Dear Henry, First of all we live in the so called 'global village'. While Germany is much nearer to me, Mexico is not at some far-away distance. Besides we have the internet
so one hears something or other. Regarding my 'deductive'capabilities you need to (re)read my post. Those are pure legal arguments based on the property laws.
If there is no logic in those laws than I am not able to see why you should blame me for this fact? If it is a fact. However I should provide more info about my beloved aunt Natalija. Uncle Boris (her husbend) got, according to his own story, the Russian oil capacitor of 3,7 mF value from Medvedev personaly. But my aunt Natalija soldered this cap on his tweeter.
Regards, |
That's interesting information Nikola.....about the FR-7 cartridges.
Of course......if you one were to purchase Dietrich's new Axiom tonearm........one would be able....for the first time.....to adjust the Overhang for its correct geometry.
Although I have always liked you my Slavic friend.......I have never before appreciated your deductive mind?
The invisible Guliermo who is really the 'Technical Brain' behind the Essential Phono/Line Preamp and also the (in)famous tonearm and cartridge which are now......"not for sale".......?
Has there been a divorce with his erstwhile partner Raul?
The rumour mill is churning.......... |
I asked Daniel (Dertonarm) about the 'geometry' of all those FR-7 versions. He still swears by those 'antiquity' while his answer surprised me very much. The stylus in
those huge headshells is not at the same distance by all of them. So, probable, even Dertonarm was/is not able to get the right geometry for his 66/ 7 (x) combos? If I was an Aussie I would inform by Daniel about my own specimen. But the most curious thing is that my FR-7 stylus follows exactly the curve on my Mint protractor made for my FR64
with 231,5 mm P2S distance. |
For the FR-66s....Dertonarm is happy with the 295mm P2S distance.
For the 231.5mm P2S distance on the FR-64s.....be sure to amend the Overhang to 14.5mm for it to follow Dertonarm's geometry?
You cannot use any regular protractor for this....but the old Feikert Universal had an Overhang measuring scale. |
Dear Nandric, you may be right regarding mint protractor.
I think I will try SMARTracker for a little while. At least I want to spend a bit more time experimenting with 230 vs 231.5mm on FR64s and once I made up my mind, then I get mint.
For FR66s, did Dertoarm have alternative P2S distance as well or only the FR's spec of 295mm only? |
Dear Thuchan, I am really sorry for you but Daniel obviously love me more than you. However I like to think that my ingenious comparison between 'iron horse and locomotive' (aka the usual headshell versus Arche) moved Daniel in such a way that he decided to give me a present...
You as the owner of a company are of course familiar with the so called 'intellectual ownership'. When Raul refers to 'his' pre-amp, 'his' tonearm ,etc, 'his' , he rarely mention his employee Guliermos (or similar) who is actually the technical guy behind the products mentioned.
As you know the intellectual property is of the company and not of the employees inside the company. As Raul told us himself he managed to change some fuses, caps and resistors on his own. Well I am sure that my aunt Natalija in Serbia is also capable to solder such parts with their values writen on their 'heads' in whatever component. You can observe the same capabilities in the speaker thread. Unbelievable how many speaker experts are there, capable to discovere 'cheap wire' and/ or 'capacitors' in any speaker whatever. It is like this : 'Heureka'!: cheap wire inside! No wonder Nordost get rich with such experts.
Regards, |
Dear Raul,
I have my SAEC WE 8000 quite a long time and will not sell it - never!
I will not repeat arguements on our discussion. You had not the best experiences with the SAEC or the FR-66s. So which tonearm "will beat" these two old designs from your perspective? And did you go for some better designs in your system? |
Dear Suteetat, I own 12 tonearms but use 'only' three of them. The Triplanar and the Reed 2A on my Kuzma S.R and the FR 64 s on my Sp 10. I also own some 'universal protractors' but when I got my first Mint LP I was 100%sure when I ordered the other two. Whatever the next one may be for $100 there is no contest in my opinion.
