Hello all, Recently procured a Feickert Blackbird w/ the Jelco 12 inch tonearm. The table is really good, and its a keeper. The Jelco is also very good, but not as good as my Fidelity Research FR66s. So the Jelco will eventually hit Ebay, and the question remains do I keep the FR66s or sell that and buy something modern in the 5-6 K range. My only point of reference is my old JMW-10 on my Aries MK1, so I don't know how the FR66s would compare to a modern arm. So I'd like to rely on the collective knowledge and experience of this group for a recommendation.
Keep the FR66s, or go modern in the 5-6K range, say a Moerch DP8 or maybe an SME.
Any and all thoughts and opinions are of course much appreciated.
Dear syntax: It’s obvious that with your audio system you can cause impact to audiophiles that could think that a 300K-500K system must performs with the higher quality level ever we can dream.
I experienced not one time but four different times audio systems in that price range and at least in one the quality perfromance did not honored that high price. In the other side I experienced in dozens of audio systems coming from as low 35K that belive it or not beats that megabucks systems and many of them are very near of those high price systems.
Dover, posted something very important: """ system and how well the gear is set up ... """ and I can add that if the system right set up is important it’s more important the right choices on each single link in the audio chain and this means the right knowledge audio/music level.
IMHO, if you use an all metal non damped tonearm in the analog rig it does not matters how and with which audio chain that tonearm is surrounded. The overall quality performance of that system will be poor due to that weak link.
The same is valid on each audio system link. TTs no exception and you like heavy impressive/good looking weight TT as many audiophiles but you forget that if it’s true that heavy platters helps in BD system to mantain in easy way spinning the platter we have to remember that that heavy metal platter ( it does not matters if it’s air bearing design. ) at the very first time it starts to spin that static mass is coverted in dynamic mass and starts to " vibrates " at micro levels but the cartridge is a very sensitive " microphone "/ vibrations detector and even if we don’t know it the cartridge knows about those vibrations generated in that heavy mass platters in any TT.
As this " phenomenon/curiosity " are all what I posted here and elsewhere that makes distortions.
That you like it is fine with me. I learned and you will sooner or latter. Knowledge level and not the money is what counts to have the best the audio system quality performance.
Knowledge level, skills, set up and some kind of money. In that order.
I know for sure the kind of distortions you like it ( your system speaks it self, I don’t need to listen it ) that are worst than mines.
Anyway, I still learned from this thread including your post. As I said, a thread is not a contest in between participants and exist no challenge or challengers but people like me trying to learn. Got it????
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
Ps: " I hope you can learn on what Dover posted:
"""" you are correct in your comments about the dynamic balance mechanism ( which is a coiled spring ) used for setting the vertical tracking force.... """, these are tghe kind of distortions you loved, good!.
Dear dover: """
I like the "distortions" in my system..."""
I think that everyone likes " the distortions in each one system ". Now and trying to be constructive: in this thread and the one spéaking of tonearms longer than 12" I posted almost all my first hand experiences on the kind of distortions generated by those long tonearms or non-damped tonearms, I talked about specific distortions that today I can detect and I can discriminate between those distortions and music information.
The kind of distortions you are accustom or Syntax or Halcro or other gentlemans here I was accustomed for many years and is extremely dificult to " let it goes ". I had and have success doing that when I learned to detect/discriminate the diferent type of distortions and very critical issue was that I gave enough time ( lñistening. ) to my brain to LISTEN music with out ( well mantainning at minimum. ) those distortions. For time I mean months of continuous listening daily sessions and in between making tests with the " old ditortions " till I was sure that those distortions were distortions. This long experiences makes that today I listen to lower distortions and more music information.
If you can't recognise some kind of distotions then you can't do anything about. Btw, it's more easy to do it with SS electronics that with tubes but I don't want to open an additional window for discussion on this topic.
The subject is not: I like my system distortions " but to know how those distortions sounds and if you like your system performance quality level with those detected distortions rthat is another matters.
I think that in this thread Dgarretson posted that he detected the tonearm distortions I'm talking about along the same type of sound through his SS electronics experiences. The important subject is that " he KNOWS " and he accepted that likes those distortions. I think that he needs to give a longer time to the listenning with out those distortions.
Anyway, as you said mine is only an additional opinion.
Dover, Sorry I didn't see this sooner. You accept this nonsense as correct, or just the part about a noisy mechanism?
