Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas
Dear Henry, You already know that I am a sick person in connection with the tonearms. Add to that the paradox of an not technical guy fond of technical specs. To my mind
the FR-7 and FR-7 f differ only qua styli. FR-7 line contact, FR-7f conical stylus. The FR-7fz has a higher output(0,22 mV) which should mean more wire in the coil. But their valuation make no sense to me.Those should be the other way round. That is to say I am so fond of my FR-7 that I WANT this one to be the best.

Ragards,
Hello John...Thank you for your interest... I cannot go into much detail about the arms resonate quality's or lack there of...but I will tell you Being non dampened in the conventional sense does not mean its not damped in a unconventional sense....I hope this helps..

our bearing comparing to other arms are greatly substantial they are huge by comparison! possibly not 100 times but none the less they are large

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Dear Nikola,
Not hearing any 'fatness' with the FR-7f(mod) in the FR-66s on the Raven......however, with my UNIverse in the FR-64s on the TT-101.....I am currently experiencing what seems like another half octave as well as a widened soundstage.
There seems to be an anomaly here as the UNIverse has never sounded quite like this......nor has any arm/cartridge combination?
I'll see if it's the hashish when I listen tomorrow?
My MC loading is fixed at 220 Ohms in the Halcro DM10.
The loadings and capacitance are only variable on the MM input.
Dear Dover, I was not sure how to translate German 'higher
midds' and was also not sure if the 'upper midds' is a more
adequate English expression. But assuming that technical
persons among us can determine this frequency range
then the kind of the needed demping will be also more clear(?).
Regarding the 'fatness' of the bass I am very curious if
Henry also experimented with loading by his FR-64/66 /FR-7
combos? In my second system my choice is limited to 50, 100,
250 and 500 Ohm. I started with 100 , then 50 Ohm and
prefer the later.

Regards,
Lharasim,

"Halcro if you have laying around put a denon 103 or more better..103d ....you will be spoiled forever! a great sound altogether!"

Have you ever heard the 103d on the Grace P660 tonearm? I know that the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation used this combination as their stock choice. The Grace is not that easy to get hold of at present but, should the opportunity arise, I would strongly recommend you give it an audition. I no longer have my Denons but still own that gem of an arm.

Hope that helps

As always...
Hello, Lharasim,
Sorry to be a little late. I was interested to see your arm, but am confused by you saying:
We(Musical Arts) have a non damped arm

Do you mean you prefer a resonant arm tube?

Also, I don't see from your picture how your arm has
100 times larger bearings
.
J
.
Nandric -if I was looking for criticism, yes I would say the bass is slightly "fat", but it is quick and without loss of information. The female vocal roughness, cant hear that.
Thucan - how do these vintage arms work without antiskate ?
According to the review in the German Magazine 'Das Ohr' (The ear; nr.7, 1984) there are two 'tiny faults' by the FR-64S. In the higher midds there is a 'tiny roughness'
by vocals with a small accentuation of the guttural(sound).
The second is by the low frequenties by which there is a tendency to reproduce bass darker and more voluminous than one would call 'natural'. To prevent a further accentuation of those 'faults' one should be careful to fasten the screws on the counterweight, lift and anti-skate weight.
I was not able to notice any 'guttural' faults with my FR-64/ FR-7 combo but by switching the pre from 100 to 50 Ohm I noticed well the reduction of the 'voluminous' bass
to a more 'natural' kind.

Regards,
If we are engaging a little in the tonearm field after having covered the headshell questions ending up with the ultimate headshell we might not forget one of the best designs ever, the Old Ortofon Arms, e.g. RMA 309 or the Mono version RF 297. These were ingenious designs, looking very simple but they are not and sound like heaven...
Lewm, just to clarify my comments on the FR64 - "highs go on forever" - I dont mean extended or highlighted. I am talking about the natural decay of each note. I'm sure others will have their own views, but if I was to try and describe a "resonance" in a hifi context I would say it is an excitement at a particular frequency. What I would expect to hear from a resonance would be a peak in the response at a particular frequency, time and phase distortions around that frequency, and masking of detail, natural overtones etc. I cant see any "resonance" being an enhancement.
As I suggested at the outset, try it. I would expect it to produce quite a different set of outcomes than from your other arms.
Dear Henry/Halcro, I enjoy the banter, but in this case, I don't get the point. Are you trying to say that you find the additional screw-head on the surface of the repro B60 to be offensive to your sense of esthetics? Yes, I do find those fiber-glass 550 Spyder replicas also to be esthetically offensive compared to my late lamented original, but the replicas can be made to go much faster, with bigger more powerful engines, made by (yechhhh) Volkswagen. In the case of the B60, all I care about is that it works and does seem to be of high quality and therefore weighty enough to provide the added benefit to the tonearm of its mass.

