was enjoying through different TTs and through several tonearms.
When we finished the Essential 3160 unit we were and still are very satisfied with but the main subject here was that born a new " way " to listen LOMC cartridges not only because the Essential sounds different but because that " different " came/comes from the lowest distortions ever for that kind of product, its accuracy level is even today not even or beat it for no other unit I know ( the owners of that unit can testify about as the ones that heard it ( some of them tube lovers ) ).
This audio item gave me and serve me as an incredible tool to started judging analog playback from a different " stage/scenario " never experienced before ( well our first attepm was battery powered phonolinepream two years before it. ) and to follow refinning my own test/comparison audio item whole process. I begun to understand in better way what was wrong and what was right down there and not because that wrong or right were subjects that were the ones I prefered or dislike it but because were more accurate, neutral with lower colorations: near to the recording and then near to the live event.
In those very first moments I took in count that for improve my analog experiences I did not had to do it buying the latest cartridge or the latest TT but through improving my system: electronics, cables, room, speakers and the like other than my analog rig and that's what I did it and still do.
In the mean time my test/comparison whole process was improving " day by day " and in those improving experiences I took note about distortions ( coming from everywhere and every kind of distortions: IMD, THD, resonances, vibrations, damping, noises, colorations ( subtles ones. ), etc, etc. ) that I was totally unaware existed down there. I learned ( for example. ) to distinguish between a tiny deviation overhang set up against a tiny VTA/SRA set up: how both distortions sounds!!!!
I started to think in different way and improving in different way. Normally I try it to improveall what I'm aware of, those things that like me more those things where I was aware of those " obvious " " things ".
Suddenly I start to heard/listened for the non-obvious " factors/things " the unaware ones. I started to look not for the good things but for the wrong/bad things on quality performance and morte important in the " undisclosed " things. This learning process took me months/years till I have the " hairs in my hand ". Not an easy process when you don't know what to look for but that you have to discover it, here helps me to think " out of the box " and try to forget some " things " that I learnend through the AHEE and that were totally wrong try to forget about myths, example: BD or tubes is the way and only path to take: and something like that.
Step by step I learned the non-obvious factors that helps to improve or to degrade the system quality performance. As higher resolution I was achieving not only everything were more easy to heard to discovery but to to confirm it to confirm your findings ones and again. With out high system resolution you can't do it. Yes, I know that almost all of us think that our system owns a high resolution and accuracy but normally that it is not happening because we are trying to improve and improved the obvious but there is not where belongs not only that high resolution but that higher quality performance.
Now that my system performed in the way I need it was time to follow the learning process but now at the analog rig level and here I took in count that the cartridge signal will be as better as better are its tonearm companion and where the LP is resting/in touch. I took in count way before any one else in this site even mentioned in a diffrent way than about the cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency ( btw, same happened when I started to post of the phonolinepreamp and the RIAA process. ).
Was in that " old " time when the idea to a self design tonearm flowed and I remember that because I owned so many tonearms/cartridges ( including the FR66/64 ) that I was testing in deep to learn more about that cartridge/tonearm relationship we took an action to make measurements on the tonearm behavior on resonances. Things are that at the main University in México we have close friends that accept to make some tests with some tonearms but faster that I'm writing this we took in count that normal measurements through acelerometer and the like were not critical because what we need it was something really complex: we need to measure different " parameters " that could shows us the influence grade in the performance of what we heard with the cartridges/tonearms in action this is during playback and the real problem is that in action are invloved to many factors/parameters additional to that each single cartridge is a different design with different kind of suspension, build material cantilever and shape of cantilever, different stylus shape, different cartridge build material body, different, different,.... and in the tonearm side things were " similar ". So we had to reject those measurements other than the traditional ones that serve almost for nothing.
What gave me the key were all what I learned about those non-obvious system quality performance behavior those non-obvious distortions that when " disappeared " improved the system quality performance.
All that work permit us to have fenomenal tools to voice with a very low error any audio item through my system, I think that my test process has a 95%+ of success talking of voicing.
Not only my friends can attest that but some people in USA already " testing " me about. My process is simple and the best of all is that not only is already tested and full proved but that I know it better than my hands. Example: in no more than half hour listening to an unknow home system I can tell you what is wrong, where, why and how to fix it. I do this through my ears.
My ears are not better than yours even I can think that are average but the difference is that my ears are trained long training time on porpose with very specific targets trained to know what to look for. I can tell you that ( belive me or not. ) with out be conceited that I almost never fails in what I'm hearing against what you heard and more important against what is wrong because I'm aware of it when you are unaware on it.
I repeat, my ears are not better than yours but heavy in deep in porpose trained and still today on that learning long process.
That's what makes the difference not that we could hear different NO all of us hear in similar way but are trained in different way.
