Tonearm recommendation

Raul - you are correct in your comments about the dynamic balance mechanism ( which is a coiled spring ) used for setting the vertical tracking force. I have removed the dynamic balance mechanism from some tonearms and you can hear a cleaner sound with less distortion. Removal is hazardous and not for the faint hearted as it is imperative that the bearings are not disturbed.

I have a couple of FR64S’s - here are a few tips that may apply to the FR66 as well -
I use a combination of dynamic and static balance to set tracking force. Basically what I am doing is putting a minimal amount of dynamic force to load the spring to reduce noise in the mechanism and then use the counterweight to set tracking force ( static ). Typically for my Koetsu I would dial up between 0.5 and 1g of dynamic balance and then adjust the counterweight to bring the tracking force up to 1.9gm or whatever.

Optimising the counterweight ( I have multiple counterweights for the FR64S, each of different mass ) is also an effective tool with the FR64S. Optimising the counterweight/reducing the headshell mass and using a combination of static and dynamic balance can improve the resolution and speed of this arm quite substantially in my experience.

I have also made a metal jig to ensure that the FR64S's that I use are installed with a 231.5mm pivot to spindle distance. It is accurate to 0.1mm and this pivot to stylus distance recommended by Dertonam makes for a considerable audible improvement over the factory recommended 230mm.

The other tip I found quite by accident. My Final Audio VTT1 only has facility for 1 tonearm, and having owned a Platine Verdier as a second deck I decided to sell it as the performance of the Platine Verdier was so far below the Final Audio I never used the Platine in practise. So I made a cantilevered pod to mount a second arm on the Final. This was constructed from a laminated crosscut bamboo block and a panzerholz arm board. I chose these materials simply because I had them in my workshop and they are easy to machine at home. The main arm pod on the Final is a gunmetal cylinder and gunmetal arm board. When I mounted my FR64S on the panzerholz/bamboo pod the upper midrange sharpness was gone. There appeared to be no downsides. Previously I had mounted the FR64S on the gunmetal pod and the upper mid sharpness is exposed. With the removal of this resonance peak I can hear more into the midrange and seemingly more depth to the soundstage.

The only other comments I would make is that the headshell leads, headshell, arm board material, cable & setup make a massive difference in the perceived performance of these arms. I agree with ct0517 that the Dynavector ( I also own a Dynavector 501 ) is a flatter and more even response with most cartridges but the bass issues that he alludes to is his post with the FR64S can be easily dialled out with careful set up.

As others have noted in the thread there are better arms - I personally prefer my Eminent Technology ET2 linear tracker and Naim Aro unipivot but the FR64S is a very good match with the Koetsu range in my experience and "the best arm" can be variable depending on cartridge. For example the Naim Aro destroys the both the FR64S and Dynavector 501 with my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D ( medium compliance LOMC ). On the other hand the Koetsu’s sound fragile on the Naim Aro and I prefer the FR64S with the Koetsu even though I lose a little speed and resolution through the midrange.

In my view the FR’s design goal is to provide a stable platform for the the FR7 low compliance cartridges and Ikeda cantilever-less cartridges. I also own an Ikeda Kiwame - you need an arm with exceptional gimbal bearings and structural stability to get the best performance out of this cartridge. The designer has chosen to trade off other parameters such as high effective mass and in the case of the FR7 a suboptimal alignment in order to achieve the stability he requires for his cartridges. Isamu Ikeda eschews the use of unipivots and jewelled bearings for this reason.

Syntax, I’m a bit more relaxed around Rauls posts. At the end of the day opinions are only in the context of the rest of the system and how well the gear is set up. I like the "distortions" in my system...I try to get them close to the distortions I hear at our local concert hall, not quite the poise and balance of the magnificient Berlin Philharmonie hall, but not too bad.
As far as the FR's go - I have found the set ups recommended by yourself and Dertonam been invaluable. The FR's are capable of going from 0 to 100 very much depending on how well they are setup. This is probably true of other much maligned gear - it is unfortunately a common audio hazard.