Dover, I fear that I may seem contentious by posing this question, but believe me I do not intend it that way. We are all on the same yellow brick road. Do you suppose that the highs that go on forever, that you perceive with your FR64S, are in fact a symptom of a resonating arm tube, which may enhance upper harmonics? (I own one too, don't forget.) Or, maybe it is worth discussing what would be the expected effect on sonics of tonearm "resonance", a phrase that we all use and abuse. The gospel is also that MCs put much more energy into the headshell/tonearm compared to MMs, because of the typically lower compliance of their cantilevers. So that's a factor as well, if true.

What's interesting about the MA505 tonearm is that in chronologically successive versions they made the VTA adjustment less and less revolutionary and more and more conventional. I owned a Mk III version, and by then they had totally eschewed the adjuster you describe in favor of a functionally more usual one, albeit they retained the very useful lever for tightening. Do you suppose that the VTA adjuster on the Mk I was found to be prone to slippage?
Halcro if you have laying around put a denon 103 or more better..103d ....you will be spoiled forever! a great sound altogether! another good match is P176 mm cartridge

I own one myself..

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Oh yes In_shore,
My MA-505s is my 'go-to' tonearm for any new MM cartridge I obtain......because it's so easy to find the correct VTF, and VTA which I can then transfer for this cartridge in all the other arms.
And just like you......I also have only used MMs in my Micro. I'm a bit loathe to try the low compliance LOMCs in case I'm disappointed?!
I'll have to do it some day I think. After all......the ZYX UNIverse sounded just fine in the low mass Hadcock GH-228 I used to have?
I didn't know that about the Micro headshell?
There is the 303X and 304X I think? One has the 2 holes and one doesn't. I have three of those that DON'T have the 2 holes.
But does that mean there is a jig for setting the overhang of the cartridge a la Phantom?
The only beaf I have with the 505.....is trying to find the centre of the pivot to measure spindle to pivot distance?
There is simply no indication? :-(
Other than that.....I believe this arm to be the other great bargain in used arm prices.
It has never failed to extract the best performances from my MMs.
And it's just sooo beautiful! :-)
An important consideration......just ask Nandric!
Dear Henry, 'the medical researcher and the lawyer' will never claim to have esthetical feelings or insight comparable to an architect. Besides they are sometimes
pragmatic. More in particular about the money. BTW I already consulted my machinist about the black (knulred) knob. He can produce one that is 2mm larger in diameter from whatever substance I want for 20 Euro (labour). My dilemma is between gold or platinum. The part about Porsche I will gladly leave to Lew. I know nothing about those.

Regards,
Halcro are you still using your MS MA505 with all the other terrific tone arms you own? I don't think you would ever get an argument from anyone about its design features and like the Fidelity research just beautiful to use and look at. Something you may or maynot know about a set up fearture the first hole in the 505 head shell is for setting pivot to spindle distance, re: Graham Engineering's modern method for p to s.
I use MM exclusively in the 505s and a vintage Accuphase ac2 and modern Lyra mc in my Fidelity research 64s.
Dear Nikola,
Yes, Lew eschewed the 2mm difference in diameter as a negligible concern....and in truth...so did you?
But the smaller diameter of the knurled plastic knob was only one of the differences I listed to assist anyone in their discovery....as indeed....until a week ago, I was ignorant on these issues.
But the thing that causes me concern.....is the visible (and sometimes surface mounted} screw on the top-plate!
Trust the aesthetically challenged lawyer and medical researcher to miss the real point?
If I mentioned to Lew that I had a perfectly functional replica of a Porsche 550 Spyder which I can drive around the streets every day instead of keeping the $1Million-$3Million real one in the garage.......he would (I imagine) take a different stance altogether? :-)
I never claimed that the Fidelity Research B-60 Base was the best VTA adjustment device I have experienced?
That accolade must go to the Micro Seiki MA-505 device which uses an ingenious cam device which one operates by sliding a horizontal lever in a clockwise or anti-clockwise direction. The lever locks with a twist of the fingers at the end....so that 'on-the-fly' adjustment becomes a quick, one-handed operation. Sheer genius!?
Why no-one else has copied this method continues to puzzle me?
Likewise for their dynamic VTF adjustment which.....unlike the FR Series arms....is able to be dialled in 'on-the-fly'.
Did they stop there?.......how about Anti-Skate adjusted 'on-the-fly' as well??!
And then there's the Azimuth adjustment screw which most of these types of tonearms are missing?
Micro Seiki knew their onions alright.....but is there a weakness in their solutions which prevents other designers from imitating?

