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. |
Well, distortions can be also those which are created in the area above the eyes. When brain is clipping. |
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.
|
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 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. |
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. |
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 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. |
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 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 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. |
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 Suteetat: +++++ " I am kind of curious to try it but not sure what to try it with " ++++++
why any one of us could want to try an audio item other than " curiosity " ( that could means many things at the same time. )?
Seems to me that to achieve a better quality performance level in the audio system.
Now, how each one of us could knew or know about that quality performance level?
well some of us because " I like it more " and some of us because we know and are aware that the " new " item improved the system quality performance level because helps to lower system distortions.
The ones in the " I like it more " side are unaware of no other thing that that " I like it more " the other persons knows what they are talking about and why really the system improved its quality performance level. These people knows for sure each one audio link distortion levels in their system audio chain.
Where are you?, this question is important if and only if you really cares to listen and enjoy what in reality is in the recording what is in your LP tracks/grooves. Where IMHO the system main target must be: to be nearer to the recording and if you achieved it then you must be nearer to the live event, no question about/with out doubt.
How could you be nearer to the recording, nearer to what is recorded in your LPs?, plain and simple:
adding and loosing the less from the cartridge signal.
What we losed we can't recovery any more and what we add only can degrade the original cartridge signal.
What can you add?: all kind of distortions you can imagine, just name it and you can be sure you are adding it to the cartridge signal. There is no single audio link in the system audio chain that does not add several kind of distortions. There are not a single perfect audio link, no one and its quality differences is determined mainly by each one distortions levels ( everythinhg the same. ).
We can't do nothing about the recording signal degradations but we have some kind of " control " on the playback of the listening process where we can make a lot of things to lower those distotions to add the less distortions you can.
Money is always an important issue to achieve that target but the main issue is not money but KNOWLEDGE level and your SKILLs. Money is very important but is more important how you use your money to achieve that level of excellence in your system quality.
IMHO the first knowledge level step is to be aware of several of those kind of distortions and second level step to choose the audio items with the lower distortions you are aware. Of course that if you are aware only on the " obvious " distortions this helps you almost nothing, what is important is to be aware of distortions where other " normal " persons are unaware. Here your advantage.
The tonearm is a critical audio link and other than the LP it self and TT platter the nearest companion of any cartridge where is not only important both items be matched because resonance frequency in between but more important that the tonearm could add the lowest distortions you can and that generate not additional ones. IMHO the best tonearm ( everything the same ) is the best damped tonearm that " isolate " the cartridge from tonearm distortions, tonearm feedback and the like.
You ask for the FR66 and you are enjoying it as all the ones posted here. Not only that, here there are expressions as : " is in other Galaxy ", well as grosse those kind of expresion been as grosse is our ignorance level.
All in audio is about information against ignorance of that information. We can't be aware on what we don't know exist. That's why some of us still think that " earth is plane and not a circle " and this is not because we are stupid but because we have not the right information that's we are ignorant of facts.
I owned the FR66 ( that I sold it for very good reasons. ) and still own the FR64. I own and tested these and other several tonearms ( maybe 40+ different ones. ) for years and tested with hunderd of cartridges ( any kind. )/headshells and against other vintage and today tonearms. So IMHO I have information perhaps not 100% one but I can say enough.
Now, is there something wrong with the FR tonearm design?, what do you think?, you are right the design IM HO is a wrong one because does not take in count the cartridge needs it does not take in count added distortions and generated distortions that only degraded the cartridge signal. The FR is a simple one non-damped dynamic balanced design where it generate " all " kind of distortions you can imagine and where it does not damp any single distortion/resonances7vibrations coming from the cartridge/TT, arm board, tonearm it self and from the air.