>>additional we have to remember that the 64/66 are dynamic balanced designs and all dynamic balanced designs always generate ringing ( noise/distortions. ) through the dynamic mechanism but two tonearm design: the MAX 237/282 and Luste GST-801. Adding to that problem the micro and macro waves in the LP recorded surface makes that in a dynamic balanced tonearm design the " normal " continuous changes in VTA/SRA/VTF that always exist in any tonearm ( static balanced included. ) been more pronounced do that when there is a crest in the LP surface the deflection in the cartridge cantilever is higher in a dynamic balanced design that in the static balanced one that works with natural gravity where in the dynamic the mechanis always force to mantain the VTF but when is against a crest the cantilever is pushed up making a higher cantilever deflection. In both kind of tonearm designs exist the problem but in the dynamic one is bigger. Normally when the human been goes against the mother nature fall down.<<
These are the ravings of someone who makes things up, or doesn't understand what he reads. When a static balanced cart is riding up a warp VTF is substantially reduced. The cart/arm is accelerating upwards. What happens when VTF is reduced? VTA is steeper angle.
At the crest VTF/VTA are more affected with a static balanced cart and it's much more likely to mistrack. Due to the constant spring action a dynamically balanced cart will maintain a more even VTF. Back in the '80s we were setting up dynamically balanced arms by splitting the force.
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 - 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: Maybe I did not explain the right way ( as almost happens. ). What are in " game " here? only the static/dinamic balance design?
no, there are several issues that play an important role about and one of them is the type of tonearm bearing, its quality and its friction levels in that bearing.
The FR tonearms were not designed with today best bearings and certainly not with a friction as low as the one ( example ) by Technics vintage tonearms of 4mg.
This low friction bearings ermit that the cartridge in the crests/valleys tracks in very gentle way putting at minimum the changes in VTF/VTA, these Technics are statics designs and not 12" long. In a dynamic balanced design with the 66 characteristics the crests pushed harder the cantilever/suspension in the cartridge because the dynamic mechanism always is pushing in the other direction but the LP crest has more force.
Try to find a EPA-100MK2 and make all the tests you want it against the 66 and then return to enlight about.
Btw, any of you 66 owners please go with a good " technician " and ask that he ( in your face. ) open the 66 tonearm bearing case and you will see the kind of tonearm bearing you today are " hearing " and trusting in.
Dear syntax: """
still writing his ringing nonsense like a broken record. The usual pain for brain. Old men never learn anything I guess. Buy some better electronics. You are not a perfectionist. """
I can't argue on your opinion that it's Your Opinion and I respect it.
As any one else we all are rpoud of what we have in our home audio system.
You are extremely proud of what you own. Any one can " see " it when you took the time to those all system individual items pictures in your virtual system and I can see that you still like the same " noise/distortion generator ""
You own not one FR but both the 64 and 66 and additional you have the RX MS TT that's a terrible one ( yes I own it. ), a design| with several drawbacks: a platter that ring like a bell, motor unit by Technics/Panasonic but very bad circuit parts and circuit board on the motor/control unit, non damped TT design with a terrible mistake because MS choosed to put the four arm boards exactly in the worst place that is where stay the TT foots where all kind of resonances/vibrations pass through each foot and directly are transmited to the all metal arm boards, etc, etc. I can go on on those so many design faults. In those regards the SX version is the same. Of course, you like tubes and some times SS too and several other " generators .. "
Like you I owned, own or listened almost all the cartridges you have but one of the Koetsu stone version and maybe other 1-2 cartridges you own.
Good for you tha are so proud ( like me. ) with what you have and speaks of what kind of distortions you are enjoying.
Now, please make a favor toall of us and put some light on how the 66 helps a cartridge to it can shows at its best. Why and how? where and which are those 66 advantages or unique atributes that are so good for a phono cartridge?
I already posted why not with a wide explanation here and in some other threads several years ago in the same way I did t with the MS RX/SX TTs. I'm sure that if you have is because you know for sure those 66 advantages and the whys of each one advantage to fullfill the cartridge needs, so I ask you how the 66 cover each cartridge needs.