The FR B-60 base is just a well made fairly basic device which, because of its robustness....continues to perform flawlessly 35 years later.
I don't think the same can be said for that of the Phantom VTA adjustment?
It's interesting to note that Continuum designed their VTA Tower very similarly to that of the B-60?
In fact when I was designing my bronze armpods....I designed the internal 'cut-out' to accommodate the 'barrel' of the Continuum VTA Tower.
When I inserted the B-60 Base for my FR-64s......it fitted with not even 1mm to spare?!!
Thank you Continuum!
Dear Dover: Yes, "Sumiko Analogue Survival Kit". Thank's. As I posted other alternative to damp and test different tonearms is to use O-rings, not only one but 2-3-4 in different arm wand positions till we can achieve what we are looking at or to leave the tonearm with out that after-market damping.

re4gards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, good eye on the fulton cartridge... not the one i acquired from you...

several of these arms are in use as we speak..please contact me offline for more information etc..

thanks for your interest

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Dear Lharasim: Thank's to to invite all of us to your Premier Tonearm that for the Musical Arts description seems to me could be a Premier tonearm and an interesting design for any music lover.

Is it ready on stock?

Btw, that cartridge looks like a LOMC Fulton one: is it?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Lewm,
If this fuse comparision (cutting them in half and comparing them from the inside), happens, make sure you use the lastest batch of fuses from Acme. He has recently made changes to the coating of the fuse and has gotten great feedback from some trustworthy sources. Contact Michael for additional information.
Regards,
Don
FR64S arm resonance - I am not getting any resonances that impair the playback from the arm thus far. I am getting more information, better harmonic structure and the decay of piano notes, bells, etc goes on forever, seemingly free from interruption of unwanted resonances right through the mid to top end, which is where I would expect the worst resonances to appear. Minute changes in VTA azimuth etc are magnified greatly with this arm which suggests the resolution is very high given a decent TT, cartridge and system. I'm using the Ikeda headshell. Note here my other current arms to hand are the Naim Aro, Dynavector 501 & ET2 and have previously owned SME V, Zeta, Odyssey, Sumiko, Hadcock, Helius Omega & Well Tempered to name a few.
Maybe it's working exceptionally because my turntable is specifically designed to sink energy to ground.
Final Audio also sold their own version of the Fidelity Research FR7f that was more than twice the price of the FR - 230000yen vs 100000yen for the FR7f. It is most likely that the FR64 was one of the arms used in the development of my Final Audio TT. The FR66 doesn't fit so thats out of this equation.
The designer of the Final rejected the Dynavector 505 as unable to transfer energy, but with the introduction of the 501 with the stiffer front bearings and the conventional spindle and collet clamp, he changed his mind and purchased a 501 for use in the Final Audio test system of the day.
Raul - re the tonearm arm wrap - yes it was called the "Sumiko Analogue Survival Kit" which included a very thin fiber tt mat & a tonearm wrap to dampen the tonearm. All it did was warm up and smooth out the colourations from substandard or poorly matched arms and cartridges.
Raul, We(Musical Arts) have a non damped arm per say that we manufacture(me)and my partner

there are many ingenious ways to handle these problems..

our arm has 100 times larger bearings just one aspect...have a look

http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=8202.0

sincerely

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Contrarian that I am, I mainly built the slate plinths on my own to flout the very high prices typically charged for them and the snotty attitude of one vendor, as well as to find out if slate is any good for a plinth. Anyway, I would never claim that my plinths are as beautiful as some of the commercial efforts,and my conclusion is that slate is excellent for a plinth material but may benefit further from some constrained layer damping.