Regards, |
If I can find it, I will. I actually attached the post explaining my observation to a thread where the OP was talking about the question of having to twist the cartridge in the headshell, when he was using some other vintage Japanese tonearm with Lofgren or Baerwald alignment. At that time, I was just starting to use my DV505 and was not so happy with the sound, using Baerwald (with the necessary "twist"). He claimed the twist caused no problem, but I then found that protractor on VE and re-aligned my cartridge using Stevenson. There was a big and obvious improvement in sound. As mentioned, this may be especially relevant to the Dynavector tonearms, because the vertical pivot is so close to the cartridge. I believe the vertical forces on the cantilever would be asymmetrical, if the cantilever and the vertical tonearm pivot are not aligned (another problem in vector algebra), and this may be the cause of the distortions I heard. Just a guess. I don't know whether the principle should be applied to all tonearms in general. |
Dear Raul, I have a few protractors mainly because I am still trying to find one that I really like. Personally, I like Mint protractor the best as far as ease of use, mirror surface and all. It is a lot easier to use for cartridges like Koetsu, Air Tight and Kiseki. However, now that I have 4 arms and most likely there will be more in the future, I don't want to keep buying new Mint protractor every time so I start looking around for universal protractor. I think Feickert is great and it has 3 geometries to choose but its finish make it harder for me to use on the 3 cartridges mentioned above. Clearaudio is fine but it has only one geometry with 4 IEC options. I figure since I spend all these moneys on cartridges and arms, why not experiment a bit more with various protractors if it may make a big enough difference in setting the arm/cartrige properly.
I am thinking of trying SMARTracker just because it seems that on the usability side, it is more well thought out that other protractors and seemed to be one that was really designed by end-user for user. It may not be more accurate than Feickert but at the very least, it would be more user friendly, I would guess. |
Btw, interesting: could you link your VE post to my email?. You know I'm willing to learn always.
Thank you.
R. |
Dear Lewm: I owned the DV-505 and its a design that I respect a lot becaus e is unique, good for Dynavector.
You are right almost all japanese tonearms came with set up specs based on Stevenson.
When I try to mount my first cartridge on it I don't put to much attention to that fact and mounted according with the protractor at hand and I have trouble because the offset angle then I was aware of Stevenson and that's how I use it for some time but I changed to Löfgren B twisting the cartridge as you said ( I don't use it the Dynavector headshell and I can't remember wich ones I used because was years ago. ) and with the XV-1 mounted in that way I achieve better results that with the Stevenson alignment and that's the way I used. Maybe I could be wrong but that passed so many years that's dificult to be sure about. Yes, that tonearm conforms as no other tonearm with Stevenson.
In all audio alternatives exist trade-offs and perhaps those trade-offs " sounds " better for me. I don't mounted MM/MI cartridges down there but only LOMC. Unfortunatelly I don't have any more to test it again.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: Way before you bought the 8000 I posted my opinions on those SAEC tonearms along the 506 I own ( you can see the 8000 picture in my system. ) and that was way before no one here in this forum speaks about SAEC tonearms. I used those SAEC tonearms for years ( they came after I sold the 66. ).
SAEC had a very high quality builded designs and a beauty of tonearms in the hands but through all those years and comparing against other vintage tonearms as the MS 282 or the Audiocraft or Satin I learned about its performance " faults ". The double knife bearing is more resonant than other pivot bearing types as gymbal or jewel and puts additional distortions/feedback that you can hear, other " problem " in the 8000 is that way resonant ceramic headshell and of course its long effective mass.
Its very dificult that you can be aware of significant differences between the SAEC tonearms and other top tonearms if your system has not the resolution need it to be aware of it.
Now, that's part of my opinion that where I acumulate several experiences with different cartridges over several years not over 3 or 4 years and against several tonearms in the same set up.
Like you when I discovered the SAEC ones I was really impressed, you can't be in other way. Yes, the 8000 is one of your " new " toys when for me is a very old toy. Sooner or latter, as me, that toy will be out of your system for good reasons: when you learned about and be less impressed as I one time was.