Obviously you are unaware of the FR kind of distortions but through your experiences you writed about with out knowing it:
++++++ " My impression though is that may be Graham is still a touch faster, bass is very tight but....... FR bass is bigger, richer, more solid which may make it sound a tad slower ....... Mid range and high is significantly better than Graham though. Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my tastebit lean for my taste .... FR also throw the widest soundstage.... " +++++
" bigger and richer " : read it as higher distortions that are not in the recording where the Graham ( faster and tight: this the way how the bass must be. ) tell you and give you more information more non-degraded information that is in the recording ( that you like it more the FR degraded information means only that: " I like it more " and you like it more because is more unaccurate and less neutral. Remember that the main target is to be nearer to the recording and when you are nearer to the recording you will enjoy for sure better than ever because music is accurate, neutral, dynamic and powerfull with a natural agresiveness that gives the music its unique characteristic: ryhtmum. ))
"
Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my taste " +++, this means more accurate and neutral with lower distortions than the FR ones.
" Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my taste " +++, this is another characteristic of higher distortions: as more colored are both frequency extremes as higher differences we achieve on soundstage perception.
I can go on on the FR distortions against other tonearms but you are experienced it. Again, that you like it more those colorations does not means is right but means faraway from the recording thank's to the FR wrong/faulty design. The 66 is worst that the 64 due that's longer and produce higher distortions.
Other main focus of distortions in the FR design is that the designer likes not only goes against gravity but again does not took in count the cartridge needs and LP reality and that's why the FR design is a dynamic balanced one where the VTF forced to set by a spring at the tonearm pillar a RESONANT spring that is no damped and those spring resonances are distoritons added to the cartridge signal and not only that: due to the LP imperfetions, non-flat surface, each tiny and single up-wave in the LP surface the VTF is incremented when in a static balanced tonearm design this happen in gentle way.
All those FR faults are only part of several other faults on its design like no-azymuth control and because its vintage age that internal wiring is another degradation cartridge signal focus. I have to say that even the FR bearing frinction is higher that adequate.
Other than today good tonearm designs you can compare the " ridiculous " FR tonearm design against designs that were designed by persons that really knew what they were designed, took for example the Technics EPA100-MK2 or AT/Signet designs or Audiocraft one ( where Graham came. ) or Lustre and many more. These people had a very high KNOWLEGE level and SKILLs that unfortunatelly FR did not and even today they have not.
Suteetat, please remember that we are talking here not what " I like it " but what is right or wrong and IMHO FR is plain wrong. I still own it because I want to know/remember how a tonearm design has not to be.
Of course that ignorants with the wrong information are all supporting FR but if their life time could be enough I'm sure all of them could improve on the subject.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lew, Before you try to do this job yourself you shoulf first look at: www.thomas-schlick.com -fr 64. There you can see the complexity involved. Schlick deed this job himself but he is, you know, a tonearm designer. The only thing I needed to do according to Dertonarm was to put the arm in the son like the watchmaker use to do with
whatches. As you know some Greek philospher wanted also some 'son-light' and asked Alexander: 'get a little bit out of the son'.
Regards, |
I thought you guys had hard-wired your FR tonearms, so to have an uninterrupted run of wire from the headshell plug to the phono stage I use them stock and I also know nobody who modified them to run them direct. Well, in a way it is the same idea we find in Graham Arm discussions, more pins, more contacts, more resistance to direct wired Arms. But the Graham Arm is still much better than all other current designs (some won't agree but there is a difference between "I like something" or "better"), so the secret of superior sound is somewhere else. But where? A straight piece of Arm wood with Valhalla cable and 2 RCA plugs does not help much in comparison with other Arms. So I think, other Design ideas have MUCH more influence to superior sound. The 64s for example has some very interesting internal solutions and when someone would build it again with identical specs and materials, it would be easily above $14k. The 64s was a very expensive Arm when it became available. I think, it was among the top 5% from pricing. The 66s was a different Galaxy, super expensive, very, very rare. 64s was from production numbers probably factor 10 or more. |
For some reason, copper DOES have a slightly different tonal balance vs silver, comparing solid core strands of equal gauge, used as home-made interconnects. However, I am not convinced that the sonic difference has much to do with the slightly superior conduction properties of silver vs copper. But then again, I have no hard data either way.