Thanks for your response, Raul. I was thinking about trying ordinary shrink tubing to damp the FR arm wand if needed. However it would add a few grams of mass that would be evenly distributed between headshell and pivot. Of course, then we would not be able to see the beautiful machined and shiny arm wand.
Dear Lewm: I think Timeltel and Dgarretson own or owned the EPA 500 and can put additional light on that. I can say that with my samples the VTA is really smooth, yes the tonearm base in that toonearm and in the EPA-100MK2 is " no sense " but the mechanism works great and yes the B-60 adds mass down there than in some way can help, this is what SAEC and MS tonearm designs did it.

Damping, you put the nail where it hurts because this is IMHO the first and main " problem " with the FR ones: are an undamped design, the arm wand has no single damping characteristics and the steel is way resonant by it self and certainly does not damps the cartridge resonances and its relationship with the tonearm. The other " problem " is when is used as dynamic balance way because in this regards share a problem with other dynamic balanced tonearm designs because the ringing mechanism in that kind of design, the only dynamic balanced designs I know has not that problem are: MS MAX and the Lustre that were designed in different way. I tested the FR in both ways several times with several cartridges and at least in my set up always performs better in static balanced way.

Many years ago Sumiko ( maybe some one remember it: Dover?? ) put in the market a kit to tweack analog rig, inside that kit came a transparent and flexible ribbon/band of 30cms to goes around any tonearm wands and the purpose was to damp it. It works really fine, I use it with my SAECs and with the FR and it helps more that what we can think. I still have these ribbons.

Obviously that this kind of damping change the performance characteristics about quality even on very well damped tonearms. Yes, IMHO we have to try not only with the FRs but with any single other tonearm and see what happen. The ribbon was extremely light in weight so no big deal about. Unfortunately Sumiko left to sale it.

Of course we can use other kind of ribbon or rings through the tonearm wand testing with different ring materials.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lew, With an 'infinite' number of arguments to yours
(mind) disposal there is always the possibility of some contradictions. For example: 'practical'? = one box CD.
But then: '...in favor of an EPA 100 ,which seems more practical to mount'. This however was my point by my 'practical considerations'. But I promise to never ever again question your impressive and beautiful slate plinths.

Regards,
Addendum, I forget to elaborate on the Japanese Kurt from Hawaii. He made much effort to produce those 'exact replicas' of the B-60 but he also mentioned that those are made in Japan. He sold his first batch of 10 (?) for $500 each but was not able to make any profit and give up. He also told me that some (smart) Swiss purchased his last 4 or so. Now the following question seems to put it self with 3 or more questions marks. So how is it possible that those guys from Taiwan can make profit on those 'exact replicas' for $400 each? My quess is that those are made by the glorious people of China with the leadership of the glorious communist party. However for $700 difference I don't mind that the black (knurled)knob is the whole 2 mm smaller.
"Practical"? Practical is a one-box CD player. Not one bit of what we talk about is practical. I designed the slates to work with surface-mount tonearms. I have a very competent water-jet guy who can make holes in them wherever I want, for tonearms that require such in order to accommodate a vertical shaft that goes through a hypothetical arm board. To avoid that, I use some very nice surface mount tonearms, as you know, the Reed, Triplanar, and DV505. The L07D affords me the opportunity to use the other kind. Thickness of the Lenco and DP80 slates is 2 inches. Thickness of the SP10 Mk3 slate is 2.5 inches, in a sandwich with a 3-inch thick slab of baltic birch and cherrywood. The latter makes an audible difference and I may do it for the Lenco and DP80, if I don't sell them.

