Thoughts on moving from a 1200G to Sota Saphire or above

bfoura, I see the direct drive gang is jumping all over you. Try getting your old SP-10 with a loose bearing or failing servo fixed. The Sota you can always have rebuilt and updated/improved. Can you have an old SP10 updated to modern specs? 
Tech Das, SAT, Dohmann and others suspend and isolate their turntables for a reason. Sota developed the first stable suspended turntable, a design that has remained essentially unchanged for 40 years. Sota marketed the first vacuum clamping turntable and have refined the design over 35 years. It works as advertised and is dead silent. It's vacuum pump/regulated power supply is all of 11" X 7" X 5", small in comparison to most. Just these two features put it's performance miles above what you can get with an old SP10 tossed on a chunk of wood, slate or granite with a record weight. Yes, direct drive tables can be very accurate in regards to speed. That characteristic is meaningless relative to good belt drives in the context of paying records which are extraordinarily inaccurate. I just got two new Blue Note records, Lee Morgan's The Rajah and Ambrose Akinmusire's On the Tender Spot of Every Calloused Moment. Both were pressed off center. You can watch the tonearm swing back and forth slightly with each revolution. This creates wow far in excess of any properly functioning turntable as do changes in elevation.
But, hook a Sota and an SP10 up to an oscilloscope and you will see all sorts of rubbish on the SP 10's trace that is absent from the Sota's. Most of this is at very low frequencies. Put the Sota's dust cover down and it will get even quieter. Mark Dohmann related to me in an email that he is working on an isolation dust cover for his Helix tables. 
The performance gains from isolation and physical control of the record far exceed those of what you would gain over a trivial increase in speed stability. How good is the Sota in regards to speed stability? All I can say is that once the table is playing the speed does not budge down to 1/1000th of a revolution per minute under any circumstance. The Eclipse/Roadrunner drive displays speed down to 1/1000 of an RPM. No strobe required. 

  

@tzh21y I have had the 1200G, Sp10 Mk2 & Sp10 Mk3 (Dobbins), in my system, back to back. They are not different sounding. They are extremely similar with one better than the other primarily in terms of dynamics. In fact I would say the 1200G did not seem to give away too much to even the Sp10 Mk3 in terms of resolution. But the Mk3 just has a much bigger, grander, full range, full scale sound like the big boys of analogue do. The 1200G sounds like a juvenile. Nothing to feel wrong about that because for the money, it delivers a lot.

Regarding idlers, I agree. Unless one has a very well done idler TT, it is not up there.

Not a big fan of SP10 mk2, but I do agree with Atma and Chak that the OEM rubber mat is a negative and should be replaced. I think the top line Technics G series with a selected mat might outperform the mk2, but I have no experience to corroborate my hunch. For that matter, the felt mat on my Star Sapphire was also not optimal, but vacuum hold down required it. Comparing Mk2 to a full up Cosmos with Eclipse is kind of a cheap shot, IMO. The price difference is cavernous. You could add a Minus K to most vintage DDs and still be well under the cost of the fully equipped Cosmos. But I’ll not argue that the Cosmos is not excellent.


The “unrepairable” tag on the older Technics won’t wash. All needed parts, tech data, and schematics are readily available, and there are several competent repair shops. As to the bearing, caveat emptor. I’ve never owned a vintage deck that needed more than to clean and lube the bearing, and DD bearings are likely to last longer than a belt drive bearing, because no side force.

@lewm 
“Not a big fan of SP10 mk2”

Might you elaborate a little ?

@mijostyn thanks for the feedback on the Sota. You give me a lot to think about. I could try it and if I don’t like it go back to the 120G as others have done. I plan on checking out the Sota today or tomorrow. As far as the SP10, unless I can pick it up for a song, don’t think I’ll make a move on it. Just too last minute of a discovery to vett out during my brief stay in H-Town. 

SP-10mk2 drive cost $1500 maximum! With old SME tonearm and some unknown custom plinth for $3500 it’s too much! All you need is drive, the rest you can buy yourself (better tonearm and better plinth).