Syntax, does your response indicate that you use DIN to RCA phono cables, with your FR tonearms? I thought you guys had hard-wired your FR tonearms, so to have an uninterrupted run of wire from the headshell plug to the phono stage. That's what I would like to do, but I am fearful of the risk to the bearing, if I were to do the job myself. |
Syntax, I also agree that in case of phono, silver does seems to make the best sense due to very low signal level. Most cables that I have are silver, using silver headshell lead etc. I was just wondering about copper when I heard someone mentioned that Lyra recommended copper wire. I suppose it is possible as copper wire will have different sound characteristic than silver. ZYX also offers cartridges with different wiring inside and I thought that some people actually prefer copper wire version over silver and gold. Never heard them myself though. |
Dear Nandric, you could be right regarding wood choice. When I ordered Reed, there was really no way to tell which arm wand would be ideal. Actually, I wanted to order Pernambucco as well based on Reed's graph. However, I did talk to Reed before hand about which arm wand to order and I specifically mentioned that I was planning on using Koetsu with Reed. Reed suggested that I go with Cocobolo which has similar effective mass as Pernambucco. Reed also suggested my local dealer to use Cocobolo with Miyajima line of cartridge that they also carry. Cocobolo wand sounds great with Miyajima so I don't think it is the low compliance cartridge issue. It also sounds wonderful with my Lyra, XV-1s and Air Tight in my system but just not Koetsu. It was not bad but I felt the sound was not on the same level as other cartridges that I have. Koetsu on FR was also in its own different league than Reed/Koetsu. Just my own observation in my own system, of course.
As I am very happy with Reed with other cartridges, that was why I said that it was most likely compatibility/synergy issue more than anything else. May be another wood type would work better but I don't have a resource to try all. It would be fun if Reed has interchangeable armwand as I certainly would not mind experimenting that way.
After I sold my Graham, I was considering either Reed 3P or Thales Simplicity and was planning to audition both a bit later on this year but FR 66s kind of fall in my lap unexpectedly so I will leave my analogue front end as is for now. |
Dear Suteetat, The Reed tonearms have different kinds of wood-wands and consequently different eff.mass. Not to mention different lenghts. My 2 A ( 12" ) with Pernambucco
wood -wand has the eff. mass of 27 g. and was a perfect match with the low complience Phase Tech P-3 G. So not the tonearm (name)was wrong but your own wood choice was wrong in connection with the Koetsu. Or so I thought.
Regards, |
However, I was told that Lyra was designed and tuned with copper wire in mind (don't know how true this is though) so I definitely want to try that. from the signal transfer ability Copper is 100% in its highest, purest availability (Audio Engineering Society) so that is the Standard based on AES Silver has 106, that means, no other material on our planet can carry more than silver, 6% more than copper, 16% more than gold and I think, more than 45% more than brass... Some cartridge manufacturers know that and use silver plated pins, some audiophiles know that and use silver headshell leads + plugs, some Arm manufacturers know that also and use silver internal Arm wire, some cable manufacturers know that also and use high quality DIN Plugs ...makes some sense for the ultra low MC Signal....my advice for that is, think about that, check your Cable of choice and also the used RCA connectors (most are inferior, even in combination with very expensive cables) and of course, the quality of the RCA jacks from your Phonostage.... :-) Normally any Signal is degraded here seriously....MY Pods are $200,-- for example, not the usual $8.95 ... Good sound is based on knowledge about what is responsible for what ... |
I am using Acrolink 8N Reference Din/RCA cable into Aesthetix Io Eclipse currently. Also been playing with Lamm Phono with either its MC input or external SUT as well.
Still have not decided which combination I prefer yet.
I do like idea that Reed has also with no connector or cable break anywhere between cartridge all the way to RCA plug and still enjoy listening to Reed/Lyra Atlas just as well.