Raul, I am not in the camp with FR lovers, yet. I have yet to hear mine. I bought it out of curiosity, because of all the favorable mentions that it gets here, and because it seems to be better to own it than to have the money in the stock market right now. I also do own a Technics EPA500. That one has the fattest base imaginable; I don't know what they were thinking when they designed it. I may sell it in favor of an EPA100, which seems more practical to mount. My personal observation with my EPA500 is that the VTA adjustment is "stiff", to say the least. I think the lubricants have decayed with time. I am not so impressed as you may be with that part. The Reed, Triplanar, Talea type of VTA adjust seems better to me. IMO, the B60 does potentially more for the FR tonearms than simply to provide for easy VTA adjustment; it also adds substantial mass at the base, which might be advantageous for absorbing and dissipating some of the resonant energy that you otherwise hear. Did you try damping the arm wand of the FR64S? I have heard this is worth doing, but none of the users here seem to have done it.
If our Lew was a lawyer he would be certainly already a
rich guy. When we all are out of arguments he just starts.
Henry made a whole list of arguments , in a neat order, but
with one single strock (the difference between $1100 and
$400) all of them were destroyed. More in particular the
dimensions of the black (knulred) knob. If he only
had more spare time to finish all of his already started
programme and post his conclusions. However his weak
'spot' are obviuously those beautiful but not very practical
slate plinths. No way one can install the FR-64
in there. What are the thikness dimensions of those babys?
Lewm,
The Dynavector Nova is a medium compliance cartridge - 15-18 cm/dyne and only weighs 9gm despite the Ebony body, so should favour the Dynavector arm if anything. I agree comments are subject to this tt, arm, cartridge, phono, etc....
Raul, as always there are no definitives - ET2/Naim Aro/Dynavector 501/FR64S all radically different sound, there are sonic attributes that you can ascribe to these in general, but of course different cartridges will interact differently.
Dear Lewm: You have to remember what you posted here:

++++++ " http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1269720804&openflup&20&4#20 " +++++

when that " experiment " started: pivot vs tangential/linear trackers tonearm I recomended him to make it with the Lustre GST-801 but he trust in the FR advise. He followed each single tonearm/cartridge set up advcise and even he bought the audioquest tonearm cable by that advise.

You know the result, he prefered the ET and sold the FR.

I don't want to go in this heavy controversial ( for me ) FR subject with so many FR lovers around here. To analize this FR tonearm we need not only absolutely open mind but no single bias in neither way: favor or against it. This is very dificult to achieve for almost any of us so I prefer that some of you enjoy what you likes ( as always ) even that IMHO is a wrong way to do it, not the worst way but certainly not the best. I still own the FR64 with an original B-60 and around one a half year ago I sold my second B-60 sample for less than 500.00.. It is a good VTA mechanism but not in the way that the FR promoters wants we think ( even if those promoters already convinced some of you. ).
If you really want the best VTA mechanism till today then you have to own either the Technics EPA-100MK2 or the EPA500, this is a " serious " VTA " mechanism.

Dover, maybe you are not aware yet the FR arm wand resonances but sooner or latter ( like me. ) you will. Take note thet J.Carr is a cartridge designer whom has to make " hundreds " of tests for his different designs over several years and through a " dream system " ( his system . ) with almost any single tonearm out side ( vintage and today designs. ) and not only with his own designs but with several competition cartridges. You can speak/talk on almost any cartridge and JC already tested.

I'm along Mepearson with J.Carr on that subject. Yes, we are only a " few " but at least we are aware of it.

As always posted: distortions of every kind are the ones that makes " the difference " on quality performance level. Of course that as with any tonearm could be some cartridges that " loves " FR but IMH experiences almost none.

Ok, go a head on fuses or better yet on cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Lewm,
* On the original top circular plate there are no fixing screws at all. On the copies....with the knob at 6 o'clock.....there is a fixing screw at 3 o'clock (countersunk grubscrew on the good copies and surface mounted Phillips on the poor).
Looking DOWN on the top of the circular plate with the black knurled knob.
For the $600+ difference in cost between the price for an original that you quote and the very fine copy that I bought and which works fine with my FR64S "silver wire inside", I will happily live with the disappointment that my knurled knob is 17mm and not 19mm in diameter. For that matter, I could not find an original B60 for any price, let alone $1100. Top Class had one for a while, I know. They have a ridiculously inflated value because of collectors who just want to own one. In fact, I am glad I bought mine when I did, because Nandric's post leads me to believe that even the repro is NLA.

Halcro, I see the grub screws on the barrel as essential to gripping the vertical shaft of the tonearm. Do you mean to say the original lacks such? How then does it grip the tonearm shaft?