For $3500 you could buy Luxman PD-444 (complete)

Tsushima, I have owned two samples of the SP 10 mk2. During the same timeframe, I also owned and still own an SP 10 Mk3, a Kenwood L07D, a Victor TT101, and a Denon Dp80, not to mention a highly tweaked Lenco. At one time or another I heard all these TT s in the same system. All of my turntables were fully refurbished and calibrated  before I started to use them. The Technics and Denon tts were replinthed in PA slate. In this bunch, in my opinion, the SP 10mk2 came in last. I thought it had a grayish coloration, compared to any of the other direct drive turntables. I also have to disagree with Pani, when he said that the mark 2 and the mark 3 sound about the same. In my experience, there is no comparison, Mk3 is in a different world. Tonally very neutral and very precise with a big sound space.. My Mk3 has the Krebs upgrade; my mk2s did not. But even before Krebs, Mk3 was superior.

Technics SP-10mk3 drive alone is about $5000 minimum, usually higher

@lewm

Thank you for considerations ...and thoughtful post based upon your hands on experience :0}

I was fond of my own Kenwood L07D and regret letting it go at times.

Don't do it.  

@lewm I didnt mean same as in equals. I just meant all 3 technics sounded like cut from a similar cloth. The Mk2 sounded bigger and more dynamic than 1200G. The Mk3 sounded like a fully grown up TT coming from the same stable. Big, bold, stable sound with more tonal bloom. In fact only the Mk3 had the kind of dynamics I get from 301 and Lenco.

I bought a refurbished SOTA Sapphire 6(ish) from them last summer. I got it with the Ortofon 2m Red and an Origin Live Silver tonearm. I live an hour away from the factory in Delavan Wisconsin. I got to meet Donna the owner. As I was loading up my new toy she told me that it could handle any cartridge that I could throw at it up to about $3k. 

I got the Ortofon Red because I was trying to decide whether I wanted a SoundSmith Carmen or Aida. A few weeks later Music Direct was having a sale on cartridges so I ended up with a SoundSmith The Voice (for $200 more than the Aida) and my mom and dad's old Sansui got a 2m Red cartridge.

I have had a few turntables in my lifetime. One of my favorites was my old Dual. That was a case of some creative dumpster diving. I took three carcasses and ended up with one working table and one parts table. During one of my moves my mom decided to toss it. I was not happy. Most of my other tables were cast offs. The best one was an old empire.

My SOTA is my first "new" turntable purchase. Also my last. A broken SOTA can be repaired. An old SOTA can be upgraded or traded in on a new one. My daughter wants it when I no longer need it. 

I suggest getting the old SOTA and enjoy it just as it is for six months or so before any upgrades or improvements. If you can afford it keep your old Technics. It will allow you two different "flavors" to choose from. Might even prevent upgrade-itis.

We’ll, looks like I’m going to stay with my 1200G for now. I’m still considering the Sota and if still available in a few weeks might make a move on it. First, I’m going to try a new cart and hear how that sounds it’s my table and system. I do have a NOS Benz Micro Glider 577 with .9mv output I’ve been sitting on for years. Any thoughts on how that would work in my system or compared to my Cadenza Black? 

Also, for the 1200G owners what geometry do you all use to set up your carts. I have a Feickert system and have three choices: Baerwald, Logren or Stevenson. Thx. 

why not try all  three…draw some conclusions, tell us….and give back to the forum…… ?

I also have the Feickert alignment tool and initially used Baerwald with my 1200G and Hana SL. Then I switched to Stevenson and really couldn't hear any difference. I left it at Stevenson because it seemed easier to set up. I also run a Shure V15 V-MR with Stevenson.

Also, for the 1200G owners what geometry do you all use to set up your carts. I have a Feickert system and have three choices: Baerwald, Logren or Stevenson. Thx.

Technics tonearm alignment method is very close to Stevenson, but not exactly Stevenson. You can stick to 52mm using that Technics plastic overhang gauge, or you can try Baerwald using your Dr.Feickert protractor. Try to detect any difference! 