Like you I like it the 66/64 and that's why I bought it and I enjoyed for years till I learned and on deep tests again not our finished tonearm design but against other vintage and today tonearm the FRs showed all its faults that you can't heard because you are unaware of it unaware of those distortions not only that all of you take those distortions as FR virtues.
++++ " your conclusion would no doubt be affected by your own hearing / preferences. " ++++
not really, my conclusions are headed because I can distinguish between: accurate and non-accurate, distorted and non-distorted, neutral and colored, in all these cases and several others I'm talking of the non-obvious the unaware performance factors Y learned and still doing.
My training gave me a free subjectivity way of think in audio because what I like it in the past likes me and has foundation on wrong information learned through several years through the AHEE where all of us belongs.
Today I know for sure that as more accurate as better neutrality as lower distortions our each one audio system has as better our system music enjoyment. I remember you and other people that accuracy, neutrality, low distortions is not in any way sinonimous of: lean, cold, analitical and the like far away from there. Music is and posses accuracy, neutrality, low distortions and natural agresiveness and natural colorotaions and all these is IMHO what we must to look for in each audio system.
The kong, is very dificyult to explain and to understand facts that you never experienced, better yet that you experienced and experience it right now but was/are unaware of it.
We need to live it after we learned. Sooner or latter you will understand because you will learn as I'm still doing. There are no secrets and certainly not " golden ears " only developed knowledge and developed skills and tools.
Btw, a condition to improve resolution in any audio system that has passive speaker designs is integrate to that audio system a pair of active subwoofers in true stereo fashion way. No matter which passive speakers we own or design or price or even room size. Remember that I mentioned " Bass Management ", well it is perhaps the more critical factor to improve overall system resolution: with out it you can't learn all you need and will be " short " of that.
Thekong, one thing I'm sure: that when you will have in your hands/system our tonearm design you could understand in more easy way what I posted here.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Well, distortions can be also those which are created in the area above the eyes. When brain is clipping. |
Dear Raul, I wonder what is your impression of say Soulution electronics with Magico speakers, Boulder amp or Burmester.
To my ears, Soulution/Magico has just about the cleanest, hyperdetail sound that you can get which to my ears would mean the least distortion. Boulder and Burmester (heard them with different speakers), also gave me similar impression although the actual sound are quite different.
Nevertheless, for my taste, I found Soulution/Magico rather unmusical. Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally.
Acoustic music, vocal (especially when singing with vibrato) contains all kind of harmonics and the note is not a single frequency which in electronic terms, I guess could be construe as distortion.
I understand that one may say that all those natural distortion/harmonics are captured in the recording therefore stereo playback equipments should not add any more distortion beside whatever is presented on the recording itself.
In practice though, I find that electronics with a bit more distortion (say tubes vs solid state, very gross generalization here or digital vs analogue), the one with more distortion actually sounds more pleasing and actually give a bit more illusion of being there (but not neccessarily more accurate in absolute term).
One possible explaination could be that when mixing multitracks, multi mike recording or even those Mercury minimal 3 mikes mixing down to 2 tracks, may be we are losing some of those details and distortion that is created in our playback chain may give back some of that missing link.
This is all just a guess though as I have nothing concrete to back this up but wondering what is your take on this.
I used to use Esoteric D-05 and switched to Playback Design PD-5. PD measured far worse (according to Stereophile measurement, I did not see D-05 number but I assume it would be like other Esoteric products) than D-05 but sounds a lot more musical to my ear than Esoteric.
Back to FR topic a bit, I also notice that for example, Air Tight really sounds significant different from Koetsu when using Reed, Graham or JMW 10.5. It is very easy to hear Air Tight's characteristic sound with those arms. Mounting it on FR 64s, I think that the contrast between Koetsu and Air Tight is not as obvious. They are still different but less than what I remember with other arms, still sound great however. I don't know if anyone else has similar finding. However, I still have not really fine tune or optimize the setting very much so this is kind of preliminary finding. May be I still need to dial in the set up more though.
One the other hand, may be Koetsu really did not match well with other arms so the difference in sound could be from better matched Air Tight vs poorly matched Koetsu but FR really lifted the performance of Koetsu up to Air Tight level, perhaps. |
Dear Suteetat: It is almost imposible that almost any Q5/amp combination do not like it ( I only heard Q5/Boulder ) but we can ask for more than only " likle it ".
Now, you pointed out a main subject:
++++ " Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally. " ++++
MUSIC has that unique characteristic that's to wake up our deepest emotions/feelings and if an audio system can't do it is because somewhere something is wrong.
The quest of what I'm trying to expose in your thread is to have that " impressive sound that moves us emotinally. I know we can get it: system low distortions and emotions are not against in between and when the system owns both certainly you are on " heaven " for the first time in your audio life, this IMHO is the Quest.