If you want to talk about SUTs you can start a thread or go to the MM/MI thread. Very fast, I bought two WE transformers along two Denon, two Entré, one Audiocraft and one Sony SUTs. All that in one month to search again about the SUTs performance an its influence on signal degradation against non-SUT system. I modified all, you can read in the MM/MI thread.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Raul, When you have calmed down sufficiently, I would like to know what you think about my experience that suggests best sound is achieved when the cartridge is aligned according to the geometry for which the tonearm was designed. That means, for the vintage Japanese tonearms like my Dynavector DV505 (and in theory like the FR tonearms), the best sounding geometry is Stevenson. This is my personal observation with only the one tonearm (DV505) and two different cartridges. And it is only my opinion based on listening, only. I am NOT saying that Stevenson gives the lowest overall mathematically predicted "distortion". I am only reporting my experience, and I attributed the finding to the fact that with the DV505 one has to twist the cartridge in the headshell, in order to use anything but Stevenson. There is reason to believe that this could introduce a new source of distortion that over-rides tonearm geometry. I wrote about this on VE. |
Dear Nandric,
ah good for you. You seem to be a rare exception :-)
Nevertheless my Arche headshells are working properly...
So which is your next tonearm project? Axiom for free or the Mexican stick?
Maybe you will have a beard until Raul will make an outing on his arm. Nevertheless we already collected so many words from him and as I just now realize he doesn't like to be defeated by anyone, so he must do something... or? |
Dear Thuchan, 'Who told you I got my Arche,( etc.) for free?'
Well, dear Thuchan, I don't use question marks as often as some Aussie but 'it' was there at the end of my hypothetical statement. As a (guest) member of the 'German group' I assumed 'they probable share many things together' so IF Thuchan got the Axiom for free why not me? To put it otherwise: nobody told me this. I invented the possibility in my own interest. However I got the Arche honestly for free probable because my 'hard cach' is not as 'hard' as yours .
Regards, |
Dear Suteetat: Why so many protractors you own?
Dover advise is really fine. You don't lose nothing trying it and can have some additional fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Where are your facts? Why try to distract from the subject.
Btw, is this your close friend and hero/Dertonarm?:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?6502-Refund-problem
It is clear yo have nothing on hand. You already exposed your knowledge level on the subject!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul,
in the last 12 months you have stressed your ambition showing our community what you think about the FR designs, the SAEC WE 8000 and some other benchmark designs in phono-business. I was very surprised that you proclaim that all these designs are of mediocre sound capability and all the guys out there using these designs keep their houses full of distortion while yours is clean...
I don't mind that you have different assessments on these products and I tolerate everyone using and enjoying his "own best gear". But don't you realize that I cannot take these remarks you are giving in the last months as serious anymore??
Regarding the WE 618B you need telling me when you have discovered this item on ebay for what price? Maybe you can also tell me in which tonearm/table combination you were using the Western Electric SUT. I then might be able to assess your remarks that the WE is of low quality...
BTW among serious audiophiles in some European countries your assessment of the WE 618B (as of the FR-66s and the SAEC WE 8000) did raise the same questions I have.
If you are feeling I am questioning your integrity this is your assessment. I am just putting questions on some phono units and like to exchange other opinions. I am not putting it personal. Hope you understand this.
enjoy the music |
As Audiogon has deleted the infamous Thread about Tonearm Geometry where Raul's ignorance was finally revealed to all......here is another Thread where Dertonarm exposes the Mexican again and again..... AGONBLACK KNIGHT |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " The real point of all this is that Raul selected the Stevenson alignment (which he doesn't use himself)........to prove that my 233mm P to S distance is 0.3mm out?
Instead of having to concur that I have the tonearm set up correctly for interchangeability of headshells (according to Baerwald)........he will grasp at the ridiculous to avoid admitting defeat? " +++++
wrong again, a misunderstood. I don't took Stevenson ( FR took it. ) to prove that you are out for 0.3mm because as you admit you has an overhang of 12mm ( to match the 66. ): you showed in the calculator link you posted!!