I use Baerwald but curious if anyone had success with a different approach. On 1200 I had before the Technics overhang gauge did the job but that was not with a Candenza Black. 

I have an GAE w/AT150mlx & used the technics gauge & just to be sure, it matched pretty close to the Stevenson. On my 1200 w/SME 309 w/Hana ML I also used the Stevenson. Worked well for me there also.

I have a Sapphire I'm upgrading to a Nova, and I think the series 3 second hand could provide a nice upgrade for you. It's really hard to exaggerate how thoroughly the suspension isolates the table. As mentioned above, replacing the motor with a series 6, or Eclipse, as well as the bearing, would make a nice upgrade down the road. Sota is big on doing upgrades, and the people who do the work are the same ones who hand build the tables new.

I've used a classic Well Tempered arm, and a Moerch DP-6 on my Sapphire, and loved them both, though the Moerch is a difficult fit. I've had Sumiko Blue Point Special and Blackbird carts on them, and can recommend both.

Let us know what you think once you hear the table.

@chakster , I set up the new table to Lofgren B and I very much like it. Most modern pressings do not go in as far. Very few records go in farther than 65 mm and at 65mm Lofgren B has the same harmonic distortion it has at 90mm, 0.03% Lower than all alignments over the vast majority of the record. This is also the first time I used the SmarTractor. What a beautifully made device. I didn't even bother with the magnifier it is so easy to read with the naked eye and a bright light. They should sell the magnifier as an option to bring the price down.
https://www.analogplanet.com/content/uni-din-versus-l%C3%B6fgren-b-just-clarify

You’re weak point is your cartridge not you’re turntable. Warmest regards

@needfreestuff I think I’ve come to that realization. Kind of hard to fathom when you have a $2800 cartridge. I’d like to keep the replacement in that price range. Looking for options. Please share any suggestions. Thx. 

Mijo, this is not meant as criticism, because many of us do it, but you talk about “harmonic distortion “ when you are actually referring to tracking angle error.I am not sure that anyone has ever shown that the two are linearly related. Can you actually measure harmonic distortion of the signal emanating from a turntable and show it changes in relation to tracking angle error? I have often wondered about this. I don’t know that anyone ever made the effort to make a correlation. My subjective experience would suggest that there is very little correlation or that any effect of TAE on HD of the audio signal is minuscule. To put it another way, I would guess that what we might view as large changes in TAE have only tiny effects on HD.

Weak points of the 1200G are tonearm, bearing and power supply. All can be upgraded here - http://www.soundhifi.com/sl1200/Timestep%20Technics%20EVOke%20%20SL-1200GAE%202018.htm

Same old BS.

Some companies are always happy to sell something for astronomical prices, but Technics completely rebuilt their production line a long time ago when the GAE was introduced. Companies that offered an upgrade for an old $400 Technics SL1200 series continue to sell same BS for brand new "G" series.

Technics is not REGA, Pro-Ject or Linn, for those companies buyers are a slave of constant upgrade.

There is nothing weak in Technics SL1200 G and tonearm is excellent, any better tonearm will cost more than the entire turntable!

In fact Technics tonearms are the best in the world, for those who don’t know I’d like to remind about EPA-100 mkII which was Technics top of the line tonearm and today it will be better than so many overpriced high-end toneamrs.

So it’s obvious that for better tonearm one needs a SP-10R (not SL1200G).

I’d like to admit that so many audiophile never paid attention to Technics products, they noticed Technics AFTER Mr. Fremer reviewed it when Technics returned to business with new turntables. Mr. Fremer actually compared Technics (without any mods) to one of his most expensive turntable, soundfiles were uploaded for everyone.

British companies will always push those ugly SME tonearms "as an upgrade" for everything, but you should really understand what is Technics and what is SME.

@chakster , I set up the new table to Lofgren B and I very much like it. Most modern pressings do not go in as far. Very few records go in farther than 65 mm and at 65mm Lofgren B has the same harmonic distortion it has at 90mm, 0.03% Lower than all alignments over the vast majority of the record. This is also the first time I used the SmarTractor. What a beautifully made device. I didn’t even bother with the magnifier it is so easy to read with the naked eye and a bright light. They should sell the magnifier as an option to bring the price down.

