Tonearm recommendation

Tonearms to hard core audiophiles are like politics for most all of us. Best left off the table,  As several have mentioned, what is really needed are actual data.  One sort of experiment that I would like to see done would be as follows:
Decide upon two or maybe three cartridges, one with high compliance, one with low compliance, one that is "medium".  
Mount each of them in turn into the tonearm that is to be evaluated.  
Inject into the cartridge pure tones that span the audio frequency range, say 20 to 10K Hz at log intervals, e.g., 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1K, etc, and at each single frequency, take a look at a spectrum analysis of the output. Absolutely no subjective judgement allowed.
This would tell us something about tonearm/cartridge interaction.  For example, to obtain data that would bear on the Raul/Halcro battle, compare an FR66S to a tonearm of equivalent effective mass (if there is one) that is perhaps made of wood or is otherwise dampened.  Or, compare results for a high-ish compliance cartridge in an FR66S to those for the same cartridge mounted in some other tonearm that is deemed to be more appropriate by conventional wisdom, because of its much lower effective mass.

In other words, it would not be so impossible to obtain data on this subject.  "Sturm und drang" only take us so far.  I wonder whether HW has ever done such an investigation.

I guess my post had as much effect on the argumentative nature of the discussion as a loud burp.  So be it. I may even invest in a spectrum analyzer in order to perform the experiment I outlined.  I do own enough tonearms to make it interesting, no FR66S but do have FR64S. For pure tones, I've got 6-7 test LPs.  It would be easiest to compare tonearms with removeable headshells, because the ideal method would be to move one cartridge/headshell combo among several different tonearms.  (Obviously, the choice of headshell will very likely affect the outcome and is yet another experimental variable.)

Fleib, I've got one of Dertonearm's UNItractors.  With it, I got him to make me a template for aligning my FR64S. I am aware also that he recommends 231.5mm for P2S.  What I don't readily understand is why the difference between 230mm and 231.5mm would make such a difference to performance, assuming that both afford two null points on the surface of an LP, which is the best anyone can do, regardless of geometry.

Dear Raul,
I am deliberately trying to stay out of the "debate".  (Perhaps you prefer that word to "argument".)  I take no sides.  I am just trying to figure out how one could shed some light on the discussion by actual experimentation.  Therefore, do not assume that I disagree with you or that you need to convince me of anything.  I think both sides have valid points, which is what makes this interesting. (There I go again; I used the word "sides", which implies argument.  But it does seem that there is at least disagreement here.)

Several more knowledgeable engineer types have urged me to invest in a sound card that is compatible with my computer, rather than to buy a stand-alone spectrum analyzer.  I am shopping now.

Wrm, I own a 10.5" Reed 2A with the optional azimuth adjustment. It's one of my favorite tonearms.  I don't quite understand why you say that you don't "need" the azimuth adjustment feature because of owning the Feickert Adjust stuff.  The Feickert tells you whether you need to adjust azimuth or not; it does not ameliorate the need for azimuth adjustment, if it's indeed needed.  I am sure I am missing something in your logic. That said, the azimuth adjuster on my Reed 2A, located at the headshell, is not my favorite feature of the tonearm.  I think some rigidity is sacrificed in favor of the adjuster.  On the other hand, it's a good location for azimuth adjustment, so that the azimuth is adjusted in the plane of the headshell offset, not wrt the pivot, as on the Triplanar.

WRM, I've heard the Talea2 with a ZYX Universe cartridge at the home of my neighbor who was then using downstream equipment much like mine. (His system has since undergone a sea change, except for retaining his Galibier turntable and two Durand tonearms.)  It's an imperfect comparison, but I thought the Talea2/UNI combo was absolutely divine.  There's no way to be sure whether it surpassed my Reed 2A, but I'd have to guess that at worst it is just as good. In fact, these two tonearms have me thinking that wood done right is a good choice of material for an arm wand, although I know there are those who would disagree strongly (and I don't care to argue the point). Even Durand has now eschewed the use of wood and gone to some sort of synthetic material for their arm wands.  Seems odd, because the company was founded on the principle that their particular choice of wood from a particular species of tree was key.