The only comparison between Reed and FR in my system so far is that Reed definitely does not play well with Koetsu and I am willing to settle for incompatibility/synergy problem rather than inferior product. Now that both Reed/Lyra and FR/Koetsu sounds great on the same table, I am a bit too lazy to switch Lyra over to FR for now. However, I was told that Lyra was designed and tuned with copper wire in mind (don't know how true this is though) so I definitely want to try that. My Reed came with silver wire so I do want to try it with a different arm/cable one of these days. |
|
Dear Lew, The same reason(ing) caused me to buy the Triplanar VII and Reed 2A with the fast headshells and wire all the way to the pre. My FR-64s where in the box till Henry convinced me to rethink my assumption(s). I am glad I deed and have no reason at all to question the wire, the Din plug or whtever by the FR-64s. BTW I own both; the silver and copper 'versions' but have no preference for one or the other.
Regards,
|
Dear FR64S and 66S aficionados, What do you use for phono cable? Have you bypassed the DIN plug? For such superlative results as some of you describe, especially with very low output MC cartridges, I would think it is a necessity to get rid of the DIN plug in the signal path. (I have a 64S but have not had the pleasure of listening to it yet.) Thanks. |
Thanks for the information. Will have to look for the VTA base. The arm I got came in original box with manual and 2 counter weights, 2 antiskating weight etc, seems very complete except for the VTA :(
Syntax, yes, I also was told the same thing regarding the alignment tool. I was using mintlp that I got originally for my Reed 12 inch. Apparently, it has exactly the same dimension, lengthwise. The result was better but still did not quite make it for me. |
To my knowledge there is just one copy and you can get it
for $ 450 on our own Audiogon market. This copy is nearly
as good as Henry's original but in short supply. You should
ask for the 'ordinary grease' instead of this sticky silicon oil
or clean the silicon oil and use some grease instead. I bought
two of those but for $500 each. Still a bargain in my opinion.
Regards, |
... works much better than Graham Phantom 2 supreme 12 inch. I had Graham for about a year and never could dialed it in to my liking with various cartridges that I have and I finally sold it. The alignment tool (flip) is correct only with the Standard 9" Ar,. Used with the 10" or 12" Arm Wands the cartridge alignment is wrong. And you can hear that normally. But on the other side, on some official demos they run that way and got great reviews from the magazine people.... :-) Unfortunately Graham forgot to put a notice about that in the Arm boxes ... but even when done right, the 66s is still a different world (and the Phantom supreme is really good) |
All FR-66s arms originally came with the B-60 VTA Base which allows adjustment 'on the fly'.
If your arm is without it.......the previous owner has kept it or sold it separately?
An original B-60 Base is almost unobtainable......but there are a few copies on the market for approx $300? |
I have to agree with Halcro. FR 66s, at least in my system and my preference, works much better than Graham Phantom 2 supreme 12 inch. I had Graham for about a year and never could dialed it in to my liking with various cartridges that I have and I finally sold it. 3 days with FR and I am already very impressed. I never had a chance to compare FR 64s with Graham as I could not mount both on the same table.
My impression though is that may be Graham is still a touch faster, bass is very tight but also a bit more on the lean side. FR bass is bigger, richer, more solid which may make it sound a tad slower but still fast and very tuneful. Mid range and high is significantly better than Graham though. Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my taste especially with Graham IC-70 phono cable which I tossed out very quickly. FR also throw the widest soundstage I ever heard in my system. I wish VTA is a bit easier to adjust. I really like the VTA on the fly like those on VPI, Reed or Graham arm. This way, it would a lot of fun to mount lots of cartridges on various headshells and swap them quickly. I think somebody made a VTA ring or something that works with FR 66s.
I much prefer Reed over Graham also (which does not mean that Graham is neccesarily bad, another friend with similar setup prefer Graham or Reed). May be I like the coloration brought on by wood arm wand and willing to give up a bit of bottom end authority and speed for rich,smooth, big midrange rather than the more neutral Graham but FR 66s seems to bring the best of both worlds. |
Thanks Halcro.