What interests me is that Raul has always been underwhelmed with the FR tonearms, yet I have not heard from anyone else here who is disappointed in the slightest degree with the FR64S or the FR66S. Either we are all like monkeys, happy with anything shiny, or Raul is "wrong", which would be unusual. Disagreeable at times, yes, but not truly wrong.

Dover, I will let you know what I think of the FR64S, but the project to make a mount for it will likely take a few months to get done. As in all things vinyl, I am sure you would agree that your assessment of the two tonearms has to be related to the single cartridge that you used to compare them. The DV501 can be set up for very low effective mass and so might not mate as well with a low compliance cartridge, like the one you name I assume, as would the FR.
The B-60 VTA Base is an interesting story.
Fidelity Research originally made these for their big 12" arms like the FR-66s whilst the smaller FR-64s usually relied on manually loosening grub screws to lift or drop the arm.
I don't know how many B-60 Bases were made for separate sale.......but as a result.......there is a scarcity of original B-60 Bases and the last one on its own I saw advertised about 2 years ago, was priced at $1100?
There have been a few copies of the B-60 Base over the years, and they vary in quality.
A 'giveaway' that you are looking at a copy includes:-
* The black knurled knob for adjusting height on the original is 19mm diameter. On the copies.....it is 17mm diameter.
* On the original.....looking down on the circular plate....the stainless steel is linished (brushed) in a circular pattern. On the lesser copies....the plate is polished.
* On the original top circular plate there are no fixing screws at all. On the copies....with the knob at 6 o'clock.....there is a fixing screw at 3 o'clock (countersunk grubscrew on the good copies and surface mounted Phillips on the poor).
* There are also a few additional screws and/or holes on the side barrel of the copies which you don't really see once installed?
* The 'oozing' clear grease on the VTA barrel is another feature of the copies which isn't there on the originals.
* The 'action' of the knurled black knob is tight on both originals and copies but on the originals......there is a slight free movement in both directions before 'takeup' whilst the copies have no movement.

No matter how good the copies.....when I look down and see the smaller black knob and screw-hole......I feel slightly disappointed?
Lewm,
I was keen to get your view independently, but since you asked.
I removed the Dynavector Nova 13 from the 501 and mounted it in the FR64S.
The FR has opened up and fleshed out the midrange, bags more info through the mids than the Dynavector 501 and I suspect the Aro as well.
Reminds me a bit of the Sumiko The Arm/Koetsu Onyx Gold vdh combo I heard years ago – bags of rich and ripe harmonic structure.
Soundstage is big deep and wide, similar to the Naim Aro but with more precision. The soundstage from the Dynavector arm is more compact, has very good lateral precision of instruments within the soundstage, but soundstage depth is truncated ( in my system ). I read through some of the historical posts and noted J Carrs comments about arm tube resonance in the FR and the need for dampening, but I'm not hearing any resonance, more a lack of resonance.
At first I thought it a bit slow, but its getting better all the time. I had a good Jazz session last night and the pace and timing were fair humping.
Halcro was right about the fit and finish, I cant imagine many moderns arms looking this good and having such beautiful bearing feel after 20+ years. Ikeda also has an aversion to jewelled bearings - maybe he has something there.
I wouldn't be inclined to change the grease in the B60, I normally favour rigidity through the arm/cartridge/tt/platter loop and VTA adjusters usually are quite sloppy. The FR B60 is quite impressive to me that you can do VTA but the mechanism seems quite rigid, if a little stiff.
Nandric, FYI the rear tonearm mount on the L07D can be made as large as one wants (which means it can project to the rear of the turntable as far as one's shelving will permit) when in the first place one is making a new mount on a custom basis. All that is required is that it has to line up with the mounting bolts on the L07D chassis. Thus in fact I could mount an FR66S or for that matter a 16-inch transcription tonearm, if I so desire. I have an original accessory rear mount that Kenwood sold for use with an SAEC tonearm which I will use as a template to make a couple of new blank mounts for various tonearms of interest to me. Kenwood made accessory rear mounts for at least 4 or 5 specific Japanese tonearms, as far as I can find out, but they are as rare as hen's teeth.
Dear Lew, When I wanted to add a second tonearm to my Kuzma
S.R. the space on the left back side was not even suitable
for an 9'' tonearm. That is why I ordered the arm as well
as the armpod by the Reed. Now it is only my quess that you
will need an 9 '' tonearm for your Kenwood. The FR-64 is
actually an havy and 'huge' tonearm. The Baerwald distance
is 231,5 cm. (spindle to pivot). I assume that you will not
be able to use your cover in conjunction with the FR-64 or
smaller arm?
I consulted the seller of those B-60 VTA adjuster. Actually
the whole 'adventure' was initiated by some Japanese who
called himself 'Kurt' but lives in Hawai.This guy made the
drowings, etc. and ordered the production in Japan (?).
That is anyway what he told me. But he was not able to sell
them with any profit. So he give up. But I bought one of
those that he 'produced' and deed not notice then that his
was as 'stiff' as the one I bought on A'gon market. So I
disassemled the whole thing, cleaned the sticky silicon oil
and substituted for a ball bearing grease. It moves now
when I look strongly at the thing and comand which way I
want the thing to go: up or down.