Raul, Is it your thesis therefore that you and we ought to be listening to digital sound reproduction?  But the digital process, both A to D and D to A, brings with it its own set of distortions, ones that apparently are far more noticeable and irritating to the human brain.  That's the brain we are stuck with.  In fact, the whole premise that measured distortion ought to be a determinant of what we listen to and how we listen is flawed, because we already know that most of our methods for measuring distortion, starting with THD and going on from there, do not describe what it is or isn't that makes an audio system sound "real" or not real.  So, while I admit it's an imperfect way to go through life, subjective judgement is relevant, especially when there is collective majority agreement on the subject of analog vs digital sound reproduction.

My private thesis is as follows:
(1) Real instruments and voices in real time produce harmonics.
(2) Microphones fail more or less to pick up these harmonics in their fullest extent. More is lost during processing of the resulting signal, and some irritating distortions can be added, too.
(3) Reproduced music from which such low level harmonics have been stripped sounds less real because of the loss of harmonics.
(4) Thus, a little bit of added harmonic distortion at the end of the chain results in music that is perceived as more real than if no or less harmonic distortion is present.

And again, digital does other things that are not favorable.  That said, "modern" digital reproduction is certainly become very excellent.  I don't close the door on anything I would otherwise like.

To Fleib and anyone else who was apparently offended by my post.  I do apologize for going off topic.  I was responding to Raul.  But I too dislike the old analog vs digital shouting match, and I let myself fall into that trap for a moment.  Mea culpa. Probably Raul himself did not mean to go there.

However, if there was something else I wrote that was provocative in a negative way, please clue me in.

Dear Ct0517,
First, there is a thriving DIYer population that would have/does have no problem re-wiring vintage pivoted tonearms to suit whatever is one's preference for type, quality, and length of wire. There are even a few businesses that do it for the timid.
Second, if one is purchasing a new pivoted tonearm, there are several manufacturers, including, to name only three, Reed, Triplanar, and I am fairly sure Durand, who will supply said tonearm with just about any internal wiring one's heart could desire (copper, silver, cryo, elfin, etc) and said wire can be ordered up to go all the way from the headshell to the phono stage input jacks.  Both my Reed 2A and my Triplanar are thus configured, based on my philosophy that the best connector is no connector. 

Actually, Herb Papier, the original designer and builder of the Triplanar, is to be credited for being a very early adaptor of the "straight shot" wiring scheme, 15-20 years ago.  I grant you that all the named brands of tonearm are expensive and may be beyond the reach of many in terms of cost, but then there is in fact the DIY route or buying "second hand" on Audiogon, etc. 

This is no criticism of your ET tonearm, and I think you made a good choice to avoid connectors in the signal path when possible.  If I were going to a tangential tonearm, I would also strongly consider the Trans-Fi.  But I don't like air pumps.

Don, I acquired a Victor 7045 as part of the deal when I bought my TT101, in the context of a QL10 ensemble (including plinth).  I have never yet listened to the 7045 but you've got my attention.  I am surprised to learn that it is low to medium in effective mass, as it appears to me to be made of stainless, but if it is indeed aluminum, I can understand that it might not be so heavy as effective mass goes. (I would expect alu to oxidize over time, yet my 7045 is as bright and shiny as my FR64S.)  Do you know the actual effective mass?
Also, as regards the application of VTF, I understand that Raul advocates not using magnetics for this, passive only.  What do you guys favor?  On my DV505, I use about 50-50 dynamic vs passive, if those are the terms for the two options.  I've got a Dynavector DV501, which was less expensive than the 505 when new partly because it lacks dynamic VTF and a few other doodads found on the 505, yet I understand that many favor it over the 505, and even the 507.

