To my experience all headshell leads by Ikeda ( I have them all - S-30 to S-50 ) are of identical length.
It may be however that there are shorter length samples around.
Usually the problem is the other way round and you have problems squeezing the leads in between the pins of headshell bajonett and cartridge leadout pins.
In most cases there is little distance left to be bridged by the headshell leads. |
Dear Mickeyc8, get a Graham 2.2 on the used market and enjoy analog life. Its most universal (although I hate the term regarding tonearms...) and will give excellent results with almost all of todays better cartridges. Furthermore it is the one tonearm which is very precisely to align thanks to the remarkable tools Robert Graham provides with the tonearm package.
This can't be overestimated in its everyday importance for the avarage user who is not too much into tonearm geometry.
The Graham gives you an easy to align to precise results tool which is all in one package:
- easy to adjust to
- excellent sonics
- universal
- beautiful to the eye
- excellent craftmanship
- has well withstand all tests of time with flying colors.
An excellent tonearm and as a 2nd hand unit of outstanding value for the money.
Enjoy,
D. |
Dear Atmasphere, very interesting. Would you please enlighten us all why the Graham is "incompatible with the Grado cartridge line" ?
I very much look forward to learn the technical background for this incompatibility.......
BTW - you should clarify that you - according to your own statements - have never actually listened to the Phantom and that you have friendship relationship with the distributor of Triplanar.
Cheers,
D. |
FYI - the Ikeda IT-245 was sold (in limited quantities however...) in the USA in the late 1980ies and very early 1990ies as the Rowland Research Complement tonearm (together with the Ikeda EMPL named as "Rowland Research Complement" too). As it is sometimes very difficult for most audiophiles outside Nippon to get any component from a seller listing on Japanese Yahoo it might be a suitable alternative to have a look on the home 2nd hand market for the OEM -Rowland version.
The effective moving mass of the IT-245 is however considerable higher than the Graham 2.2 or Phantom.
Again - I won't stress this point too far, but it is a VERY important aspect worth mentioning again - keep in mind the very easy alignment of the Graham which allows even the inexperienced user to obtain very precise adjustment in a minute and thus excellent results much harder to achieve with other designs.
Cheers,
D. |
Nandric, great !
Even if my romantic mood and believe in the ability of man's mind is still underrated.
Frege seems to haunt me forever......
Still - great, even if my picture of the two lions was inappropriate.
I am rather the seasoned Tiger who always hunts alone.
Back from the jungle to the streets.
Cheers,
D. |
The first - super detailed and spiced up with many technical aspects and calculations - test of the FR-64s in Germany was in the 1st edition of HIFi-Exlusive issue 9 september 1980.
This was the one most comprehensive and extensive test ever performed on that tonearm.
I have had all FR-60 tonearms during the last 25 years, have re-wired several and still do use mainly the FR-66s.
But my ongoing love-affair with the FR-64s/66s is well known by now and I am certainly no longer objective..... |
Dear Dougdeacon, dear Ralph Karsten, I appreciate you two being open in your realation with the Triplanar distributor.
I had personally 4 versions of the Wheaton/Triplanar.
While I do not agree with your comments that it belongs to the very best toenarms on the market, it is a nice tonearm with several good ideas but a few shortcomings too.
Its shortcoming mays not apparent in all set-ups and with all cartridges.
About precision in tonearm set-up and cartridge alignment..... well, frankly - as I have learned in various threads and discussions in the past 3 months here on Audiogon, my ideas about precise alignment are VERY different from almost everybody else here.
I have constantly been critizsed for being TOO demanding about geometry or alignment issues.
Knowing this only too well I did with good intention and good resaon recommend the Graham alignment tool. I may not be the ultimate, but it is a hell of a lot better then most other "alignment tools" and allows the novice to set-up the Graham with a fairly good geometry in no time and with prooven results.
I know that the Phantom is better - the Phantom II by a good margin as I learned from Syntax.