@mijostyn

I use different methods with my two Luxman PD-444 turntables and 4 different toneamrs in my main system now. I use Dr. Feickert NG protractor.

I don’t care about modern pressings, because 90% of my records are vintage (mainly ’70s).

Stevenson’s alignment method was the last of those 3, this is a modern method compared to the very old Baerwald or Lofrgen invented a long time before stereo or even before proper vinyl pressing.

In the 60’s Stevenson invented his method for CLASSICAL MUSIC and he explained very well why - to take into account that on records with classical music very often crescendos occur towards the innermost grooves.

Japanese tonearm manufacturers have been using Stevenson method ever since, it’s not mandatory, everyone can change it to Baerwald. But when I set up any tonearm I want to head with standard manufacturer settings. Some of my tonearms designed with Baerwald method (like Reed 3p), some designed with unique method (not Baerwald, not Stevenson). Some tonearms like FR-64fx are great with Stevenson and I will never change that. And I don’t listen to classical music at all.

Regarding cart @chakster, I appreciate the feedback. I’ve kind of built my system to accommodate the low output of the Cadenza Black and would like to stay in that performance range. To compare, I may order a cart from a place I can return if it doesn’t best the Cadenza.

1) How can you return a new cartridge after it’s been opened and used?

2) Who will give you this option and why ?

3) Are they gonna sell your used cartridge again as new or they will burn over $1k+ this way just for fun ?

I believe no one will give you "return" option for any cartridge if this cartridge is not a factory defective unit (warranty issue only).

@lewm, you are probably right. I used the term "harmonic distortion" as that is what it is called in the link I posted above which I believe is actually another way of expressing tracking angle error. Harmonic distortion is a misnomer. Thanx for pointing that out.

@chakster , if we are to believe the graphs in the link Stevenson is lowest right at the edge of the label (60mm). Very few old records go in farther than 65mm. In the middle of the record Stevenson is handily worse. Just from a look at the graphs I can't understand why anyone would use Stevenson. I must say that I have not tried to compare alignments from a sonic perspective because it is so difficult to do in a way that one could have confidence in the result. Angle error is a very simple issue to measure. I am sure we all agree that optimum is an angle error of zero and that the farther away from zero ones gets the worse the result will be. Whether or not this is something you can actually hear is another issue. I do not share your taste in tonearms but a lot of other people do. 

Very few old records go in farther than 65mm.

If you want to know there are at least about 10mm of music on the record surface on most of the 45 rpm (’7 inch) singles, the song ends at 53-55mm from the spindle (not as far as 65mm). On average ’7 inch single pressed in the ’50s/60’s (I just measured some of mine) the last 10mm before lead out groove is 1/3 of a song and there is music.

Mr. Stevenson was a mathematician, I can’t explain why till the present day Japanese tonearm manufacturers prefer Stevenson (or very close to Steventon) geometry. There must be a reason, right ?

I do not share your taste in tonearms but a lot of other people do.

Of course they do, because you will hardly find any better tonearm than boron/titanium Technics EPA-100 mkII or Fidelity-Research FR-66fx. You have never tried them yet @mijostyn

For years I contemplated upgrading from my Gyrodec. I really like it’s airy lively sound. Last year my local dealer had one available SL-1210GAE so I bought it. The first cartridge I used was an Ortofon Cadenza bronze. Now I’m using a Kiseki purple heart and it sounds great to me. I’m using an SME 309 tonearm and Lyra kleos with the Gyrodec. My gut feeling tells me that I wouldn’t like the Kleos with the SL-1210GAE.

@jdal I’ve thought about the Purple Heart and the Kleos. There seems to be more reviews/feedback on the Purple Heart versus the Kleos. What makes you think you wouldn’t like the Kleos on the 1210? With the removable headshell why haven’t you tried it on the 1210? 

@bfoura One of these days I probably will switch cartridges on both tables. The only cartridge that I used with both tables was the Cadenza bronze. To my ears it sounded slightly leaner with the SL-1210. 