If you can do it will be appreciated ( I'm sure ) for all of us and if you stay in silence then for sure you have nothing on hand other that the worst kind of audiophile " runaway ": "" I like it. ""
Dear dover: """
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. """
first, things are that JC is cartridge designer and if there is a person that knows for sure the cartridge needs is a knowledged cartridge designer like JC. He knows that damping is a strictly necesity on any all metal tonearm ( raw steel or raw aluminum. Magnesium, boron and some other metals are less prone to resonate as steel. ) and that's why he likes that kind of damping with a tonearm non-damped design as 64/66. I think that in the same thread that JC posted about I posted too ( several years ago. ) that I used a Sumiko set damping items where one of them was a piece of light " polymer " like to use it around the tonearm wand, wraping it.
second: """
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 ... """
years ago in this forum when I was talking of the after market vacuum platter hold down item that one gentleman here posted almost the same of you ""
to suck life out of the sound .. """" and as you he does not like it that item. I already said it: Dgarretson can identify between those distortions but he preffers the " alive " sound.
IMHO no one can " to suck life out of the sound or smear it "" by damping a tonearm. You can't overdamp a tonearm.
Why said I that?.
: in an audio perfect world with out TT/platter/arm board/tonearm/ vibrations/resonances/feedback/generated noise/ system/room air pollution and with perfect LPs the cartridge pick up the information exist in the LP grooves and before and after the cartridge makes its transducer job what we have and pass through the tonearm internal wires is just the recorded grooves modulations with no single added " noises " of any kind and this modulation grooves music information is what you, me and every one want to listen: THE PURE MUSICAL INFORMATION that a well self damped transducer/cartridge gave us. RIGHT?
Now, that is what happens in a non existent analog audio world and no one will listen it in that way never ever.
Things are that all of us for all our audio life were and are listening to many " things/distortions "" and never the pure signal. All of us are accustomed to the non-perfect world and that's why you and many of us do not like that " suck life out/smear/ the like " kind of sound when that sound is nearer to the LP grooves modulations. We like more alive kind of sound even if it's wrong, as I said we like it because we are accustomed to it.
That's why I posted that we have to give enough time to the totally " new " experience and I mean: months not days or weeks.
Now, I'm talking only of analog rig but a home audio system has other links: electronics, cables, speakers, room, etc. etc where are generated additonal distortions ( every kind. ) that puts all our systems far away of what is in the LP grooves modulations.
That's why I always say ( for years in this and other forums. ) that the difference between a good system and a better system are each one system distortions generated levels and that the main target ( at least for me. ) must be to mantain at minimum those distortions in each link of the audio chain and to do this we have to have the training to identify ( step by step for many self experiences years. ) at least the 80% of those distortions because if we can't do it we can't fix it and we can't know where all they comes.
When you , after listening time, finally are accustomed to that very low system distortions you can't go back: no return. When you there you can in easy way evaluate any system you listen to and even if you don't listen it because you know the system items that are the worst in that system. Here the subject is the 66 but we can talk of other " generators ".
Now, take a look to the " best " tonearm designs: Technics, Lustre, MS, Triplanar, 4P, Schroeder, today DaVinci, etc, etc. where a common characteristic is that all are very well damped, because a dedicated mechanism or the blend tonearm build damped materials. Even the SME V ( with the dynamic balanced " problem ". ) comes with oil damping.
Many of you have the faulty desined 66 and even that's a whole faulty design ( as the MS RX TT. ) you are trying to tweak those items: go figure!!!
I made and make item modifications only if the product is a really good original design and it's worth to make those up-grades. Well, that's me.
Btw, with or with out the 66/64 I do not like the KR. The only K I like is the KRSP and CoralStone but in both cases nothing to die for.
No, I'm not willing to explain in deep about because to understand it I have to explain where ( in a home system ) belongs the music and this subject alone is for a complete thread.
Raul, you're quite long winded and you bring a novel aspect to technical matters. Thought you might like to know, on another forum you're referred to as the 32 bit Bandito. Due to the length and number of your posts, I think Kraken might be more appropriate.
To address your last post, did J. Carr say that all metal arms must be damped? I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. You use that as justification for:
*IMHO no one can " to suck life out of the sound or smear it "" by damping a tonearm. You can't overdamp a tonearm.*
With all your ear training I'm surprised you can't hear the affect of over-damping a tonearm. One can MEASURE a negative affect on transient response by over-damping. It also tends to kill the natural sustain of acoustic instruments. I agree with Dover, arms are easily over-damped. If it was Dgarretson who said that about vacuum hold down, I tend to agree with him. It's easy to suck the life out of the music by over-damping.
I think you might be surprised by the number of people who add fluid damping to their arms. KAB sells a trough and paddle device that is popular, and it's very easy to DIY.