Regards,
Dear Thuchan, As you of course know I am a suporter of the
German group but because of my nature ( a born Serbian worrior) I can't be counted as a German. My problem with the FR-66 are the dimensions. Strange that even an architect was not able to see this( all those huge buildings at present?). The FR-64 s is actually an 10'' arm ( that is why I am skeptical reg. Lew's intentions) and the most beautiful tonearm ever made. I own two selected specimens and am sure that I deed not miss enything. But you should be able to provide info about those 'huge' Ortofons SPU carts as well how they compare with the FR-7 variations?

Regards,
Nandric, I guess the very same reproduction version of the B60 was or is sold both on eBay and on Audiogon, so I imagine you bought the same product I bought. I noticed it is pretty "stiff" to adjust the height, but how did you change the lubricant? Did you disassemble the thing?

I will mount the FR64S in the secondary position on the L07D. I would never muck around with the primary tonearm and its mount, which would be necessary if one wanted to displace the L07J tonearm, unless by chance the replacement tonearm has the identical pivot to stylus distance and the exact same diameter of its vertical shaft under the pivot. I don't know of any such tonearm. If the Sumiko indeed fits those requirements, I would still not accept a priori that it is necessarily any better or even as good as the L07J. But on the other hand, I have no way to compare the two. I can only say that the L07J must represent the state of the art as Kenwood engineers saw it circa 1980, suitable for use on their statement turntable.
Dear Lew, 'the one that was being sold on eBay.' The arm
or the B60 VTA adjuster? I bought the B-60 on the A'gon market but my specimen had some kind of silicon oil inside which I removed and substituted for a ball bearing grease. This way the B-60 moves much more smooth. Is your intention to install the FR-64s instead of the LO7D tonearm or as the second arm in the back (left) side of your TT? My quess is that the Sumiko 800 (aka 'the arm') is 'as made' for this purpose. I own one of those, complete with all 5 counterweights...

Regards,
Dear Nandric,
The FR-66s will remain as one of the Giants of the last century (among two or three others) whatever happens in the next years. So Halcro did the right thing. Maybe you lost your chance... I will not neglect that improvements are always possible.

As you know I formed a new group. At the moment I am undercover in the Mexican group but pls. keep it with you.
One reason I am "married" to the fuses in fuse-holders is that I measure plate current across the empty fuse-holder, after removing the fuses. I then can adjust each output tube for equal current and the whole output stage for near zero DC offset. (In reality, I can get DC offset down to a few mA.) I have built a pretty neat little system box that attaches to each amplifier, when I want to re-bias, and it all depends upon being able to remove the fuses. If I can figure out how to maintain that bias capability with soldered fuse elements, I would seriously consider fuse wires. One way would be to measure voltage across a resistor, but there are no resistors in the circlotron output stage. Thinking.