You are right that system with higher distortions like it us more than other with lower distortions. Why could be this?, not easy to say other that we are accustomed to those higher distortions all our audio life and it's not easy to switch to lower distortions. The point is that sometimes a good low distortion system link helps to lower the system distortions but at the same time could naked other system links that with the new low distortion link does not like what we heard.
Lower distortions is not a synonimous of top quality performance because depends on the audio item design, used parts in the design and excecution of that design, so we have to have the knowledge level and skills ( example: self test proccess. ) to know it that low distortion audio item is a " good " one can " transmit " MUSIC.
To achieve a system with lo low distortions and that " transmit " MUSIC is not only to choose " ingredients " the " best " or the high priced ones but is a proccess that take time and that we have to walk step by step and in that " road " we will find obstacles and you can be sure that sometimes we fall and we have to learn how to wake up again. So the proccess is at the same time a learning one and there are not rules for: plug&play but even that's complex is worth to take the adventure. We have to take the adventure with out misconceptions or pre-judgements even think " out of the box " always help and always help to know that not all what we already learned is necessary useful or true in that adventure.
++++ " Mounting it on FR 64s, I think that the contrast between Koetsu and Air Tight is not as obvious. " ++++
could exist different reasons for that and one is that in any higher distotions audio item differences always are less obvious.
I really appreciated you and Thekong your " concern " to know hwat I'm talking about with out any kind of ironic statements from your part or even some kind of gibe/taunt on what I posted. I say this because there are some gentlemans that everytime I touch the distortion subject in any thread they react in that way.
I always think that the best in our life is always ready to come, so the expectations growing up and the future is full of rewards depending what actions we take today.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.- |
Dear Suteetat: Why I discovery the MM/MI alternative, the subwoofers necessity, the removable headshell tonearm designs, the DD alternative, the Digital alternative or that 12" tonearms are worst than 10" ones or the RIAA accuracy importance or the active high gain phono stage alternative against the SUT one or SS alternative against the " only " other tube one or the geometry alternatives we have to set up cartridge/tonearms or that cartrdige/tonearm is a little more important than TT as could be the phonolinepreamp, or, or, ....? ( btw, I have an answer/my answer for each one audio subject name it here. )
THINKING OUT THE BOX WITH OUT LEARNED PREJUDGES AND OPEN MIND TO TEST AND TRY ALMOST NON-ORTHODOX AUDIO PRACTICS.
I can tell you that I was one of the first audiophiles to brought Agon those and other " unique " subjects that as DISTOTIONS almost never were discussed here.
I think that you and me as many other audiophiles/music lovers wants to achieve and experiment the very top/last analog boundaries/frontiers in favor to enrich our MUSIC enjoyment but to get there first step is that mentaly we have to change we have to change our attitude and second step take ACTION on that new adventure to get there.
I'm seriously involved in that adventure for years at that level that even I design/build the audio link I need it if what is in the market can't help me to achieve those analog last frontiers.
I learned that analog has a lot more to shows us and that other than our self the main obstacle is our each one audio system because was builded with way different " needs " : So we have to start to build a new system that can helps to explore those great analog last boundaries that are waiting for waiting for showing each one of us the real analog that only a few can enjoy today.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10134&4#10134
that's what we are accustomed and if we just follow that AHEE trend we move/walk to no where.
How many years took to each one of us to be " here "? for how many years are we involved not only on music but in audio?: 10-20-40-50 years?. We can't wait that everything can change for the better in two months with system changes and only because Raul say so!!!
We all need time, need to understand and to take the right " road " to find out those analog last frontier.
Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
So we had to reject those measurements other than the traditional ones that serve almost for nothing ___________________________________________________________ Hi Raul, Thanks for the detailed description of you experience! However, it seems, in the end of the day, your conclusion still only depended on your hearing! I am not sure how your method of testing could totally eliminate personal preference and be completely neutral. But even if you could, your conclusion “might” not apply to all of us, as most of us (at least I) would certainly have our own preferences. several years ago when we designed the Essential 3160 " second to none " active high gain Phonolinepreamp….. __________________________________________________________ This is exactly one case in point! If I remember correctly, several years ago, when your Essential 3160 was introduced, you did a tour to some well-known members of this forum. I am not sure how many of them bought it finally, but at least some of them decided to keep their original equipment, some way more expensive than the Essential. I mention more expensive here not because I believe more expensive automatically means better sounding, but just to point out that those forum members could sell their equipment and purchase the Essential, should they wanted to, and still had cash left over in their pockets. So, price was not likely their concern. Please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to talk down on the Essential, as I have not auditioned it yet. As a matter of fact, I was following the development with interest. Only that there was no way for me to have a demonstration here in Hong Kong. So, my point is that, while you believe the Essential is second to none, some forum members think differently! Are they simply wrong, or have less trained ears? I would rather believe they just have different preferences! I found Soulution/Magico rather unmusical. Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally ___________________________________________________________ Hi Suteetat, I have exactly the same feeling as you regarding the combo, but I don't think this is a matter of less distortion. If any system failed to move you emotionally, then there is something wrong, or in Raul’s term, have distortion. Of course, all systems / equipment have distortion, it is just a matter of which set of distortion is more acceptable to you. In practice though, I find that electronics with a bit more distortion (say tubes vs solid state, very gross generalization here or digital vs analogue), the one with more distortion actually sounds more pleasing and actually give a bit more illusion of being there (but not neccessarily more accurate in absolute term ___________________________________________________________ There has been this never ending debate on tubes vs SS, and Raul’s made it clear that he preferred SS. Yes, tubes definitely have more “measurable” distortion. But, if you are old enough to remember, when SS equipment was first introduced, they already had lower “measurable” distortion than tubes, but they just sounded sterile and hard, compared to the tubes at the time! Of course, SS has improved considerable since then. The same thing actually happened to LP vs CD, the perfect sound forever, remember? If I remember correctly, the audio industry started out measuring only THD, and when the result fail to correlate with people’s hearing / preference, they start measuring IMD. When that also failed, they found out that human hearing are more affected by odd order harmonics distortion rather than even order harmonics distortion. Till today, we still don't have a set of measurement that could tell us how a system would sound like to us! So, our search for better sounding equipment goes on, depends on our own hearing and preferences. I would think, whichever system / equipment can move your emotions better, is probably the better system for you! |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " some forum members think differently! " ++++
sure they did because was not prepared for it: it naked everything and this fact is not a welcomed one when we can't undestarnd it when we can't understand why.
+++++ " as most of us (at least I) would certainly have our own preferences. " +++++
I think all have the same preference: MUSIC, period. You can prefer different kind of music but other than the kind of music if we know in deep how music sounds then there is no space for preferences: music sounds right or wrong it does not matters of preferences . The problem in audio is that as you almost all of us like to " hide " behind that " preferences/subjectivity " because is our " defense mechanism ". You use it in your other post when posted:
+++++ " If that means I like high distortion, so be it! " +++++
and discussion end it. Like that almost all your arguments and almost other people arguments, we have to take on the subjective hand when we really can't understand or think different from other person.
++++ " depends on our own hearing and preferences. " +++++
not preferences but own hearing because is an additional " voicing " tool. I can add too: " own deep trained hearing ", this is the difference between audiophiles as you and me or the ones that prefered to " keep his pricey items ".
Btw, the latest Essential version is still second to none but not on sale any more. I'm finishing a new design but not for sale either.
+++++ " I am not sure how your method of testing could totally eliminate personal preference and be completely neutral. " +++++
as I said you can't understand it so: how can you have an opinion on something that " I'm not sure how... "?.
Anyway, thak's for your time.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Raul,
Yes, I agreed that there can be no discussion if one insists that he is always right, and any other who don't agree with him, wrong!
BTW, as you have mentioned, you also liked the FR66/64 once in the past! So, if we had followed your advice at the time, then we all have to make the change now! How can we be sure you won't change your mind tomorrow?
While I enjoy learning about the invaluable experience from other forum members, I would like to make my own judgment on the performance!
Since I have made my point, I would stay away from this subject! :-) |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " How can we be sure you won't change your mind tomorrow? " +++++
you don't change when you don't learn: learning is a proccess that can gives you a new " vision/status " of things that you thinked you knwe very well. When we have new information true information on that continuously learning proccess usually time to time yo could change for the better: if not why spend time to learn if for no other thing that improve?
I can see that you don't move from that old tube technology even in the worst place to have: phono stage. Whatt did you learn that made that you don't move that you don't improve or grow-up about other that " I like it "?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
you don't change when you don't learn: learning is a proccess that can gives you a new " vision/status I can see that you don't move from that old tube technology even in the worst place to have: phono stage I don’t know about the others, but I think there is some contradiction there! Since you have been wrong….ah, let’s say less “learned”, in the past, how can we, or even you, be sure you won’t “learn” that tubes are superior tomorrow! Just like you have "learned" that digital can be superior to analogue! After all, “When we have new information true information on that continuously learning proccess usually time to time yo could change for the better…” Don't know where you got the idea that I am using a tube phono! Actually, I have been using SS phonos for the past few years. But then, I just placed an order for a tube phono, which is much superior to my untrained ears! I am not advocating others to use tube rather than SS, just that is my choice! Dear Rual, I really have nothing against you! Actually, I have followed your advice and got myself an Acos / Lustre 801, which I still keep. A good arm in its own right, but I prefer the FR64S! |
For the kind of distortions Syntax mentioned we are not
qualified to judge. |
Dear Thekong: I read that you have an Eclipse and if I remember in the past you use S.Frontiers that I can't remember if is SS. For years I used tube electronics and learned, slowly but learned, so I changed as you did it. Time to time I ask to my audio friends ( audiophiles and retailers. ) for a tube unit only to check if I'm losting on something and till today that technology has nothing new to offer especially at phono stage level.