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.
So, it's not to damp ( in any way ) the tonearm but we have to make and overall adjustment to all the audio system. Not an easy task and very time consuming but the rewards each one of us received are second to none.
rauliruegas7,387 posts"So stay calm about or I must to report you to Agon"
Do what you like, Raul, because you're going to do it anyway. But don't threaten the contributors here. You needn't like every post any more than everyone likes yours.
I didn't call you stupid. It was long winded, which I think is accurate. If you object to your nicknames I won't use them.
It might interest you to know that the lower the compliance of a suspension, the lower the amplitude of arm/cart resonance. We happen to be talking about 2 very low compliance stereo carts.
You previously talked about the metal arm generating resonance and distortion. That's impossible. The arm is not a generator. I assume you meant propagating or amplifying. There are many mistakes like that in your posts. I don't have the time or inclination to correct them.
You've been posting on this forum in English for many years. I've long thought you use language to disguise lack of specific knowledge. If you look over this thread I think you'll see that you are the predominant responder. You say the same thing over and over. We heard you the first time. Why don't you give us a break?
Dear fleib: """ I assume you meant propagating or amplifying. """
exactly and non-damped tonearms are the worst about. I call " generator " because during playing the tonearm instead to kill those distortions makes biguer and helps to generate addional ones. If you don’y like that word call it in other way, the important issue is that you understand it and I can see that you did it and if you did it ( because you know me very well. I think? ) why those kind of posts from your part?
I said " over and over " because almost no one post the right answer explain it why I’m totally wrong or why they are recomended " this or that ". Almost all only say: "" use this or use that " but with out any single reason that can be foundation ( right or wrong. ) for what they say.
Almost all are accustomed that way: " don’t use that or don’t use this "" and I want to learn why " yes " or why " no " or if I’m wrong to analize and if it’s the case I can rectify and learn about any audio subject.
Btw, that gentleman was not Dgarretson because Dgarretson knows more more that that gentleman.
*I said " over and over " because almost no one post the right answer explain it why I’m totally wrong or why they are recomended " this or that ". *
Because it doesn't work like that. You made a case for damping. Damping is one factor, not the main consideration. In the initial post we read that the Jelco arm is inferior. I think you would agree, yet the Jelco is fluid damped at the pivot. Clearly, there are other factors.
You talk about ringing and amplifying vibrations. In my experience with these FR arms, the right headshell combined with a suitable low compliance cartridge, negates this consideration. I've heard them with a small amount of armtube damping and less than perfect match with cart compliance and still nice results.
Maybe the 4 point would be better, I don't know, but I don't think it falls within the price constraints. This is a matter of opinion not a case of right/wrong.
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.
Dear dover: """
but you can't even install a cartridge properly in your own system."""
I never used my two 13 D with its original headshell and never in that tonearm. That picture comes and was only to showed on Agon when I sold one of my 13D.
I never used with the original headshell because I want it to connect directly to the internal wires on my tonearms with out all those signal degrading connectors and you can see it in that pictures.
So, your post is a misunderstood from your part because you did not know that. Relax, as you any one wants to " get " me on errors and mistakes to disregards my opinions or explanations, I understand this and no problem from my part.
Dover: Unfortunatelly you failed this time but just keep trying because I make mistakes every single day. Good luck on this, maybe next time.
Btw, it's incredible that you took all the time to say all the world about the mistake of Raul. Dover who cares about Raul? , no one and now you makes me " famous " because my " mistake ". Thank's for that and as I said: keep trying as JW.
Btw, that tonearm in the picture is a very good Sony, recomended and and way better that your FRs. Well almost anything is better.
That cartridge I put on sale is still with me because the Agon buyer never pay for it and if you remember in that time I write in the advertasing that the buyer could choice for the original female cartridge connectors or the way I have it: with male connectors for tonearms like Triplanar, Graham and the like.
Well, now I can see you showed the " cooper " in you. Good to know it.
Dear fleib: """
With all your ear training I'm surprised you can't hear the affect of over-damping a tonearm. One can MEASURE a negative affect on transient response by over-damping. It also tends to kill the natural sustain of acoustic instruments. I agree with Dover, arms are easily over-damped. """
problem is that you don't really read with care my posts and additional that you are very dogmatic. Look and I repeat: WE CAN'T OVERDAMP A TONEARM EVER.