++++ " instead of having to concur that I have the tonearm set up correctly for interchangeability of headshells (according to Baerwald). " +++++
wrong again, Baerwald ( IEC/DIN ) does not shows 12mm on overhang with 233 on StP distance. Where do you read it?
Btw, in no one of the posts that gentleman could prove any of his theories, I have the posts.
Now, don't talk prove what you post. Bla, bla, bla,.. means nothing: where are those facts that are the foundation of your posts?
In the other side the discussion is between you and me: why brought here the name of a third or fourth person trying to convince ( your self because you can't convince any one else. ) or prove what you can't do it because your whole subject misunderstood? or only are trying to distract from the main subject: your misunderstood.
Just for your records here a discussion between your third/hero person and other agoner on tonearms:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&255&4#255
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&256&4#256
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&276&4#276
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&277&4#277
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&278&4#278
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&280&4#280
three times in a row in the same thread your hero was defeated.
Have you enough or will come back for more?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
|
Lew, Of course some people prefer Stevenson alignment for various reasons.....however the vast majority of audiophiles are using Lofgren A(Baerwald) because of the lower overall distortions. Stevenson - a variation on Löfgren geometry optimized for low distortion at the inner groove at the expense of increased distortion elsewhere. The Vinyl Engine Calculator is designed for this most popular (and lower distortion producing) geometry although they do have calculators for the others if you so desire? The real point of all this is that Raul selected the Stevenson alignment (which he doesn't use himself)........to prove that my 233mm P to S distance is 0.3mm out? Instead of having to concur that I have the tonearm set up correctly for interchangeability of headshells (according to Baerwald)........he will grasp at the ridiculous to avoid admitting defeat? It demonstrates the almost psychotic paranoia which governs his behaviour. If you remember about 2 or 3 years ago.....there was an entire Thread here on Audiogon which discussed all the Pros and Cons of the various geometries.....and even personalised geometries which one can adapt for certain requirements? Dertonearm provided sufficient evidence in long and protracted postings.....which demonstrated the sheer lack of credibility and understanding that Raul has about this whole subject. I hope that Thread is still in the Archives but I doubt it as Raul became more and more belligerent and personal....which is his Modus Operandi whenever cornered? |
Dear Thuchan: I can and I did question/questioned you about your opinion but I can't remember that I questioned you or any one else that if it is true that you own/owned some audio item you mentioned about. As a fact I don't remember any single forum member that in the past did it with other member.
I remember that one time you posted that were along other gentleman the designer/manufacturer of your own speakers: I repeat self co-designer. Remember? and remember what happened down that thread ? do you want to talk about or about your co-designer/partner acts AGAIN?
I have nothing to hide but you are questioning my integrity and then I take it as personal injury and don't think that I can accept it by " free ".
R. |
Dear Halcro: Here you can corroborate everything what I posted. This is through the VE calculator:
http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=233&a1=st&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate
at the end of the page you can read what I posted in Agon in that 2011 posts but with different words. I hope you can trust on VE!.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " I was right about the 15mm overhang and you were wrong? " +++++
I don't know what or where you took information that told you that. Could you explain it?
++++ " There are dozens of posts from you extolling the advantages of Lofgren A (Baerwald) over Stevenson, and your understanding of the distortions of each geometry is obviously flawed.
It just reinforces the fact that you can never be trusted or believed " ++++++
that's the problem: or you can't understand or you can't even read ( btw, I reserve my opinion on that: +++ " you can never be trusted... " +++++ because you just can't prove it as I'm proving here and in other threads that your statement is the other way around!. ), never mind here you can read that what you said is not true:
+++++ " 02-28-11: Rauliruegas
Dear Geoch: That general acceptance on Baerwald is IMHO a wrong way to go, nothing I repeat nothing outperform the overall low distortions ina Löfgren B geometry set up: it does not matters what other people could say or already said it..................................