Look at the inital price frame - the question was for $2k or under..........
You want to sell Mikeyc8 a Triplanar VII or VIII for under $2k ...?
No ?
But he can get a almost mint Graham 2.2 ceramic for about $1500 to $1600 and will be amazed by the results.
Later he can maybe upgrade one day to a Triplanar or Phantom - we'll see.
But he will get good results (I will try a G 2.2 with the Grado - even if this strange osccilation is "widely known", I want to see it and then I will find out why.) and will be hard pressed finding anything the par in terms of versality and ease of set-up.
And no - I am not associated with Robert Graham.
This is just one of the VERY few audio components on the market that gets my respect.
Cheers,
D. |
So - ********* it (the Triplanar) can also be set up to more precise geometrical settings than the 2.2...*********
Very interesting.
Both tonearms can be aligned for overhang, vta, azimuth, mounting distance.
Hmmmm - do you want to start telling people that the geometrical calculation of the Triplanar is "better" and therefor more "precise".
I'd love to see that technical explanation displayed here.
But I suggest you get some more back-up before starting that.
Well Atmasphere...... there were so many modifications to the "perfect" Triplanar tonearm (many by Herb Papier - not sure who did the last ones) over its almost 25 years of existance now (talking about an "oldskool tonearm"...) , that not only I lost track about what "offical" or "silent" version is on sale right now.
The Triplanar may run "circles" around the G 2.2 if you set-up both tonearms.
I can't dispute that.
In fact I am sure it is that way if you set-up both.
And it may instantly obvious to you.
I can't dispute that either - and I won't.
In fact I am pretty sure it is that way.
As you will have little to none knowledge about the true roots of "novacula occami" aside from what you can read on Wikipedia or what is on the internet (which is neither all nor the true concept and spiritual idea.......) - because if you had, you wouldn't use it in this context at all.
Your simplified way of concept and view brings up beautiful memories of G.W. Bush view of the world.
You miss him - don't you?
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Mikeyc8, Nandric was right in his suggestions of the Lustre/Koshin GST-801 and the MA-505 (s or x).
Adding the recommended headshell and fine tuned with the Ikeda S-50 headshell wires and an AQ Leopard dbs or similar pure silver tonearm cable will give you a very good tonearm/cable combination too - for well below $1500.
The Lustre is the slightly "better" tonearm, but is less versatile.
Both do offer your prefered "S"-shape and the Lustre is very similar in handling, built quality and rigidy to the old Ikeda tonearms of the early 1980ies.
You can't do wrong with either.
If you shopuld decide to go for the classic MA-505, make sure you get either an "S" or an "X" suffix.
Both do feature pure silver inside leads.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, I was associated with DAS OHR for a short while 25 years back.
Götz Wilimzig was/is highly subjective in his reviews - Klaus never was and had a much wider knowledge regarding reproduced sound and its interrelations in an audio chain.
The effective moving mass of the FR-64s san headshell is about 14.5 gr.
With an Orsonic the FR-64s is pretty "universal".
It outperforms the FR-64fx buy a good margin providing clearer and more solid bass and - most important - the impression of "true physical weight" in the reproduced sound (something I am missing EVERYWHERE except in FR-7x/FR-64/66s-combos and good reel-to-reel machines with 2-track tapes).
Others may prefer the FR-64fx above the FR-64s in certain set-ups or with certain cartridges - fine, a great opportunity to buy the FR-64s from them.
I have never heard the FR-64fx with any cartridge bettering the stainless steel brother.
You will even get outstanding sonic results with a Shure V15mk4 - 5 or MR mounted on the FR-64s in an Orsonic.
In my point of view the FR-64s would still be today a contender for the very top-end in tonearm design.
I have heard pretty much all - precisely set-up according to the geometry I have laid out in earlier threads I have heard no better (safe for its big brother in 2 areas).
I know that many others have - good for them, fine with me.
Cheers,
D. |