@chakster , I do not play, and I would venture to guess most of us do not play 7" singles. That is a non issue for most of us.
Those tonearms are terrible. Because of their mass they have much higher levels of inertia and distortion, they are not neutral balance and their vertical bearings are high above the record surface. They are very pretty and have an air of precision about them. An SME V will handily trounce them all not to mention such arms as your Reed and my Schroder. Those arms were by products of the late 60s. Everybody except the Japanese have moved on. If you need a tank tonearm get a Kuzma 4 Point 14. 
Stevenson may have been a mathematician but in todays world his theory is wrong. Modern cartridges and styluses have much less difficulty with the inner grooves and all you have to do is look at the data. It is pretty obvious that Stevenson has the highest levels of error across the board.
The only time Stevenson might make sense is if you are running an SPU in one of those tank tonearms. You would then be replicating the conditions Stevenson knew. 
A picture tells a thousand words https://www.analogplanet.com/content/uni-din-versus-l%C3%B6fgren-b-just-clarify

I do not play, and I would venture to guess most of us do not play 7" singles. That is a non issue for most of us.

@mijostyn

I’m following AudioGrail on instagram, he often plays Vintage 45s. The British always paid more attention to American heritage than Americans. Audiophiles actually play vintage 45s, not everything available on LPs.

But I have mentioned 45s, because in the 60’s (when Stevenson invented his alignment method) it was a Radio Broadcast format and Japanese tonearm/turntable manufacturers like Denon, Technics, Grace supplied tonearms/turntables for Radio Stations (professional segment of hi-fi market).

Those arms were by products of the late 60s. Everybody except the Japanese have moved on.

If this is your opinion on two tonearms in my previous reply then I want to tell you that Technics EPA-100 mkII and FR-66fx were introduced in the MID 80’s (they are NOT a product of the 60’s). They are both highly regarded today and go for $3k - $6k. 

Those tonearms are terrible. Because of their mass they have much higher levels of inertia and distortion, they are not neutral balance and their vertical bearings are high above the record surface. They are very pretty and have an air of precision about them.

EPA-100 mkII (10.5 inch) and FR-66fx (12 inch) are NOT high mass tonearms, especially Technics. Both are excellent for any modern LOMC cartridges if you want to know. The EPA-100 mkII is the most versatile tonearm ever made (because of dynamic damping and all these features).

New British SME and Slovenian Kuzma are two ugliest tonearms on the planet in my opinion.

Stevenson may have been a mathematician but in todays world his theory is wrong. Modern cartridges and styluses have much less difficulty with the inner grooves and all you have to do is look at the data. It is pretty obvious that Stevenson has the highest levels of error across the board.

I actually compared Stevenson to Baerwald on my turntables, but you said you never compared those alignment methods.

The only time Stevenson might make sense is if you are running an SPU in one of those tank tonearms. You would then be replicating the conditions Stevenson knew. A picture tells a thousand words: https://www.analogplanet.com/content/uni-din-versus-l%C3%B6fgren-b-just-clarify

According to this article every tonearm manufacturer must use UNI-DIN instead of Baerwald, but they don’t care and keep using Baerwald and Stevenson.

Also looking at this article you can say that only Linear Tracking tonearm is good, but how many people actually use them?

I have not made any measurements, but 45 rpm singles were produced with a very wide diameter spindle hole. Out beyond that they had a rather wide run-out, I thought so as to trigger a changer mechanism, either in a juke box or on a home record changer. Ergo, I am very surprised to learn that the Stevenson algorithm would have anything to do with 45 rpm singles, because the music ends pretty far from the center of the record, and I doubt that the inner null point afforded by the Stevenson algorithm would lie on the playing surface. I know Chakster is a careful researcher, so I will take his claim at face value. Fact is, as Raul is very fond of pointing out, there are literally an infinite number of solutions to aligning a tonearm so that one obtains two null points on the surface of a conventional 33 rpm LP. There is nothing really special about Lofgren, Baerwald, or Stevenson, except that they were published very early in the history of the record player, and most tonearm manufacturers adopted one or the other of them. I like to note the last sentence of Fremer’s comparison piece on the 3 standards: "Keep in mind that compared to the distortions added by the rest of your system, my opinion is that all of these curves produce less."