Löfgreen B IEC is very good option and has the best/lower overall distortion. The DIN one gives you a lower inside grooves distortions but with a higher distortions outside the inner grooves: I don't like it, my take is that good tonearm with good cartridges are very good trackers and I prefer lower distortions overall against a tiny lower inside grooves distortions that I'm sure you can't detect because the difference in distoprtion level between IEC and DIN is extremely small.
Anyway, the real subject is IMHO that you can use any geometry equations option it does not matters which tonearm you own.
Nothing impede that you can test Löfgren B or Löfgren A ( that's similar to Baerwald with the same offset angle/overhang. ) or Stevenson set up and decide which set up please you. .... " +++++
when I talk of " overall distortion figure " I'm refering at its average one and between null points.
this is another post:
+++ " The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking distortion at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in distotion between these points.
The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking distortion of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method. " +++
Stevenson is the worst of those three standard alignments.
IMHO you need to re-read the white papers I linked because you are understranding almost nothing. It's not me the only person questioned you but Dover too.
Now, prove that you are right and we are wrong. I posted facts but you can't understand it as you can't understand Dover.
Halcro, with all respect you are wrong!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Which part of my post you don't understand:
++++ " The VE calculator has not the Stevenson alignment that's the one I use to find out the correct overhang/offset angle with that 233mm StoP distance. The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang and that's why you have over 300% higher distortions over Stevenson alignment that's is the one of the three standards with higher overall distortions. " +++++
I´m speaking of the the VE calculator you linked.
there you can read very clear:
+++ " The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang " +++++
if you read on that link what VE are doing is to compel a set up changing only overhang with out change the offset angle and that's why distortions goes so high.
Using Stevenson ( IEC ) alignment a 233mm StP distance the Stevenson calculated overhang is 14.734mm ( I don't used the VE Stevenson calculator but you can do it. ) and its overall distortions be the ones for Stevenson alignment/equations.
So what's the problem with?, certainly you have a misunderstood on thw hole tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: First than all you as any one else can read all posts in this forum but if you revise in the MM/MI thread I listed in two-three posts all the SUTs I bought trhough ebay and the one you name it was there.
Btw, you need to test the Denon AU-1000.
Now, what do you want? that I give you prove of what I bought like the last time I did it with other gentleman because he did not believe I own or owned an audio item?
Please, do it a favor and try to find out that Denon instead to try to tell me in this forum that I'm a liar. If you have a problem with me please email me you already have my email but I appreciated don't came to Agon with that: " Should I believe this story? ".
I respect you try to do the same and remember that I " work " with facts and first hand experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Not that Raul needs to be defended; he is good at it himself, but he and his compatriot have designed and manufactured a superb solid state phono stage with many great features. Therefore, he is not fairly subject to your criticism of him as a "wannabe". He pisses me off too, on the odd occasion, but let's be fair. We distortion-lovers have got to stick together.
As to Vinyl Engine and what's there: the only Stevenson protractor I have been able to find is the one available for free on VE. If you print it, make sure that the ratio of the image to the print is 1:1. I then laminated mine between two pieces of mylar, punched a hole for the spindle, and it "works a treat".
Also, in that vein, my personal experience is that I get the best sound when I align the cartridge using the geometry for which the tonearm was intended. For example, the DV505 was designed for Stevenson or something very near to it. When I align using Baerwald, etc, the sound is never as good as when I use Stevenson. The reason for this may be that in order to use something other than Stevenson, the cartridge must be askew in the headshell, twisted with respect to the long axis of the headshell. In the DV, this means that the arc of the cantilever is not in line with the arc of the vertical pivot. This may be the cause of the distortions I hear. (Yes, I can hear distortions; I am no Philistine.) |
Dear Nandric,
Who told you i got my Arche headshells for free? I paid hard cash! Definitely. Also for the Axiom.
I was always waiting for the Mexican "Wunder Tonarm" but received nothing else than replies on distortion problems. Maybe HE was surrounded by distortions getting no other idea than that topic.