At present I use two unipivots, Naim ARO and 47 Labs RS-A1. Both are very fast and open sounding tonearms. I will now try out a FR64s and possibly report back on this same thread. |
Pain,
I've had four unipivots.......Hadcock GH-228, Grace 940G, Continuum Copperhead and Phantom II.
I never found the Graham to be better in its speed or transient response than any of the other unipivots.
I can say that the FR-64s and 66s better the Graham in all meaningful parameters in my system.
As for build quality..........the FR arms as well as arms by the Japanese masters like Micro Seiki, and SAEC are simply in a different league to the Grahams........or any other modern arms I know of? |
Halcro, one of the reasons why the Graham has been highly touted is it is a well built unipivot and has a tremendous speed and transient response. Did you miss any of that in the FR64s ? |
Dear Suteetat, The FR-64 s was a bargain in the 80 is and still is. Your choice of the headshell however should be dependant from the cart you use or intend to use. By changing the headshell you also change the eff. mass of the arm. So there is no headshell to be known a priori. |
Dear Nandric, adding the cost of headshells and Oyaide silver leads, soon FR 64s seems like a bargain :) |
Dear Suteetat, My Slavic brother convinced me to use my FR-64S because of the removable headshell. He however forget to mention how many headshells I would need and more in particular what they cost. My pragmatic ego discovered those magnesium headshells which are probable produced by Jelco but sold under different names for different prices. I bought 4 of those, named 'Sumiko', for only 40 GBP each on ebay.uk. They are excelent and complete: with azimuth provision, good 'tags', screws and even a finger lift. I mention the finger lift because the Britons ask 20 GBP for those old-fashioned SME kinds. But in case you prefer the wooden kind you can make them with your knife yourself for much less.
Regards, |
I have been sitting on the fence about getting Orsonic headshell for awhile. I heard a lot of good thing about it but also heard about fake one. On Ebay, certainly juki seems to have unlimited supply which made me wonder. Although I had good experience getting other stuffs from him and another friend bought a lot from him in the last several years and never complained about getting any fake item.
Orsonic clamp I got from him looked the same as far as I could tell from my friend's much older unit.
Now of course there are other sellers with similar name to Juki from the same country undercutting juki's price as well which make me even more worry!
May be I should just stick with either FR headshell that came with my FR or Oyaide carbon fiber headshell? |
Dear Nikola,
You're right to place your faith in the Bavarian Brigade rather a Slavic brother who is a poor immigrant living in a developing country like Australia.
Is that why you also prefer LOMCs to MMs?
I thought you believed a certain Mexican oracle was "always right" in his ranking of cartridges?
In any case.......my distortions are better than yours :-)
Regards |
Dear Henry, 'All the facts' I got from Germany or the(former) German 'group'. The first review about both; the FR-64S and FX was in 'Das Ohr' from 1984. My dear friend
and the highest authority reg. all FR components Dertonarm was then reviewer by this Magazine. He as well as the Magazine recommended the Orsonic I mentioned and advised against the clumsy original headshell. In the same
Magazine there was a review about (10) headshells with the first price for the Orsonic. What is more if you look at Syntax's system you will see the same Orsonic holding
the 'fellow' Olympos. Thuchan owns so many headshells so he MUST have at least one Orsonic. Besides we don't need advice from someone from a developing country about such technical matters. I know that you pretend to know something about headshells but your preference for the wooden kind says enough. I hope Raul will explain to us what kind of distortions are involved by your preference. BTW my specimen is from the time when Chinese had no idea what a headshell means.