So, I can see any contradiction. As you learn as you can change for the better and this is the main subject: " FOR THE BETTER ", did you?
The kong my advise regarding the DISTOTIONS subject was and is to re-set to re-think the whole audio information we have or at least forget it for a while and then start to build a system from " cero " with no pre-judgements but with a new mind trying to start to learn as if we learned nothing through all these years. Is the only way to really change for the better to really understand what means lower distortions and how that lower distortions system sounds/performs and when this happen you will live the audio experience of YOUR LIFE enjoying MUSIC as never before.
Not an easy proccess but worth to intent it. You have to have a test/comparison whole proccess with very defined LP tracks that we will using always: same tracks and same " grooves " on each test tracks. That proccess must include self tests, yes we have to test it our selfs to know if we can understand and take advantage on that new learning proccess.
Thekong, I already said the same to Suteetat: how many years do you have on audio and how many years do you have in your today audio/music learning proccess and how many years do you have trying to improve your home audio experiences?, almost all your life, so don't wait that what I'm saying could be achieved after a few months: NO way.
I hope that over time you and other persons interested in the subjects I pointed out could experience it listening what I'm hearing at my place because when we have the opportunity to hear words are almost useless. Welcome any time any of you to have some additional/different audio fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Rauls,
Thanks for your comment! Would certainly make an effort to try out your suggestion to see if it makes any difference to me.
Just to recap my phono progress since around the year 2000, when I got back into vinyl. I started with the Herron, than progress to the Pass Xono (yes, I know some members consider it grey and sterile, but not to my ears :-) ). In the meantime, I also tried out my friendÂ’s Supratek, and got myself a MFA MC Ref preamp completed with the phono stage.
I was very interested in the Aesthetix IO Eclipse as I was already using the Callisto Eclipse, so I knew their sound character! The problem was that I never got the chance to audition the IO, that was until last week! Yes, the IO has a completely different characteristics compared to the Xono, and I found its performance vastly superior.
Now that I am so impressed with it, I just placed an order for a set. Is the IO the best? Probably not, but it is the best that I have heard (which may not be many, but at least including the high-end FM and Boulder), that is, of course, to my ears only! YMMV :-) |
Dear Thekong: I owned that MFA and heard the IO/FM/Boulder. IMHO no one honor in full the analog experience. Yes, you like what you like because that's what you learned but my subject is try to change a little about and see if it's worth, for me was and is full of rewards that " change ".
Why am I so in deep with analog when I know that digital alternative is so good today and growing up very fast?
Other than my 6-7K LPs the main reason is that through my today proccess I explained here I found out that the analog alternative still has land to explore if we improve substantial our system lowering each audio link distortions.
I don't have to buy the latest LOMC cartridges or the latest TT tonearm or electronics ( well it help me that all my audio friends are in the same " trend " that almost all of you and they bought the latest some borrowed cartridges to test it. ), with what I have now is ( for the moment ) enough due to that lower distortion system I achieved.
As I said: I want to explore the last boundary/frontier analog has for shows us and following the analog AHEE trend could be almost imposible to achieve that last boundary/frontier. Life is to short to be only an spectator, if we want to some day be enjoying that analog last frontier we have to be ACTORS and not mere lookerons.
IMHO, is time to stay away of that AHEE TREND tha's the wrong one and not because I say that. Take a look where we are " thank's " to that AHEE corrupted trend: with almost no grow in almost no single audio ling in the audio chain. Look at the other side look how fast growed and is growing the digital alternative when we analog lovers still thinking that the earth is flat and not because we are stupid to don't understand the earth is round but because the AHEE teaching and teached us that the Earth was and is flat!!!
We all are victims of the AHEE and that's why I say corrupted one becuase today they can change ( becausae they know everything I post here and in other threads and more more information that we can't imagine but that can help to start the growing up faster. ) its corrupted trend and they don't do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Gentlemans: It is each one of us money what the AHEE is using to follow HIS/ITS corrupted analog trend!!!!!!!
Certainly each one of us are the ones that are paying and are paying not for what we want or what we need but what the AHEE decide is " better " for us!!!! VERY FAIR, DON'T YOU THINK?
R. |
That other " play " with our money.