Anyway in the end it is more or less a question of reliability which got proofed now.
I was always wondering that Raul could invest in a very, very expensive Western Electric SUT he never mentioned before I came up with it. Suddenly
He wrote a negative comment about it and told the world he sold that crap.
Should I believe this story? .... pfft |
What is in a name? Well the name is about the reference
and when we want to find something we need a name. The
tonearm made by 'tonearm' (aka'Der Tonarm' in German) is
called the Axiom. The Arche headshell which we discussed
in the context of the 'iron horse versus locomotive' is included
or build in the Axiom. I got the Arche for free,
Thuchan got also the Arche for free but also the Axiom (?).
Some guys are more lucky than other.
Regards, |
Suteetat,
Yes....the UNI-Protractor is made and sold by Dertonarm who also has made a range of adjustable headshells which are receiving positive reviews....and has also just launched a new tonearm which debuted in the HighEnd Show at Munich.
Dertonarm (Daniel) knows more about the FR range of tonearms than anyone else I know.....unlike a Mexican peppercorn who has never owned an FR-66s....just look at his Systems Page where every tonearm he has owned is listed....incl the FR-64s?
This Mexican wannabe also was designing a new tonearm but where is it?
There are some people in Audio who have the knowledge and ability to design and produce.
Then there are the Pretenders who are full of hot air.
When the chips are down.....all they can do is....blow. |
Dover,
Please see the VE Calculator Chart in my Post above.
Raul is not disputing the figure. His 0.3mm difference is due to his assumption of Stevensen geometry.
You've got it arse about :-) |
Dear Raul,
There are dozens of posts from you extolling the advantages of Lofgren A (Baerwald) over Stevenson, and your understanding of the distortions of each geometry is obviously flawed.
It just reinforces the fact that you can never be trusted or believed?
Oh.......and do I read it correctly?.....I was right about the 15mm overhang and you were wrong?
Nothing new about that.......... |
Dear Halcro: The VE calculator has not the Stevenson alignment that's the one I use to find out the correct overhang/offset angle with that 233mm StoP distance. The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang and that's why you have over 300% higher distortions over Stevenson alignment that's is the one of the three standards with higher overall distortions.
++++ " how do you decide the limit of what distortions are allowable for the rest of us....." +++++
I don't decide nothing I only post my opinion with some facts around.
Sometimes you are angry with me when I said several times that you are hearing and likes high distortions because your cartridge quality performance reviews reflect that you are hearing higher distortions than other persons. That tonearm set up confirm it as many other things and Halcro I never imagine you choosed that higher distortion set up, even that in some ways I had some kind of reason in that distortion overall subject on what you are hearing and I assume you like because is what you are hearing. Tha's all.
What you did is almost as to make a tonearm/cartridge set up at random by " feeling " and with out need of a protractor. I think we use any decent or " stupid " low price ( as Dover said. ) protractor for at least be near of a " perfect " set up in static way. We all know that on playback almost anything tend to change.
Anyway, today I learn something. I hope other gentlemans too.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: ++++ " is it a bad idea to use a "good" one? I think not. " ++++
agree. As a fact there are not bad really bad comercial protractors.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Halcro, thanks for your information. I mounted XV-1s yesterday and there was a few more mms wiggle room than Air Tight using Baerwald geometry on Feickert protractor.
So look like it was Air Tight and not something wrong with my arm or protractor as far as I could tell.
Feickert protractor is rather difficult to see especially if I have a light source on the side or the rear to help me see better. Light source is very useful for Air Tight and Koetsu especially but not as needful for Dynavector or Lyra. Surprisingly, I get a lot of glare of the black surface. Clearaudio silver finished is easier to see but Mint mirror surface is by far the best.