Thanks, Don.  When I bought the QL10 (which equals a TT101+7045+plinth), the seller admitted that the TT101 was "broken", and I got the whole shebang for about what I estimated to be the value of the 7045 alone.  I was planning on selling the 7045 to recoup my cost and then spending whatever it took to fix the TT101.  However, I have yet to sell the 7045.  Nor have I ever used it.  I will give it a try.
Just for the record, I would never completely trust the markings on the adjuster for VTF on a tonearm that allows for dynamic application of VTF.  I ALWAYS use a digital scale to verify.  With my DV505, I use the dynamic VTF to get to about half of the needed VTF (according to my trusty digital scale), then I apply the remainder by adjusting the counter-wt.  I really should try the DV501, which is a little jewel. It was gifted to me by a dear friend.

Don (Griffiths),  Evidently you don't follow Halcro's thread on "living dangerously" with DD turntables.  If you did, you would know that I have had a heck of a time with my TT101 and after more than a year (maybe more than 2 years) I have only recently made some headway in making it work reliably. (That's the key word, "reliably".)  In the process, I have spent nearly $1000, but that's probably a fair price for a refurbished TT101.  So, I didn't really "score" after all, but I went into it with eyes wide open.

Ain't it, though.  I like to pretend it isn't happening to me.
So, back to tonearms, in deference to Wrm:  I don't think the 7045 competes with an FR64S or 66S, except where the latter two may have too high an effective mass in relation to the (high) compliance of the desired cartridge, and except for those who are in Raul's camp vis a vis the FR tonearms. (I have formed no opinion yet, since my FR64S is to be used with my TT101.  Thus the FR64S is a lady in waiting.) I still plan to take a look at how various tonearms resonate, once I find appropriate software to do this on a Mac.  Apparently there are several good choices for spectrum analysis programs, if one is using a PC.

To re-enforce what Dover said regarding the DV tonearms, I had the experience of mounting a cartridge in my DV505 using Baerwald, which requires the cartridge to be twisted inward with respect to the long axis of the headshell.  It was surprising to me that this did not sound good at all, using a cartridge with which I was quite familiar, and I hypothesized that having the cantilever arc at an angle to the vertical arc described by the arm wand was a possible cause of the distortion I heard.  When I re-aligned the same cartridge using Stevenson or the DV recommended parameters, all was well.  This is what I call circumstantial evidence, but it makes some sense.  And I draw the conclusion that it is wisest to use the geometry for which the tonearm was designed, not necessarily one's own preferred geometry, when using typical pivoted tonearms with offset headshells and stylus overhang of the spindle.

I own an RS-A1. It is quite a weird gadget, not easy to set up but at the same time rather uncritical of P2S distance.  It does sound surprisingly excellent with a wide variety of cartridges.

My point was not about whatever is the "correct" geometry for a DV505/507, because I don't know what that is, except it's likely to be at least close to Stevenson.  My point was that twisting the cartridge/cantilever in the headshell such that the arc described by the cantilever is not in the same plane as that of the vertical bearing of the tonearm did in fact seem to produce unpleasant distortion (as opposed to "pleasant" distortion).  This is in agreement with Dover's line of thinking.  I heretofore kept this to myself, because this is a single observation of mine.  I was very interested to see that Dover and some others have arrived at the same conclusion.

In my case, I own a UNItractor, from Dertonearm.  He kindly supplied me with a template dedicated to the DV505.  That's what I now use to align my DV505, and it results in "correct" alignment of the arc of the cantilever vis a vis the arc of the vertical bearing.  Separately, I also have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that the DV505 comes close with standard Stevenson, using a Stevenson protractor I downloaded from VE for free.  But I don't now use that; I use the UNI for the DV505.  Dertonearm's design is complex and a bit cumbersome to use, but it is also ingenious and permits very accurate alignment because of the ancillary tools he provides.  However, I cannot quote distances in fractions of a mm; I'm just a slave to the UNI. Life is short.