Before you post again on this subject please re-read what I posted to dover where the essence is here:
"""
in an audio perfect world with out TT/platter/arm board/tonearm/ vibrations/resonances/feedback/generated noise/ system/room air pollution and with perfect LPs the cartridge pick up the information exist in the LP grooves and before and after the cartridge makes its transducer job what we have and pass through the tonearm internal wires is just the recorded grooves modulations with no single added " noises " of any kind and this modulation grooves music information is what you, me and every one want to listen: THE PURE MUSICAL INFORMATION ....."""""""
in that Pure Muscal Information comes all that transient response and the natural sustain of acoustic instruments. In the LP grooves modulations comes all type of " sounds " recorded, almost nothig is lost and all these is what we want to listen with out adding NOTHING so please tell me: how can we overdap a tonearm?, for me it's impossible to do it because all those recorded information in the LP grooves modulations goes in the tonearm internal wires. Remember that we are talking on a " analog perfect world " where any additional " information " ( name it noise, distortions, resonances or what ever you want to name it. ) only goes against that " transient response, the natural sustain of acoustic instruments and several other things.
So, because we don't live in a perfect audio world we must to " overdamp " the tonearm. I know to what kind of quality sound you are accustom to just like almost every one else. I was there too.
Try to think " out of the box " try to ask you:
HEY WHAT IF SEVERAL OF THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED THROUGH MY AUDIO LIFE 20-50 years ) WAS WRONG INFORMATION?
and that is my advise to any audiophile that wants to grow-up.
So, the worst tonearm design is the non-damped one. Btw, the Jelco is way superior to the 64/66 but his owner can'tdiscriminate in between, that's all.
Dear fleib:
Could you overdamp a TT or a cartridge?, no you can't. What any audiophile wants is to " overdamp " those analog rig items/links to can honor what's in the LP grooves modulations. We want that the analog rig be not only transparent but that disappears ( but the grooves modulations picked up by the cartridge/transducer. ) from the reproduced sound. Everything comes in those LP grooves modulations and comes in " pristine " condition.
We are not talking what we like or what we are accustom to but what must be like it or not what you percieve through ears/brain/body.
Of course that I can be wrong and as always I'm willing to retify if necessary.
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.
Did something upsetting happen in your life? To be honest, your posts seem irrational. Sometimes when life throws us a curve we react in strange ways. To avoid a negative situation it would be natural to go to something that gives us pleasure, like audio.
I'm not being condescending, your bit about pure musical information going through the wires is bizarre. Of course you can overdamp an arm. Look at the output on a scope.
In the past you've made some great contributions to our hobby. If something else is bothering you now, it might be better worked out with a friend or family.
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.
Too sensible and too scientific an idea to take root in this hobby...🤕 Raul prefers to 'imagine' his own physical universe, free of the complications of science. He says that he's always willing to learn...but that's untrue. First he states that the Resonant Frequency of a tonearm/cartridge combination should be 8-10Hz and then attempts to explain 'why'
well, any resonance has fundamental frequency where happen that resonance ( it does not matters where it comes. ) and that means that at the same time that is happenuing are created its harmonics exactly as the harmonics in the music and that's why those " distortions " always affect all the listening frequency spectrum and we have to take in count that those " distortions " happen all over the frequency range not only at 8 hz or 20 hz but at 3 khz too ( for whatever reasons. .
When I point out the absurdity of his explanation
And of course we all know that the harmonics of 8Hz (16Hz,24Hz,32Hz,40Hz,48Hz, 56Hz etc) do absolutely no harm to the tonearm in vibration mode whilst the harmonics of 7Hz (14Hz, 21Hz, 28Hz, 35Hz, 42Hz, 49Hz) render the tonearm a weeping sloppy mess..😱
He conveniently ignores it. He obviously has no tertiary qualifications in physics, materials' science, structural engineering, mechanical engineering or acoustical engineering, yet continuously postulates false information as if they were 'facts' without ever presenting scientific evidence for his delusions. Because he can hear an undamped metal tonearm 'ring' when he taps it....he imagines that this 'ringing' must occur even when he doesn't tap it. A mistake only made by the uneducated. Not only doesn't he present evidence to support this absurdity....he can't even tell us the 'magnitude' of these imagined 'resonances', nor their frequencies nor where they are supposedly coming from? His 'evidence' is always the claim of some contributor on a Forum or cartridge designer or reviewer with whom Raul agrees.