I saw Uni-tractor on acoustical system website. Is that the same protractor that Dertoarm made awhile back? There is an economical version call SMARTrack. Looks interesting! |
By the way, good luck with getting the overhang accuracy to 0.3mm, so as to distinguish between 14.7mm and 15mm, anyone. A little cantilever flexing will obliterate any such precision. |
Suteetat,
In re-setting the FR-64s at a P to S distance of 231.5mm.......I discovered one cartridge/headshell combination which locates the screws at the furthest point of the headshell.
The Signet TK-7SU in the Yamamoto HS-1As wood shell is the only combination exhibiting this structure.
At this furthest point......it has perfect 'Dertonarm' geometry :-) |
Halcro - I have to agree with Raul, your numbers dont add up. 05-15-13: Halcro
The MA-505s was no problem because it's overhang is the same as the FR-66s.....however the FR-64s has an overhang of 12mm as opposed to the 15mm for the others.
So to correct for that......I reset my P to S to 233mm for the 64s.
And yes......I know that the Av and Max distortion levels go up as a result. The FR66 should be 12mm overhang not 15. The FR64 should be 15, not 12. If you are running 12mm overhang on your FR64 then you should be moving the arm closer to the spindle to reduce distortion, not further away. |
Raul, North of your border, a spoiled female would say, "Peel me a grape". There's a great jazz tune with that title, written by Dave Frischberg.
If one is going to use a protractor, is it a bad idea to use a "good" one? I think not. I did not use the word "expensive"; I used "good". |
Dear Raul, CALCULATORUsing the Vinyl Engine Calculator where you plug in the parameters (Eff Length, Off-set angle and Original Overhang) and then choose the new Overhang desired.........it calculates the NEW Pivot to Spindle distance and gives you all the new Null Points and consequent geometry as well as the new distortion figures. As the stated Overhang for the FR-64s arm is 15mm......I don't know from whence your 14.7mm derives? Perhaps you can communicate with Vinyl Engine and let me know the outcome so that I can clarify my understanding? As for the MA-505s which has the same Overhang as the FR-66s.....and as far as I am aware.....there is no Off-set Angle built into the straight headshells (this is part of the S or P shaped tonearm itself).......can you please explain exactly how to use the Calculator as I must surely be missing something? So, please don't delete my posts it is clear that you are hearing " different " things wrong or non-correct " things ", again way higher distortions. As the "distortions you are listening to are infinitely greater than the zero distortions of a linear tracking arm.......how do you decide the limit of what distortions are allowable for the rest of us.....and at which point they are audible? |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " It would seem that someone who has actually done this using a quality protractor to evaluate alignment on both tonearms " +++++
IMHO that's is not a " quality protractor " issue but to understand how the whole subject works!!!:
in the link I posted comes everything you have to know about the tonearm/cartridge alignment geometry. Those white papers ( long ones. ) makes a in full explanation in easy words for any one could understand and has all the technical/equations inforamtion too.
The point is that we have to read it carfully, yes it's a long one but if we want to understand about we have to read it.
Through the time I posted that same link because the same subject not less than 10 times and people still don't read it!!!!!
With all respect seems to me that some like you want: " peeled and in the mouth ", this is what we say here in México.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Something is wrong in your whole tonearm/cartridge set ups:
FR choosed Stevenson ( IEC ) alignment for the tonearms mounting specs ( we can choose Löfgren A or B if we want to test in between. ) and that's why the 66 overhang is 12 against the 64 that's 15mm.
Now, following Stevenson and following what you did to change the 230 PtS distance to 233 for " compensate " and can swap cartridges between 66 and 64 is a misunderstood just does not works because if you change to 233 the correct 64 overhang is 14.7mm not the same as the 66 and with a different offset angle/linear offset too and something similar occur with the 505 too.
So that's not only an issue of way higher distortion but a plain misunderstood how to handle how works those equations.
So, please don't delete my posts it is clear that you are hearing " different " things wrong or non-correct " things ", again way higher distortions.
Thank's for your explanation that puts a " light " on your set up that has several " problems ".
If I missed something please let me know.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Tempus fugit.