Yes, the UNI is "pricey".  My only beef about cost is that, at that cost, it does not allow measurement of P2S with any accuracy.  When I brought this up, after purchase, I was offered the opportunity to buy an accessory which fills that void. However, the additional cost of that accessory was half again as much as that of the UNI.  I demurred. I subsequently "inherited" a Feickert alignment jig, which has a well calibrated arm for accurate measurement of P2S.  That's what I use now.  In subsequent versions of his protractor, DT seems to have rectified this deficiency while also reducing cost.  The UNI was his first go at designing a protractor, evidently.  Still, in all, he thought of every other aspect of the problem in designing the UNI. Nice work.
Fleib, It's not an arc protractor; it's more like the Dennesen, of which I also am an owner for the past 3 decades.  But to say that the UNI is like the Dennesen is to say that a Ferrari is like a Miata.

Raul, It would be helpful if I can boil down your idea into one or two simple sentences.  Is it your thesis that one should standardize on one and only one geometry, Baerwald, because it offers the lowest average tracking distortion across the LP surface?  If you can respond "yes" or "no", that would be OK with me.  Thanks.

What I, and I think also Dover, wrote is that if the tonearm was not designed for Baerwald geometry (meaning essentially that the headshell offset angle is wrong for Baerwald, given that the tonearm is mounted according to manufacturer's recommended overhang or P2S or whatever), then one must twist the cartridge in the headshell to achieve Baerwald.  I found that this resulted in a distortion (Dynavector DV505) that was much more obvious and objectionable than any that I hear when I use the DV505 with recommended geometry, inferior though that may be by comparison to Baerwald.  Granted, one could move the pivot point around, or alter stylus overhang, so as to better accommodate Baerwald for a tonearm not designed for Baerwald, but that is very inconvenient at best, if not impossible in some cases.

Now it also seems you are saying that every protractor except maybe the Mint LP is an inferior toy.  That helps no one, except those who use the Mint LP.

Thanks, Raul.  Please don't confuse the fact that I own a DV505 with the idea that I believe it to be "the best" of anything.  I really think most audio equipment is flawed in one way or another and that it is our job to put pieces together that work as synergistically as possible to produce whatever "sound" one is pursuing.  (In your case, that would be the lowest distortion possible, pure and simple.)  Many people don't understand that the term "synergism" means 1+1 = more than 2, by the way. When 1+1 =2, the interaction is merely "additive".  I actually chose the DV505 several years ago for use with slate plinths I made for my Lenco and for my DP80; I wanted tonearms that could be flush-mounted on top of the slate without need for an armboard or to drill the slate, which is a royal pain in the culo.  The Triplanar, Reed, Durand tonearms also fit this description but are more costly.

I seriously considered the Mint LP when I decided to buy the UNItractor.  The UNI is like the Mint in that it is different for every possible tonearm, but unlike the Mint in that it is a 2-point alignment, not an arc alignment.  However, 2 points define an arc for a given constant radius.  If you have a lot of tonearms, then the cost of the UNI rapidly becomes reasonable, as compared to buying a Mint LP for every tonearm.  The UNI includes a different template for each tonearm, accommodation for three different spindle diameters, ability to set the cartridge using a stabilized magnifier, a built on light which makes the job easier, and several other features that make exact set-up closer to possible.  But like the DV505, I am not saying it's perfect or "the best", just very very good.

Wrm, I grew up, to age 9, in Woodmont, CT, which is a tiny blue collar suburb of West Haven.  I remember my friend's father digging clams on the beach to feed his family and lobstermen catching lobsters only 50 yards off-shore.  Those were the days, my friend.  We moved to New Haven when I reached 9 years.

I really don't want to get involved in the hostilities here, but in fairness to Raul, and unless I misunderstood his long post, he was not saying that alignment geometry is unimportant; he was instead advocating for Baerwald uber alles.  I disagree with that position, but I don't live and breathe this stuff, nor do I intend to.  I do agree with Dover as regards the issues that are raised when you twist the cartridge/cantilever with respect to the vertical pivot arc of the tonearm, based on my direct experiences.

I've got a DV501, as well.  Up to now I have not auditioned it, because it was not suitable for use with my slate plinths.  However, it can be mounted on my TT101 and SP10 Mk3 plinths, and I will give it a try. Dover is not the first to say that the DV501 is superior to the DV505, but I will have to listen for myself. No one in my experience, except maybe Raul, is as certain of his convictions as is Dover.  So Dover and Raul should not bother to argue with each other.