As to Mijostyn’s blanket criticism of vintage tonearms: "Those tonearms are terrible. Because of their mass they have much higher levels of inertia and distortion, they are not neutral balance and their vertical bearings are high above the record surface." This came up at least once previously; Mijo is not easily dissuaded. Low compliance cartridges require high mass tonearms, so how can one fairly criticize a high mass tonearm based only on its high mass? And just how does high mass per se lead to "distortion", if the inertial mass is well matched to cartridge compliance? Seems to me you will add distortion if you use a very low mass tonearm with a low compliance cartridge. Also, the premise is flawed; not all vintage (Japanese) tonearms are high in effective mass. As to the vertical bearing being above the LP surface, in theory that is a valid criticism, if you are playing warped LPs. If you toss out your warped LPs (or suck them flat on your Cosmos vacuum platter), then the location of the vertical bearing with respect to the LP surface is only intellectually objectionable. And finally, many of the finest vintage tonearms, like the Technics that Chakster mentioned and like the Fidelity research FR64S and 66S, have decoupled counterweights, which reduces inertia. Not all modern expensive tonearms adopted that feature. The FR tonearms even also have counterweights placed so that the center of mass is at the LP surface, a good idea especially if you want to play warped LPs. I doubt that any modern tonearms have pivot bearings as low in friction as those used in the Technics EPA100 or B500. The EPA100 is also brilliantly designed to reduce the interplay between effective mass and cartridge compliance, which makes the tonearm compatible with a very wide range of cartridges. Etc. The sweeping negative generalizations do not hold up.

Keep the Technics, spend your money on mats, isolation, cartridges, more records  :)

The FR tonearms even also have counterweights placed so that the center of mass is at the LP surface, a good idea

No they don't, not on the FR64S.

I doubt that any modern tonearms have pivot bearings as low in friction as those used in the Technics EPA100 or B500. 

Actually the Naim Aro is lower as tested by Martin Colloms.
And of course there are better bearings available now - on the Technics EPA100's,  replacement of the orginal bearngs with silicone nitride yields improvement.

I wouldn’t even touch the RUBY BALL bearings on Technics EPA-100, especially on EPA-100 mkII. There are people who are always ready "to sell you an improvement", someone in his garage pretending to have better knowledge than Matsushita Japan. The EPA-100 mkII was the best Technics tonearm in the ’80s and still one of the best tonearms ever made!

@chakster

I wouldn’t even touch the RUBY BALL bearings on Technics EPA-100, especially on EPA-100 mkII. There are people who are always ready "to sell you an improvement", someone in his garage pretending to have better knowledge than Matsushita Japan.

So you think JCarr, the designer of Lyra cartridges operates from a garage and pretends to have better knowledge than Matsushita Japan in 1980.

JCarr - Audiogon post dated 10-13-2013

(caveat - my EPA-100 has been completely rebuilt with ceramic ball-bearings rather than the original rubies, and rewired with flying-lead signal outputs instead of the original 5-pin connector).

Perhaps you should do some research before posting ill informed comments on audiogon. And before you put your other foot in your mouth again - silicon nitride is a ceramic.

Dover, thank you for setting the record straight. So do you agree with Mijostyn that vintage tonearms are trash (paraphrasing his actual words which can be found in quotes above.) What I’d read about the EPA100 was that the ruby bearjngs are superb but fragile and thus in some cases have not stood the test of time. Certainly it’s a good idea to replace worn or damaged bearings. Come and see my FR64S some time; to my eye the center of mass of the CW is very near or in the plane of the LP surface.  I might have qualified my original remark about the FR64S CW by noting that if you use the CW to set VTF, or a combination of the CW and the spring balancer, rather than the spring balancer alone, the CW then might end up a few mm off the plane of the LP surface, give or take.  Cartridge weight would also figure into that.