Raul - instead of talking about distortions - it would be more helpful if you simply described your experiences with Koetsu's which is what the op is using, and what differences in sound you heard between various arms. Which arm do you prefer and how does the sound differ in your preferred arm differ from the FR64 with a Koetsu installed in both. 

Fleib -
Just the bit about the spring mechanism & dynamic balance.
I agree that dynamic balance helps to maintain constant track force on warped records, but if you are not playing warped records then static balance should be fine. In my experience dynamic balance can suck life out of the sound. For me optimum for the FR64S is a mix of both. As I said in my post above I have removed the spring mechanism from some tonearms and there has been an audible improvement ( on non warped records ) to my ears.

As far as the ringing goes - its overrated in my view. I have heard in my system at worst a little sharpness in the upper midrange ( this is what they refer to I presume ) but as I suggested in my post above in my experience this can be eliminated by careful set up - optimising the counterweight mass, headshell selection, cable, arm board material etc, getting VTA, azimuth & tracking force absolutely dialled in.
I see Jonathan Carr uses a wrap on his FR64S arm tube but I do not like damping on tonearms as a general rule as it tends to suck life out of the sound and at worst smear the sound, particularly spongy or soft materials such as rubber, heat shrink, etc.

Raul - you give me a lecture on how to test properly, but you can't even install a cartridge properly in your own system.

rauliruegas  02-04-2016 4:58am
Dear dover: I must add that that PURE MUSIC SIGNAL that pass through the internal tonearm wires when " touch " the IC cables that send it to the phonopreamp starts the continuos degradation of that true grooves modulations information all over each single link in the system audio chain.

Now, when any kind of distortions " disappear " in that first link ( cartridge/tonearm/TT ) then all the additional single system links distortions are more evident and we have to fine tune each of those system links and sometimes even change some of those links as cables or electronics even we have to adjust our seat position and the speakers position and a check up that the room treatment is not overdamped even to check the SPL we are listening in this totally new experience.
This check up of the SPL we are listening is important because when the distortions goes lower and lower we think that the volume/SPL of what we are hearing goes lower too but it's not really in that way. What's happening is that you are not hearing to the high distortions you were accustom to.

Like you I own an original Dynavector Karat Nova 13D.
Here is a video showing you the error in your set up. You installed this cartridge such that the headshell is mounted upside down in your tonearm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-imxZHS8
Furthermore I think you are wrong to adjust the SPL and listening position when you change the TT set up - the rest of the system should remain constant for true comparisons. 

Raul -
Further to my post above, the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D that you advertised on Audiogon in August last year (Listing ID: lis6d99b) is not only mounted upside down in the headshell, but appears to me that the cantilever is not original as claimed in your ad.

Listing ID: lis6d99b
My sample is an original one and how can I know it for sure?, because at least three unique characteristics: first its serial number, Dyna numbered from 1 to 99 ( exist other 13 D that are not really 13 D but 17 D that have higher serial number. ) mine is number 6

Here is a link to a comparison of my original Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cantilever to the one you advertised. You can see in the pictures that your Dynavector Karat Nova has a much longer cantilever, and the cantilever is too far forward in the body. The cantilever on your cartridge does not look original.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vveRGz-s4g
Given your vast experience and expertise, can you explain this discrepancy ?  

Raul
If we have not that first new experience then we don’t know if it’s tru or it’s totally wrong. This is the subject here because no one is willing to try it.

That comment is a gross assumption that probably offends many people here and is pure conjecture. Most of the regular contributors here have been in audio for over 20 years and have considerable hands on experience to draw from.
In my case I have done precisely that. Removed both external tonearm damping and internal tonearm damping from many arms. The result in every case has been an improvement in clarity, transparency and speed.
In some cases there may be increased colourations due to the resonances in the undamped tube - but for me I prefer to take the increased clarity, transparency and speed and deal with any increased colourations by other means. As the importer for Sumiko many years ago, yes I have tried the Analogue Survival arm wrap that JCarr uses - it is a bandaid and does not cure the problem.