What if we start to be more deep selective when choosing audio items?, this could help if we know what select for. In this way all those compani9es that really does not help to improve the analog experience will disappear faster that we can imagine.
I think that the AHEE needs a deep cleanse for the better for that AHEE can grow up in the right direction.
R. |
This thread looks hilarious. I would love to read the English translation. |
Unfortunately you just did. |
Are you ready to pay for?
R. |
Why not take a master tape reel to reel, played back on a well set up Studer machine (or any other decent tape player) and compare it to all the arms and cartridges combinations you think are 'right'. The one closest in performance to the master tape 'actual' recording is clearly more true and will do so on all other LP's. Hearing more out of the LP recording (piano more fuller and sustained note or more texture on strings) is then not a true sign and clearly shows that information is getting added on. This was not there in the first place on the recording.
Not many will have the capability of getting a RTR comparison, but having a good digital transfer in DSD or DXD playback could be another option for comparison. |
Why not take a master tape reel to reel, played back on a well set up Studer machine (or any other decent tape player) and compare it to all the arms and cartridges combinations you think are 'right'. The one closest in performance to the master tape 'actual' recording is clearly more true and will do so on all other LP's. Hearing more out of the LP recording (piano more fuller and sustained note or more texture on strings) is then not a true sign and clearly shows that information is getting added on. This was not there in the first place on the recording.
Not many will have the capability of getting a RTR comparison, but having a good digital transfer in DSD or DXD playback could be another option for comparison. |
Roxy, Try to read between the lines. I assumed that non
of us is a shrink. |
Unfortunaly some are repeating themselfs twice. |
Dear Nevillekapadia: Certainly R2R always is a good option to make comparisons unfortunatelly we can't find out all the software we could need and that's why I took the digital road.
In the digital alternative like in a R2R does not exist both RIAA eq. proccess, no phono stage, no TT/tonearm/cartridge/vinyl and additional cables, so in these regards has lower distortions that permit to be aware easy on differences not only between tonearm/cartridge combinations but the whole system distortions level.
I prefer the today latest digital alternative ( latest DACs. ) becaus eis more easy more user friendly and has a very high quality performance level and we can find out a lot of similar LPs recordings.
In the other side R2R has its own problems we can attest for it if we compare a D2D recording against the same normal recording, I did this through the Shefield recordings that have the same recording versions in both formats D2D and through R2R: the difference is evident, higher distortions/noise through the R2R version. Other way where we can attest the same is through digital recordings LPs as the old Telarc ones where even that the signal was recorded through R2R what was recorded were 0s and 1s and this is whar is recovered trough the LP cutting proccess with no R2R high noise and distortions. We can hear all those " anomalies " that does not exist in the today latest digital alternative.
IMHO R2R/analog can't compete in the distortions whole subject against the digital alternative.
The R2R master tapes all suffer of time/aged printhrough and we never can be sure that all the recording information was recorded at 100% : always because the R2R it self and the tape system to recording exist information loosed or bad recorded in the other side through the digital alternative the recording proccess see only 0s and 1s!!! and if we take other digital alternatives as could be hard dics and the like we can be even better.
IMHO analog is non-accurate by it self it can't be in other way is part of the technology a very old technology. No, nothing is perfect and certainly digital is not either.
I don't know if you knew that R2R generate odd harmonics and even that " we love it ".
My take is that right infront our nose/ears exist a truly " new " world to improve our LP analog experience and the good news is that we all coul have access to it if we start that distortion adventure through lowering each kind of distortion in each audio link in our audio system: there is no other way or following sticked with that " terrible/desastrous " LP quality level performance we have right now.
I know we can be a lot better because I'm experienced it. Please try to think and try to take actions " out of the box ", this simple fact is the KEY to the New World!!!, all is up to each one of us.
Of course that some of us like the today audio life like to think that Earth is flat and nothing wrong with that because at the end each one of us have the privilige to choose their self MUSIC enjoyment.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Or express a point on a 'reference', rather than keep talking about the virtue of a component several times. |
This is likely to elicit another novella from Raul, but I think Suteetat hit upon something that I too think is very significant with respect to the question, "What makes the music sound real", in my listening room. When music is produced directly from an instrument or a vocalist, there are harmonics generated, both up and down the audio frequency spectrum. These come from resonances in the body of the instrument or of the singer, from room surfaces, the floor, etc. (Yes, real live music is partially composed of resonant frequencies produced en passant. Killing all resonance is not necessarily "good".) My thesis is that because microphones are not linear in their response with respect to sound pressure and with respect to bandwidth, much of this natural wide bandwidth energy is lost from the signal that gets to the tape or to the digital recorder. Thus downstream components of the reproductive chain that add benign harmonic distortion are not necessarily bad but can in fact serve to restore some of the "body" of the original performance. Thus very low THD solid state devices can indeed sound sterile. It's not that they have a sterile coloration necessarily, altho some do; it's more that they can be "too perfect". It seems to me we all know this, and it's what we are discussing. Why the best tube gear portrays a sense of depth and 3D that I don't hear with solid state is still a mystery to me, however. Perhaps that's another "distortion" I prefer. Then too, I have not auditioned everything available. Wasn't this thread about tonearms? Sorry. |
Lewm, This thread is representative of life.