@lewm 

So do you agree with Mijostyn that vintage tonearms are trash (paraphrasing his actual words which can be found in quotes above.) What I’d read about the EPA100 was that the ruby bearjngs are superb but fragile and thus in some cases have not stood the test of time. 

I dont agree that vintage tonearms are trash. There are some excellent designs. However, in my experience, very few survive more than 10 years without some sort of deterioration - bearing damage, wire deteriorating, headshell bayonet fittings becoming worn, poor contacts.

I also see that mijostyn seems to make subjective assumptions on tonearms/cartridges based on his own design preferences - but the reality is that it is not uncommon for seemingly inferior designs, or flawed products, to sound significantly better than expected, such are the vagaries of audio.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, I only post opinions on products I have set up personally, or have heard extensively in a system I know.

Yes, ruby bearings are fragile, brittle - doesn't take much abuse to damage them. I believe that one of the benefits of silicon nitride over ruby is that the silicon nitride can be produced much truer in terms of roundness and surface smoothness. The chances of an EPA100 being in mint condition after 30-40 years are not high.

Isamu Ikeda eschews jewelled gimbal bearings for his low compliance cartridges based on sound quality.

An example of unexpected outcomes is that I have an Ikeda Kiwame, a brute of a cartridge due to no cantilever and very low compliance, and yet although Ikeda says do not use a unipivot, it tracks like a trooper in my Naim Aro - a supposed mismatch - better than many gimbal bearing arms.

Come and see my FR64S some time; to my eye the center of mass of the CW is very near or in the plane of the LP surface

I have an FR64S/B60 mounted on my Garrard 301 - counterweight stub is on the same plane as the armtube - which means the centre of gravity would be closer to the centre of the armtube, several mm above the record surface in my view.

I have owned several samples of EPA-100 and EPA-100 mkII in the past 5 years, they are all fantastic, I kept only EPA-100 mkII for myself and sold 3 EPA-100 models to justify the extremely high cost of the MK II in mint condition.

My first EPA-100 was refurbished (rewired) in 2012. After rewiring there was a ground issue, the reason for rewiring was loose bearings, so I believe Foxtan (ebay seller in Hong Kong) asked his tech to replace the ruby ball bearings with silicone for me, after I complained about quality. I would’s refurbish EPA-100 (NEVER AGAIN)! I wouldn’t change the original ruby ball bearings if they are fine (all samples I bought after the incident are just fine).

Rewired sample with (VdH silver tonearm wires) and new silicone bearings was the worst sample I have ever owned!

FIRST OF ALL: Find vintage tonearms in NOS condition, fully functional as new.
I just don’t buy beaten, worn, broken garbage !! I only buy stuff that I can plug and play without any expensive refurbishing BS and snake oil promises.

If you can’t find a NOS sample - don’t buy vintage gear. Pay more to get NOS and you will be fine. This is my policy, my style.

Leave the garbage for someone else.

People charge absolutely insane prices for refurbishing in the USA, it’s better to pay more for a rare NOS (unused) item anyway.

I know very rich people who can buy all that new high-end gear, but they don’t want it, what they actually want is vintage NEW OLD STOCK (preferably still factory sealed) and they want only the best stuff.

old guys and gear rule…..today we spin vinyl on an ancient Sumiko FT-3 upgraded with flying Cardas leads, CF armtube and VTA tower structural mods…. Absolute sonic trash ;-)

@chakster 

so I believe Foxtan (ebay seller in Hong Kong) asked his tech to replace the ruby ball bearings with silicone for me, after I complained about quality. I would’s refurbish EPA-100 (NEVER AGAIN)! I wouldn’t change the original ruby ball bearings if they are fine (all samples I bought after the incident are just fine). 

Rewired sample with (VdH silver tonearm wires) and new silicone bearings was the worst sample I have ever owned! 

One job done poorly does not mean the design is incorrect.
There are numerous customers here on audiogon that have had defective products and products in very poor condition from Foxtan.
Van den hul silver wires are awful - have rewired tonearms myself and then had to remove the vdh wire - brittle sounding and microphonic.