Raul if you read my post I said -

I do not like damping on tonearms as a general rule as it tends to suck life out of the sound and at worst smear the sound, particularly spongy or soft materials such as rubber, heat shrink, etc.

Note that I said "as a general rule" and "tends" - there are no absolutes in audio simply because as you have correctly pointed out there are many "distortions" or imperfections in all audio equipment.

Note that I also qualified the comment with "soft and lossy materials". There are many ways of damping motion or resonances without resorting to soft or lossy materials - examples are
Naim Aro - damping is effected by the bearing design, a radiused tip in a radius cup in the unipivot results in around 6db of damping - measured by Martin Colloms
Final Audio TT - uses bimetallic damping in the platter construction - copper and aluminium
Lyra Cartridges - use bimetallic damping and asymmetric profiles to minimise resonances within their cartridge structure
Final Audio TT uses a SPZ (superplastic zinc alloy) base to eliminate resonances between 10-100hz by molecular motion internally.
Black Diamond Racing carbon fibre products - use energy dissipation and profiles to remove resonances.

As regards your Dynavector Karat Nova 13D, it is incidental to the discussion on tonearms, but in my view it is no longer a Dynavector Karat Nova 13D as you claim in your ad if the cantilever is no longer a diamond cantilever of 1.3mm in length. Furthermore it is no longer original if it has been rebuilt. I took my photo of my original from side on - the same angle as your photo. The cantilever on your Dynavector Karat Nova 13D looks like an elephants trunk compared to the original. Furthermore if the cantilever is not original then the coils may also not be original. I would recommend you go back to the seller and lodge a claim as it appears that you have been mislead as to its provenance. Onselling a cartridge with misleading claims, when you hold yourself to be an expert, would leave you exposed to claims from potential purchasers. 

Fleib - 
There was a discussion on FR64 geometry earlier in this forum. I use Dertonams recommended geometry outlined here -
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-pivoted-arm-experiment-is-over
There is also a valuable discussion on geometry at it relates to various arms and records here -
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/uni-protractor-set-tonearm-alignment
Both these threads are well worth reading.
The general consensus from FR64S owners was that Dertonams recommendation of 231.5mm pivot to spindle was beneficial. If I recall you would expect a reduction in tracking error; I think that his theory was also based on a reduction in break torque.

Dertonam has created his own nulls (UNIDIN) based on the records in his collection. They are available with his Acoustical Systems Smartractor alignment tools.  As you would know the optimum null points in an ideal world would be chosen based on your record collection. eg. a classical collection from the 50's/60's with a small runout groove vs a vintage jazz collection with a longer run out groove.

As I don't have the Smartractor I am using his recommended 231.5 pivot to stylus distance and the Dennesen protractor which uses Baerwald. This was Dertonams recommended protractor prior to his own.

I have compared the 2 P2S alignments with several cartridges in the FR64S including the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D, Koetsu Black, Victor X1 (original with beryllium cantilever/shibata tip, Denon 103D, Ikeda and in all instances I get a more natural sound, much larger soundstage and increased transparency within the soundstageusing the 231.5 P2S.


     

griffithds
I am not sure why you call the Ikeda & FR7 high compliance. I have had 2 Ikedas - they are very low compliance. My experience with the Lustre 801 was excellent results with a Koetsu Black back in the day - very seamless sound, smooth and grain free. Isamu Ikeda does not recommend unipivots with his Ikeda cantilever less cartridges but I have run mine in my Naim Aro with no tracking issues at all.

Rauls comments about the Technics EPA 100 are superfluous in this thread as it was never designed for heavy low compliance cartridges and in fact you have to modify the counterweight for heavier cartridges. Notwithstanding ruby bearings are very brittle and most enthusiasts of the EPA100 replace the ruby bearings with silicone nitride or ceramic balls. I would not buy a second hand EPA 100 without budgeting for the bearings to be replaced.