You never know what is around the corner. |
Nandric, In order to repeat oneself, it is absolutely necessary to write or say the same thing twice. Otherwise, one is not repeating oneself. We have no choice. Three times is inexcusable, I agree. |
Apologies for the double post. |
Lewn, that's exactly what I am thinking as well.
There was a thread awhile ago I think on audio asylum regarding professional gear and recording studio. Supposedly someone talked to Bob Ludwig (I think it was him or may be another major recording engineer) who said that he had compared live mike feed, DSD recording and analogue tape recording from the same mike feed and found that DSD is the closest to live mike feed but analogue tape sounded better. However, he did not say which sounded closest to the actual event nor did he say how it was better.
I found some digital recording that was then made into LPs sounded slightly different from its CD counter part but did not add anything much more and I generally prefer CD just for the ease of use. Some digital recordings such as DG Zimermann's Chopin ballades sounded quite dreadful on CD but rather good on LP. The more recent SFO Mahler Cycle with Michael Tilson Thomas and Paavo Jarvi Beethoven symphonies cycle were recorded in DSD but I found the LPs more enjoyable eventhough the SACDs are already very good. I think Jarvi's recording was remastered again specially for LP so it is not exactly the same as SACD but not sure about SFO Mahler's one. |
I hope others may also be interested in a comparison between the 'classic' FR-64/66 and the new Ikeda's IT 407 and 345? As far as I know the 'general opinion' is that the 'classic' are superiour. However I noticed J.Carr's opinion (MM thread)that the IT -345 is the best tonearm ever made by Takeda.The reason mentioned is that Ikeda has (meanwhile) much better understanding of the resonances involved. I admire Carr very much and bought the IT 345 on his authority. However I am also reluctant to change the 'status' of my IT 345 from 'brand new' into 'second hand'. I hope for some empathy for the 'Hamlet' involved.
Regards, |
Dear Suteetat/Lewm: I think you are " right " on your thoughts and those opinions could not be in other way and the main reason of that IMHO is that: for how many years, maybe 20-30-40, almost all of us heard and today still hear those kind of distortions that we like it is it that we are accustom to it? it does not matters if are " right or wrong ".
It is obvious that if that kind of distortions is the " only " kind of distortions I heard/hear any other distortions generated by a different audio item can sound " sterile " or whatever.
My point/subject is that today we have real alternatives other than the LPs, alternatives where we can enjoy the music too.
In the past the only alternative to really enjoy MUSIC was LP no doubt about but I think that today we are showing a new " audio era " and we are lucky enough for live it:
never before the analog/LPs were at its today quality performance level and never before the DIGITAL was at its today really great quality performance level, along both facts never before our each one audio system was at so top quality performance level!!!!
So, in many ways these are the " golden years ". That some of us are reticent to accept the digital or SS today development to enjoy music does not diminish in any way those facts I mentioned.
Today I can " see " more ofr you with top digital units some of you with the lates DACs and some of you now are listening through SS electronics and even MM/MI cartridges. So things are changing for the better and is up to you to grow up in music's benfit or not.
From my part I'm enjoying all today alternatives. Maybe I have an advantage over some of you: I'm not " married/sticky " with any audio technology, I'm maried with MUSIC and its enjoyment and I always try to find out the " best " technology/alternatives to enjoy it .
What are you doing?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Lew and I agreed that the necessary condition for repeating oneself is to do this twice. Otherwise ther would be no repetition at all. Newillekapadia obviously agrees with us. Now according to Lew 3 x repetition is not excusable. What than about endless repetition of, say, distortions? |
Endless repetition indeed Nikola.
The horror.........oh the horror..... |
Hmmm... just wondering. I tried 231.5 mm P2S distance for FR64s and found that I could barely set overhang correctly
using Clearaudio protractor. Pushing the cartridge all the way out on the headshell (Kiseki Blue with Orsonic headshell, Air Tight with Ikeda headshell). If I use Feickert protractor,it fell just a touch short of Baerwald, nowhere near getting Lofgren nullpoint and Stevenson is the only on that I still have quite a bit room to spare.
I wonder if anyone else has the same problem or may be I am doing something wrong here. A friend has a Dennesen protractor that I want to try but have not had time to get it from him yet.