Regards,
|
BTW nobody uses those old and heavy headshells. The most of us use the Orsonic , preferably the AV-101 b or s. Dear Nikola, Where do you get these 'facts'? I love the FR3 headshell for my FR-64s and 66s arms. Even the FR5 headshell is a fine one. The Orsonic AV-101b I found to be the worst headshell I've heard and I quickly sold it. For every genuine Orsonic headshell on the market......there appear to be 75 bad Chinese copies? An FR3 headshell can be had for $180 and an FR5 ....slightly less. Also a good match for the FR tonearms.....if one wishes to lower the effective mass......are the Yamamoto wood shells and the Ortofon 8000 wood headshell.....both of which are cheaper than the FR shells. |
Hi Pani, I have both the FR64S and the FR64fx, and in my experience the s is much better. No matter what I did, the fx just sounded boring compared to the s ! |
Dear Nandric, while philosophy is one of my favourite topics, the above post was not in that direction though. There is at the moment an FR64s and FR64fx on ebay and the seller is asking additional $200 for the original headshell. I am considering buying one of these hence my questions followed. |
Hi Pany, You look like a philosopher: questions for the sake of questions. To many I would think. BTW nobody uses those old and heavy headshells. The price you mentioned is because they are 'original'. Whatever the merits of the 'original' may be they sell well. The most of us use the Orsonic , preferably the AV-101 b or s. |
Another question, is it worth buying the original FR headshell along with the tonearm, I ask this because the headshell costs about $200 and for that money there are other headshells to consider as well. |
Since we are at it. Can anyone advise whether the FR64s and FR64fx are both equally good or is one superior to the other ? |
Hi Pani, I am, like Henry, a kind of toneram junkie and own many (12 at present). I can recommend many but will keep the numbers 'modest': Lustre GST 801, Sumiko 800 ('the arm'), Sony PUA 237, JVC UA 7047/7082 (see ebay.com), Micro 505 and Zeta. |
04-22-13: Halcro
......and the Fidelity Research arms have a control and authority which is immediately obvious.
The images are stable and pinpoint whilst the soundstage is the widest and deepest you will hear if the vinyl contains this information.
The bass depth and control is quite astonishing.......but the real highlight I find.....is the complete relaxation that one feels when listening.
These arms allow one to forget entirely about the electro-mechanical gymnastics involved in the execution of musical extraction and completely immerse oneself in the music.
You will find it difficult to stop dragging out long forgotten records and re-discovering A spot on description. All that is responsible that my records never stop to amaze me when I listen to them via those Arms. Even the most demanding swings go with an "ease" which is unique. And all that is summed up in a "liveness" you can hear in the 1. Minute, like opening a window and breathing fresh air. The FR-66s is the King of Arms. |
Talking about high quality vintage arms, has anyone heard a Ortofon RMG 309 tonearm ? Are they comparable to the modern tonearms ? |
Thanks Halcro for the description. I should start hunting for an FR then :-).
I currently use a Naim ARO on a Verdier which is nice, a second tonearm like the FR64s should complete the story. |
Hi Nandric, I had similar thought about machine shop to make my own arm board also. Many of my friends use these shops to make arm board for various arms so I do have access to some local shop here, both metal and acrylic. Unfortunately in the case of SX-777, to install 66s, I would need to cut a new hole on the table itself as well since phono wire came out from the bottom of the mount. With the standard arm board, in the usual position on 777, no matter where I cut the hole on the armboard, there is not enough distance to accommodate 66s P2S.
Right now I am perfectly happy using 66s on my "other" turntable :) |
Dear Suteetat, With some reluctance because of my 'technical know how' I need to mention my experience with difficult to get armboards. I discovered those chops which make all kinds of things from acrylic. Some of them use laser for the purpose. They can produce whatever armboard with whatever thickness very accurate. You need however to provide them with a good diagram or example with exact dimensions for the arm geometry. My Kuzma S.R. consist of much acrylic but in conjunction (aka 'sandwich')with aluminum plates. I also owned some P.Lurne TT's ( Audiomeca J1) with similar 'sandwich' construction with acrylic . Not to mention my German ASR 'artillery' (Basis
Exclusive and Emitter II ) 'loaded' with acrylic. So I deduced:' this stuff can't be bad '(?).Except that is when one try to clean the damn stuff. My own added problem is the fact that I fear the cleaning ladies as the ony kind of the human kind. So I decided to do without and do this job myself. It shows alas. I just spend 6000 euro for the new carpets , new curtains and paintwork.
Regards, |