The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.

Raul - if mounting a heavy low compliance cartridge like a Koetsu in a 5g rattly pressed tin headshell floats your boat, then good luck with it. This may go some way toward explaining some of your odd conclusions on cartridge evaluations, in particular MM vs MC comparisons. This explains why a FR64S with a solid headshell would sound odd to you, you would miss all the tinny distortions in your standard set up. Have you tried a plastic headshell in your FR - that may get you closer to the kind of distortions you like to hear.

The reason some people find those zero offset arms sound good, is reduction of torsional forces on the cantilever. Do linear arms solve these problems? If and only if, they can maintain tangency at all times and otherwise behave as a proper tonearm Re: mass, friction, etc.

Fleib,
Don't you mean the other way round. If an arm has zero offset vertical bearings then there will be torsional force on the cantilever when the arm moves up and down. If the tonearm has offset vertical bearings that match the cartridge offset, then there will be no torsional force on the cantilever when the arm goes up and down, however there will be additional torsional force on the bearings with an increase in bearing friction in the vertical bearings.
Your comments on the Dynavector make sense, the arm comes with a jig for the cartridge which if followed the cartridge ends up dead straight in the headshell with the vertical bearings aligned. If Baerwald A is used in the Dynavector then the cartridge is offset from the vertical bearings and torsional force is introduced into the cantilever. This is probably not a good thing in such a short arm.

Fleib/Lewm

I calculated the effective length required to achieve a 21.5 degree offset with Lofgren A for the Dynavector arms. This would result in the cartridge being in line with the vertical bearings.

Using the formula
Effective Length = (r1+r2) / [ (sine(a)*[ 1 + ((r1+r2)squared / (r1*r2))] ]
where r1/r2 are the nulls & (a) is the offset angle.

Result is effective length of 254.97 and overhang of 16.158.
This is impossible with the Dynavector unless you extend the length of the arm or headshell.

This underpins that one really cannot judge an arm without at least trying the geometry that the original arm was designed for. Furthermore Rauls contention that he altered the mounting distance for Lofgren A to optimise the performance on his Dyanvector was probably wrong unless he modified the arm.  

dover, no I don’t modified my 505 and the new set up is only 2mm ( around it ) on P2S and less than 1.5° on OA. The dyna specs are not accurate.
Never mind, has no critical importance your posts but a misunderstanding by your part. Please don’t give any answer to this opinion.

Raul,
Accuracy of set up is critical to optimising the performance of an analogue playback system.
You are wrong when you make a contention that alignment choice - Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson etc - is of less importance. This shows a complete ignorance of the underlying engineering principles and choices that designers have employed in the design of their tonearms.
If you think that aligning a cartridge in such a way that the cartridge is out of alignment with the vertical bearings has zero impact, then this reinforces to me that you do not understand basic mechanical engineering and basic principles of physics.
If you don’t want responses to your posts then you should not be participating in this forum. I suggest you start another website where you can peddle your theories without being interrupted by others who may know more than you.

dover: do you have right now on hand the 505?

If yes just try Baerwald or Löfgren alignment changing the P2S distance from Stevenson. Then listen and listen in between ( B, L and S alignments. ) and return here to share your experiences there.

If not, your post is useless and futile this time.

Through all your posts in this thread and IMHO your contributions helps to no one because you have not today facts on hand.

Raul,
You are wrong again.
I own a Dynavector DV501 which is superior to the DV505. It is more rigid through the vertical bearings than the older 505. I own the actual Final Audio VTT1 turntable and Dynavector arms and cartridges used in the review of Japanese Highend Audio by Warwick Mickell in TAS in 1983.
I also own a Dynavector Karat Nova 13D which is set up for Stevenson with its integral headshell.
Here is a link to the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D set up for Baerwald/Lofgren A using the same Dynavector DV501 and Ikeda Headshell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXzmZ10Q2kE
You will also note the the video clip shows that I have also run the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cartridge in a Fidelity Research FR64S.
You will also note if you look at my other video clips that I have run the  
same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cartridge in a unipivot Naim Aro that I also own.