As to what alignment I use with the DV505, and to repeat for the third time, I tried to use Baerwald/Lofgren, with the arm mounted according to factory instruction. To achieve this alignment one must twist the cartridge in the headshell.  After I completed the alignment, there was obvious distortion, using a cartridge with which I was previously familiar.  I hypothesized that the distortion might be generated because of the misalignment between the vertical arc of the cantilever and that of the vertical bearing of the DV505, which comes about because of twisting the cartridge.  I then and only then reverted to using Stevenson, and the sound was much improved, which only supports my hypothesis but does not prove it.  Subsequently, I bought the UNItractor with a template for the DV505 (and a few other tonearms).  When I re-aligned the DV505 using the UNI, the sound improved further by a small factor.  I therefore am guessing that the alignment built into the UNI for the DV505 is not quite exactly Stevenson, but it must be very close to it.

Raul, it amuses me that you imply that I change among cartridges and tonearms too frequently.  In English, we have a saying "the pot calls the kettle black".  Anyway, I am fine with however many tonearms and cartridges you may own, and I am sure you feel the same.  In fact, my practice is to have a separate turntable for each tonearm that I regularly use. In each tonearm, I have mounted a cartridge I like, some LOMC, some MM/MI.  I am prone to listen to the same tonearm/cartridge for months at a time, if not years at a time, so I really do not make many changes once I settle in.  It's just that I have 5 turntables. 

Fleib, Since this IS a hobby, and since Raul has never changed his attitude and shouldn't be expected to, at this point, why get angry?  Raul es Raul. I would like to hear Raul's response.  Seems to me, if you increase P2S while maintaining the longitudinal relationship between the cantilever and headshell, so that the two remain "in line", then the null points would approach each other on the LP surface, until at some point they merge into one null point, with underhang.  If you decrease P2S, then the null points separate until one or both no longer lies on the LP playing surface.  But the headshell offset angle is confounding factor.

Raul,  Suppose I did want to use Baerwald (for one example) with my DV505.  You've implied here that it can be done by changing the P2S distance from the factory-recommended value.  Does this maneuver end up with the cartridge/cantilever in alignment with the long axis of the headshell?  If so, please tell me how to do it.  Thanks.

Fleib, Sounds like you've had far too much coffee already.  Try decaf.

Fleib, Pinky up at all times, of course.  Knees tightly together. Raul doesn't need me to defend him. He is as he is. No point letting it get to you.

Wrm, If you don't mind I'd like to post a question to some of the other FR tonearm users.  Over on Raul's now quiet thread about MM cartridges (I think that's where I saw these posts), there were several who said that they used the FR64S and even the FR66S with relatively high compliance MM cartridges, and they claimed great success. I am finally about to audition my FR64S, several years after I bought it, and as it happens, I may like to use it with a MM type.  To those who have done it, did you use an FR headshell or a very lightweight headshell?  If neither, what headshell?  For that matter, what MM cartridges worked well? I'm not about to stick an ADC XLM on that heavy pipe. Thanks.

Thanks, Raul.  Indeed, I thought you were one of the guys who advocated not paying attention to tonearm effective mass.  However, even back in those days, were you not running those active subwoofers.  More than once back then you emphatically advised me that I should do the same with my Sound Labs. Perhaps you upgraded your subwoofers which enabled you to hear problems that were not evident earlier. Would you care to list a few tonearms that you consider to be "well damped"?

Pete Riggle Woody has always intrigued me.

Dover, Did not see your last post until now.  Rest assured I was joking about using an ADC XLM on an FR64S.  That would be an extreme worst case scenario, indeed.  I don't own an XLM anyway.  I just got my TT101 up and running for the first time, on my basement system. With the FR64S and an Acutex 320LPMSTRIII.  It's what I had lying around, in a Dynavector headshell.  Just at the moment of truth, my wife entered the scene, wanting to use the exercise machine in our basement.  When she gets done, I will give it another go.  I thought I might have heard some bass rumblings, per Raul's warning, but she had the TV too loud by that time for me to be certain.