Thanks, Henry, for the clarification. |
Sorry guys,
I had forgotten that the time Lew refers to when I did indeed seek to interchange headshells between my two FR-66s arms, the FR-64s arm and the Micro Seiki MA-505s which was nearly two years ago I think?.....
The MA-505s was no problem because it's overhang is the same as the FR-66s.....however the FR-64s has an overhang of 12mm as opposed to the 15mm for the others.
So to correct for that......I reset my P to S to 233mm for the 64s.
And yes......I know that the Av and Max distortion levels go up as a result.
I think now that I will select about 5 or 6 cartridges and specifically align them for the FR-64s set at 231.5mm.
I've had to do that already for the SAEC WE-8000/ST so we shall see......?
I also miscalculated my cartridge storage facilities.......
The total is 38......not 48 :-) |
I have to say that back when Halcro asked about setting up his cartridges in separate headshells so that each cartridge could be used with each of his tonearms (at the time, I thought he wanted flexibility among several tonearms, not just 64S and 66S), I was dubious that this could be done without at least some minor re-alignment each time. (And we know there is no such thing as "minor" realignment; each time one must do it, it is a pain in the arse.) Later, when Halcro claimed he had conquered the problem, and since he was pleased with the results, I assumed that perhaps I had been wrong and /or that Halcro may have found some compromise that is "good enough". Now that the issue appears to have been put before us again, I am interested.
Right now, the question seems to be that if you mount the 64S at 230mm and the 66S at 295mm (factory recommended, as I understand it), then a headshell bearing a cartridge that is correctly aligned for use on the 64S will also give perfect alignment when that headshell/cartridge is transferred to the 66S. It would seem that someone who has actually done this using a quality protractor to evaluate alignment on both tonearms could tell us the answer. Also, Euclid could tell us, if he knew the other relevant parameters. |
Dear Halcro: Even that you don't answer yet to the Dover post where I founded my posts there is something important to analize because what you posted:
++++ " 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. " +++++
++++ " other cartridges ready mounted in their own headshells and all of them have been played on the FR-64s as well as the FR-66s.
In fact......with ALL my cartridges......I set them up on one of my FR-66s arms .....and then simply swap them between 4 of my other arms " ++++
So, you just swap in between with out modifications, right?
How can be ? which kind of geometry equations or manipulations you do for you can make that because that's what I need and maybe other persons too. Yes, I'm willing to learn as always.
Your answer is appreciated, please enlight us. Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: My first " high end " tonearm I owned was the 66, in those time my best experiences were with Denon tonearms. I sold it because I can't change directly my cartridges from one tonearm to other. I was really a rockie those times.
MY FR64 that I still own I bought it along a Luxman BD TT that still own too.
The TT-71 was really something I was not looking for but when I saw an auction the JVC tonearm that I was looking I bought it and things were that the tonearm came mounted in a TT-71 and as a " bonus " with the great JVC X-1 cartridge!. The 81-101 were not mines and heard it briefly in my system one borrowed by a friend and the other by an audio dealer.
About the Signet all the history is already in the other thread.
Please don't share the same way of thinking of those " flat head " persons , you are better than that.
In the other side I took this from Dover post:
+++ " 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. " +++++
normally Dover is a trusty gentleman, if the post is a wrong one then my mistake and please delete my posts, sorry for that and good to know that you really understand the whole tonearm/cartridge geometry set up.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Speaking about repetition. This is 33 1/2 time we dwell about tonearm geometry. The 1/2 one was the thread with only two contributions so it would be not correct to count
this one as a whole thread. I play my records only around the O points with the least possible distortion. Even Raul with his distortions obsession never got this idea. However his 'learning curve' still make some progress... Depending from the part of the record which one want to hear and enjoy in the most pure way one should of course use the geometry intended for this part.
I am however not sure if all 45 preadjusted headshells in Australia can be used in both tonearms (66 and 64) this way. Anyway it is impossible to use one half one way and
the other the other way. So the dilemma in this case is in which to use 23 headshells. |