In the wake of his delusional view of the physical world and his real inability to listen to others and educate himself.....there is little point in arguing with him.
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 ?
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.)
Dear dover: In my country people say : " don't try to find out 3 foots to the cat knowing have 4 ".
I bought my two 13D as originals and maybe what you say is only a picture efect. Both cartridges comes with the dedicated internal connection wires and both has serial numbers down to 15.
What do you try to prove with your posts? what?, please enlight me about because that is not a contribution from your part that helps on the subjects here.
Dear lewm: From my part there is no batlle with any one.
Now, as fleib you don’t got what I wanted to explain, this is my fault.
What I’m talking is what in a non-existen " perfect audio world " we have in those internal wires: ideally a pure non-contaminated signal information.
I posted that we can’t have it never ever because we have many distortions/noise/vibrations/resonances surrounded the ridding of the cartridge LP grooves modulations as: TT/arm board/Tonearm//air pollution/LP anomalies and that’s why we need to overdamp those audio chain links to be nearer to that " ideally non contaminated pure signal music information ".
In that analog rig we can’t overdamp as a fact we need to " overdamp " down there to impede or at least mantain at minimum any single degradation to that signal in those audio links. Lewm, remember that all the necessary music information comes in those LP grooves modulations and everything that could disturb the ridding of the stylus on those grooves modulations only can degrade that precious recorded music information. If we don't damp those audio links the we will listen additional and bad information that were not in the original recorded signal. No one needs to measure nothing here as you suggest. Please think in deep of what I’m saying here because as fleib you are too very dogmatic: open the box!
Where can we overdapm?, in the speakers/room links ( treatment ).
**What I’m talking is what in a non-existen " perfect audio world " we have in those internal wires: ideally a pure non-contaminated signal information.
I posted that we can’t have it never ever because we have many distortions/noise/vibrations/resonances surrounded the ridding of the cartridge LP grooves modulations as: TT/arm board/Tonearm//air pollution/LP anomalies and that’s why we need to overdamp those audio chain links to be nearer to that " ideally non contaminated pure signal music information ".**
Overdamping is not going to cure the ills from the source. In fact, overdamping will take you further away from your "ideal signal". Specifically, overdamping a tone arm will negatively effect cartridge transient response - rise/slew. . Overdamping prevents the arm from responding in a timely manner. Functionally, in some ways it mimics high bearing friction.
I think you call me dogmatic because I won't agree with the nonsense you post. All the BS about your ear training and you seem incapable of correlating what you hear, with what's going on with the record player.
Dear lewm/fleib and friends: Why exist the still points, vibraplane platforms, after market tubes dampers and " better " tubes circuit board bases, items to damp speakers/CD players/amps/preamps, cable elevators, clamps and TT mats, room treatment, speaker designers that take care of internal cabinet damping along the choosed build materials, speaker designers that take care seriously that the speaker crossover be perfectly damped and even designs with an external crossover, we audiophuiles that are looking how to kill vibrations anywhere the audio system?
Why every one: designers, manufacturers, reviewers, customers are looking where is that best damping item? WHY? No one needs to be a scientific to answer that we all only need COMMON SENSE, no single measurements about.
Do a simple test today: take out all the damping items in your audio system and listen it and come back here to share your experiences about.
No, damping does not cure the ills of the source nothing can do it. No, damping don’t mimic high bearing friction. What we want is that nothing interfere with the recorded signal and the best we can do is try to mantain each kind of " signal interferences " at minimum and nothing more. The tonearm is critic to help about or to " amplify " those system starting interferences.
To much bla, bla, bla, from all of us.
Take any non damped or not well damped tonearm and try to damp it wraping or whatever ( with the right material. ) its arm wand and at the same time follow what I posted here in the whole audio system and after first hand experiences not a couple hours experiences but with time because we have to accustom tho this all NEW EXPERIENCE.
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’s happen in this same forum when I brought here: the MM true alternative, the necessity of subwoofers, the DD TT alternative, the alternative to tonearms with universal removable headshell, no plynth in DD TT and many other audio " experiences ".
Almost all tell me the same " BS " or laughed of me but they were not willing to try but when finally ( months/years latter. ) they decided to do it that " laughs and BS " disappears for ever on those alternatives. So, try it before tell me again and again that my ignorance level is to high.
I don’t have any single benefit in that you try it, I never post to achieve personal benefits and I’m not against no one of you. I only try to share all my first hand experiences.