On FR66s, I only use Clearaudio protractor so far which is also barely fit but sounds the best I ever heard from Koetsu so I have not been fiddling around much with it yet. |
Suteetat, It is not my intention to suggest that you should become a collector of protractors but I ordered by Yip from the Mint tractor exactly this distance:231.5 mm
I need to adjust just one cart and than use this sample to adjust the other headshells/styli with a caliper. This method reduces those precarious adjustment acts to two: VTF and anti-skate.
Regards, |
At the Munich High End Show is a Manufacturer with a new calculated Alignment System (some here know it) and what amazed me totally was the amount of visitors, dealers and Importers who showed a very huge interest in that. Whenever I was in the area of that their arguments were ALWAYS the same: way too much nonsense out there (I agree with that btw.). I also saw wrong alignments, Arms with a Geometry which made me wonder....and the discussions among audiophiles what .... everyone is a specialist with deep knowledge :-) |
If you use the 231.5mm S to P distance for the FR-64s.......you will not be able to interchange headshells onto the FR-66s which is best set at 295mm.
I prefer to set my FR-64s at the FR recommended 230mm S to P to match the 295mm of the FR-66s.
And yes......I have listened to the differences between the 230mm distance and the 231.5mm.........
However I don't think this will solve the problems you have described Suteetat?
I have plenty of 'play' distance for all headshells I have tried on both my FR arms to align for ALL the known geometries.
Something appears amiss in your story? |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " The horror.........oh the horror " ++++
well, I don't know if you already understand the whole subject or not but I know that other " flat head " persons can't understand because they don't care about other that " I like it ".
I know that you are a wise man and that's why your post is some kind of surprise on what I assumed you are. I hope you are not like other " flat head " persons.
Of course that if you are not looking to get/arrive, listen and enjoy to that very last MUSIC/analog/digital frontier you can follow sticky in your very very old DISTORTIONS. The best of all is that you have a very large " land " to advance, is up to you to do it. Good luck in your trip to MUSIC HEAVEN.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Strange, actually, I should say that the problem is mainly with my Air Tight cartridge. Forgot to mention that Kiseki has 5 sets of mounting holes along its body so I have more range to mount the cartridge. Air Tight only has one set of holes to mount the cartridge. If I use 230mm, there is no problem and I have a bit of room to spare. Just at 231.5 only.
I assume that the center of the tower is where I would measure P2S.
May be it is just the Air Tight cartridge? I assume that all headshells have the same dimension, lenghtwise but assume that each cartridge will have a bit of a different dimension lenghtwise, as far as overhang is concerned.
On FR66s, I only try Koetsu with Oyaide headshell so far and I have a couple of mms to spare in front.
I did not have problem with Koetsu on FR64s in the past either but only at 230mm.
Halcro, if I remember correctly, you have Dyna XV-1s. I will try to mount XV-1s on one of my headshells and see how much wiggle room I have.
Now I seems to amass quite a few protractors, beside Feickert and Clearaudio, I do have 2 mint protractors for Reed and 10.5 arm. I have no idea what logarithm Clearaudio uses. Elsewhere on the net, someone mentioned that it looks like a Dennesen protractor but I am not sure if they only talk about the look or the actual null point. I burrowed my friend's Dennesen protractor once a long time ago and compared and I thought the nullpoint was pretty much the same. Generally I just prefer Clearaudio over Feickert just because it is much easier to see silver protractor with black line than black protractor with white line which my poor eyes really struggle to see especially with Koetsu and Air Tight cartridges where the stylus is hidden under the body of the cartridge. |
The problem with using protractors based on fixed pivot to stylus and overhang is that any deviation in mounting distance or cartridge/headshell constraints render the protractor useless. I prefer to use a universal protractor such as the 'Stupid' Universal here http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge-alignment-protractors.shtmlIt uses 2 inner and outer null positions and you have to adjust overhang and alignment of the cartridge together to minimise the error. Using a universal protractor will enable you to align for any mounting distance distance from 230-231.5mm. For the FR64S and Dertonams suggested 231.5mm, you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. Going from 230mm to 231.5mm mounting distance is a tiny reduction in tracking error, but having said that I have mounted my FR64S at 231mm and it sounds much smoother than 230mm. The other factor in Dertonams recommendations is using an outer null point closer to the inner null point which will increase tracking error on the outer grooves but reduce it on the inner 2/3 of the record to provide better tracking of inner grooves. You can easily make your own protractor with revised optimisation of inner grooves by using the Baerwald template above and simply moving the outer null point/grid closer to the centre. Interestingly the Naim Aro that I own uses this same philosphy as Dertonams recommendation of optimising the geometry for the inner grooves. I prefer Baerwald A for all my pivoted arms including the Dynavector which was designed for Stevenson. |