My Dynavector Karat Nova 13D is real and freshly rebuilt by Dynavector with an updated micro ridge stylus ( previously had a fineline ); it is not a frankenstein fake like the one you advertised on Audiogon.
 
Personally I preferred the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D with Baerwald/Lofgren A but Lewm has preferred Stevenson with his cartridges. Unless you have heard Lewms system you cannot possibly disagree with him.

As far as science goes the pros and cons of offset vertical bearings vs straight vertical bearings arguments are real and measurable. Origin Live for example have listened to both options and prefer to go with non offset bearings. Other arm manufacturers have taken a different view.

Furthermore I also have an Eminent Technology ET2, much improved with custom mods, that has no tracking error and a lower horizontal effective mass than both the Dynavector and Fidelity Research arms due to the clever patented decoupled counterweight system. Not only that but the decoupled counterweight in the horizontal plain also means that the vertical and horizontal resonant frequencies are split and the fundamental resonant peak is much lower. If you do your research and go and find the Shure white papers on tracking, you will find that the fundamental resonance of tonearm/cartridge combinations induces a sweeping motion in the stylus cantilever when tracking even normal grooves. Therefore the ET2 will have the best tracking of any of the arms discussed in this thread.

Whilst I agree with your comment on the ET2 being mechanically ungrounded due to the captured air bearing, Martin Colloms review in Hifi News of the ET2, where he ran some resonance tests, showed that resonances  induced in the arm wand tended to pass through the air bearing relatively unchanged.

I have run the same cartridges through all my arms which include the ET2, Naim Aro, FR64S & Dynavector 501 and I rank them in that order, subject to cartridge compatibility.  
Examples :
Shure V15vmr & vxmr - 1st ET2, 2nd Dynavector 501
Koetsu's - 1st ET2, 2nd FR64S
Dynavector Nova 13D, 1st ET2, 2nd Naim Aro
Ikeda Kiwame - 1st FR64S.
Other arms owned previously include the SME V, Zeta, Alphason, Well Tempered, Syrinx and many others.

PS on the subject of the FR64S I own two of them - one silver wired, the other copper wired.The silver wired version is considerably more transparent than the copper wired version, and is tighter, cleaner and faster particularly in the bottom end. 

Addendum to post above - 

I also own a Dynavector Karat Nova 13D which is set up for Stevenson with its integral headshell.

This should read "standard Dynavector alignment" which is a variation on Stevenson. 

Fleib,
Factory nulls for the Dynavector arms are
Inner 60.1mm    Outer 116.5mm ( VE is wrong )
Dynavector state that their arm geometry is set for minimum lateral tracking angle error at the inner groove. Tracking angle error for Dynavectors using standard Dynavector alignment is 0degree at inner band of record and +2.2degrees at outside.
They do not specify which record they use as a reference so inner band could mean anything.

Lewm - Fyi my 501 has the DV7A arm base which allows for metal arm boards - the DV7A uses a single through hole collet and bolt under the arm board. This base provides a much more rigid coupling to the arm board than the the traditional screw in arm base used in the 505 that only has a top plate and screws. I suspect this was also a factor in the designer of the Final Audio VTT1 rejecting the 505 in favour of the 501.


 

Lewm -
When I’ve run lighter MM’s on the FR64 I used 12-13g headshells - Denon PCL300 & Audiocraft AS12 in conjunction with the lighter W170 counterweight. The last 2 MM’s I ran were the Glanz MFG61 and Victor X1 - these are medium compliance and track around 1.5-1.7g. Personally I think you are pushing it with such a high compliance as the ADC.