Please, as I posted before, don't try to beat me because this is not a contest but an excersice to learn or not all of us. That's all. Don't try to look for that single " word " where I could be wrong, be more positive and opened to what you have not experiences.
*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.*
Any further explanation? Factory alignment nulls are 59.2 and 120.4mm? Somewhat unusual, inner null is close to Stevenson and outer is close to Baerwald. What alignment do you use?
Why is everyone going after Raul and each other. This place is a forum to discuss our findings, what our ideas are, etc. There is no need to discount anyone's opinion....since that is all that this stuff is. It may be truth for oneself, but not for everyone. ...put on a record and relax.
I don't know why, but I'll join in the combat.... I was using a VPI 10.5i which has the provision for damping. If I drop a drop of damping fluid in the chamber, listening to the Benz LPS, nothing happens. After another drop and another, the sound improves until adding another drop, shrinks the soundstage, blurs the back of the auditorium, etc. Take one drop out with a Qtip, and perfection is again restored.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lewm, Dover, I assume this is the UNI-DIN alignment I read about (Fremer?). Nulls at 66.3 and 112.5mm. If you hunt down the article you'll see the curves for alignment error. It looks pretty good. I'm reluctant to call alignment error, distortion. Unless/until someone correlates alignment error with a master type source and a distortion analyzer, I think the use of the term distortion is misleading. Some people throw this word around who clearly don't know what they're talking about.
I don't have an FR arm and I haven't read the past threads. It's a little hard to imagine how or why increasing mounting distance 1.5mm would make a significant difference. The only thing I could come up with is a miniscule reduction in offset angle. I believe perception of differences is sometimes fueled by anticipation and expectations, although I'm not saying that is the case here. It could be that Jupiter aligned with Mars and Dertonearm is the 7th son of a 7th son born on a blood moon (whatever that is). Don't take offense here, I'm a sarcastic type.
It's interesting to note, the factory nulls minimize inner groove problems with that null being close to the run out groove. The outer null is close to Baerwald. UNI-DIN moves the inner null out near Baerwald, and 112.5 puts the outer null in closer than Loefgren(B). I think this minimizes error in the center of the grooves where error is highest.
Dover, VE has a free protractor called Chpratz. It's just a calibrated straight line. With it, you could experiment with different alignments, although it's not easy to set up like a Dennesen.
Dear fleib: """ your bit about pure musical information going through the wires is bizarre. Of course you can overdamp an arm. Look at the output on a scope. """
of course is bizarre but remember that I’m talking on an " ideal and perfect audio world "": that’s what all audiophiles want ( ""
pure musical information going through the wires...""" ) and only can dream with. At least me.
Why? because that’s not posible with so many vibration/noise/resonances/distortions/anomalies sources that not only surround the LP/cartridge but where any single part of the whole analog rig has and intimate relationship in between others making more complex to identify each one source of those " overall anomalies " and the result when those single source " anomalies " are mixed with the other ones coming for the other analog rig sources and that’s why we need to " overdamp " each one of those sources of " overall anomalies " that always degrade the recorded signal because all those " anomalies does not exist in the recorded signal that comes in the LP groove modulations.
Now, I posted this so try to give you the answer to that WHY? and share your answer or answers with all of us:
"""" Why exist the still points, vibraplane platforms, after market tubes dampers and " better " tubes circuit board bases, items to damp speakers/CD players/amps/preamps, cable elevators, clamps and TT mats, room treatment, speaker designers that take care of internal cabinet damping along the choosed build materials, speaker designers that take care seriously that the speaker crossover be perfectly damped and even designs with an external crossover, we audiophuiles that are looking how to kill vibrations anywhere the audio system?
Why every one: designers, manufacturers, reviewers, customers are looking where is that best damping item? WHY? """""
Yes, we can damp a tonearm or any other audio item at different damping levels even " overdamp " looking at the output of a scope ( as you said it. ) and this is part of the main subject of what I’m talking about. In an ideal world what I need is that looking to that scope signal exist no " anomalies/deviations " of any kind to preserve that critical/sensitive/fragile " pure music information traveling in the internal tonearm wires ".
" Overdamp "?, to whom? where is the damage to the music signal coming in the wires that comes from what’s recorded in the LP grooves modulations?
I made those questions to you and any one but first that any one even think about I would like to ask to you and the other contributors in this thread this:
DO YOU WANT TO LISTEN WHAT THE PHONO CARTRIDGE PICK UP FROM THE LP MODULATIONS WITH OUT ANY SINGLE " ANOMALIES " OR YOU WANT TO LISTEN IT WITH ADDED FULL CONTAMINATION OF EVERY KIND OF SYSTEM GENERATED DISTORTIONS?
that’s my target and for I can be nearer tho that target I have to mantain at minimum all the audio system generated " anomalies " at each single system link and damping is only an important step to do it along other steps.
Due that that’s my main target I have not fear to " overdamp " because according with that target no one can do it.
Which your target?
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
PS: btw, there is in this thread a gentleman that ( some years ago ) , if I remember, posted answering to an Agoner that " we can´t overdamp " a TT or platter TT " ( more or less. ).
I know he is reading this and I hope he can post about because is a person that I have high respect for his knowledge level and if he posted that I know he has several reasons about.
Sorry Raul, You can't lump all types of vibrations into a pile and deal with them by damping. It doesn't work that way. Damping doe not kill vibrations, it mitigates the affects. In this case fluid damping an arm pivot can reduce the amplitude of resonance by approx. 50% depending on compliance, mass etc. Damping does not stop the resonance, it redistributes it over a wider frequency range with a less severe peak.
Overdamp the pivot, and as the name implies it's too much, it impedes motion. That's why Stingreen and Crazy Bill experienced negative affects with overdamping. There are other ways to deal with vibration depending on type and situation.
The use of mass is a way to convert vibrations to heat. Consider Mosin's Saskia table. It has a 200 lb. plinth made of slate. Even though slate is good at transmitting vibrations the mass converts them to heat. Another way is to dissipate vibrations and convert to heat or direct them out of the table. Some coupling should be rigid, not damped. Overdamp everything on a table and the sound turns to mush (opposite of live music).
Dear fleib: Of course there are several ways to damp and oil damping is only one of them, I posted several ways to do it in several audio system links but I talked too ofdamping through self damped build materials and a blend of build materials. I talked too that we can’t just disappear overall distortions but that the target is to mantain it at minimum. Some kind of damping helps to change the frequency range where those distortionas happens or to convert to other kind of energy or lowering its SPL, etc, etc. I did not said nothing against all these.
Twe oil used on unipivots is used because mainly because its natural unstability of that kind of design but not really to damp overall the tonearm ( the only unipivot I own that does not needs bearing oil is the Satin. ). I heard too what stringreen posted in my Audiocraft but insiste that’s not the damping ( every kind. ) I’m talking about. The damping mechanism used in the Technics EPA-100 or in the MAX 237 or in the SME V are out of the tonearm bearing because are not unipivots. In non-unipivots designs oil/silicon kind of damping goes out side bearings.
A kind of damp is that the arm wand be tapered as the cartridge cantilevers or as the SAEC and I think the VPI using 2-3 metal parts ( in the arm wand. ) joined.
The important subject here is that does not matters which kind of damping is used because all the system audio links need it. A non damped TT, cartridge, speaker or tonearm is only a " distortions generator ".
As I said the target is to mantain at minimum any kind of distortion. Insist we can’t really " overdamp ".
Now, it’s not only: " hey I need to damp ". No, we have to know where to do it, how to do it and what use to make that damp.
Btw, you don’t answer that big: WHY and what you want to listen.
The simple definition of damping is to reduce oscillation. If we use a broader definition as in physics, it would be to reduce or dissipate vibration. I was making a distinction between different types of vibration control, but it does not matter. Critical damping is just enough to prevent vibration or enough to allow something to return to its rest position. Overdamping is a state where vibration is prevented to the extent that a moving part is prevented from movement.
A fluid damped tonearm does not have to have the fluid located at the pivot, for the pivot to be damped. Attach a paddle to the base of an armtube and have it dipped in a fluid trough when tracking a record, and you're damping the pivot. Overdamp the pivot and you're restricting arm movement.
There are two kinds of damping used in tone arms. One is damping of the arm tube- in this case its impossible to overdamp it, except that there might be the issue of adding too much mass to the arm!
The other is to damp the **motion** of the arm. This is done with a damping trough or similar. In this case there is no question that the arm can be overdamped!
I'm just putting this out there in case there is confusion about what is meant by 'overdamping'. We need to be talking about the same things!
I like the Triplanar because its arm tube is well damped; independently of that it has a damping trough in case you want to damp its motion.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