I bought a replica B60 base to go with my FR64S, the one that was being sold on eBay. Build quality is nothing short of superb, and I cannot imagine that the original is any better. I do have plans to mount it on my L07D. But can you say how the FR64S differs sonically from the DV505, and with what cartridge(s)? I don't think one should take the cartridge out of the equation, when comparing two very good tonearms.
Dear Henry, I am not sure if your FR-7 is 7f? I searched on the net and was suprised to see that FR-7 has a line contact- while the 7f has the conical stylus. If I remember well your original stylus was conical while Axel provided line contact pressure fitted in a aluminum cantilever. This upgrad is (lucky us) still available for the old price. I am sorry to tell you that your second FR-66 may be an error. I discovered that the 'German group'
is selling their FR-66 probable in connection with the new tonearm by the 'tonearm' Dertonarm. According to my info this arm will be available next month? I agree that FR-64S is a bergain but in my opinion because this one is much more beatuful than the 'monster brother'. Anyway I own two of those and intend to wait till the price get the right valuation. But of more interest to me at present is if you ever try those 'huge' Ortofon SPU carts? BTW at last a kind of an 'international group' against those damn Germans: New Zealand, Australia and (I count for two) Serbia + Holland.

Regards,
Dear Nikola,
It's good to see you enjoy the FR-7 cartridge in the FR-64s arm.
A match made in heaven IMHO.
Dover....I also have the FR-64s with 'SILVER INSIDE LEADS' and the B-60 VTA Tower.
I had one with copper wiring prior to this one......but I can't validly claim to hear differences?
The FR-64s is the greatest bargain in used tonearms IMHO......and I consider you very lucky to have yours.
In my experience.....a truly universal arm which manages to extract the very best from all types of cartridges I have tried.
Without interchangeable headshells.....my DaVinci 12" Grandezza gets little use amongst my 6 arms and I was looking at replacing it with one that does have removable shells.
After looking at most of the possibilities, and weighing up the risks involved......I thought to myself....."How can any arm be better than the FR-66s"....which I already own?
So I bought another one!!?
But the prices of these monsters make those of the FR-64s look like ridiculous bargains?
Nandric, thanks. I'm not generally a fan of silver, but it doesn't seem to be doing much wrong in this instance. I have put in a MIT phono cable ( my owned stripped out version ) which may help. Ikeda himself recommends a copper arm cable with his silver wired arms to balance the sound. The arm came with a FR1MK3F cartridge which I'll try at some stage.
Dear Dover, Congratulation with your complete FR-64s. There
is , it seems, some kind of a priori preference for the silver wired kind, but 'it depends...' as usual. Some prefer copper above silver. I own both kinds and use to copper version as
a 'universal arm'. I don't claim that FR-64 'IS' universal arm but I test all my MM and MC carts with this one. I just got my first FR-7 (returned by Axel; no need for any 'upgrad') and was first suprised to see the whole(diamond)shank and line contact stylus. I expected the conical kind as mentioned by Henry. The second suprise was the sound. Very similar to my (American) Miyabi. Dynamic and fast. From key notes via overtones, harmonics and decay there is a kind of a natural 'picture' such that one can 'see' the size of instruments in front of one's ears. My both tonearms in my main system have fast headshells so,alas, no possibility for A-B-B-A with Miyabi but I would
rank the F-7 as equal in the context of my 'collection'.
I can hardly believe that other versions (F-7f, etc) can do better. Then there is of course also the implied 'perspective' for those 'huge' Ortofon SPU versions. Which other tonearm can menage such a variation of carts?

Regards,
Lewm,
I managed to pick up a mint FR64S, silver wired with B60 VTA base on the weekend. I fitted it yesterday - I would encourage you to try your FR64?? out. It produces quite a different result than the Dynavector arm.

PS I thought the inline solderable fuses in Rauls military link above were a perfect solution for this application - particularly in output stages. If you want to use silver wire - why not ask Roger M for gauge suggestions.
Lewm,
My suggestion was not to replace the fuses with wire. It was to replace the fuses with "fuse wire" which operates the same as a fuse. Fuse wire can be purchased in the same values as a "glass" or "ceramic" fuse.
Fuses - You can also eliminate fuses and all the push fit connections and additional joints by just soldering in fusewire in series. Anyone try this ?
The advantage is you can solder it in and remove a number of connections and changes in material the signal or power goes through.
I think some people even read the above suggestion as removing the fuses completely which is not what I wrote.

By the way I spent an enjoyable Saturday afternoon listening to an Ortofon M20FL which produced a very nice open sound on Jazz.
Dover, The question is whether expensive silver fuses are a "cure without a disease", when it comes to the AC line. For fusing output tubes, as in my rare case, I think a high quality fuse element is worth the effort. There must be formulae available to relate current-carrying capacity to wire gauge. What gauge will melt out when the temperature reaches a certain point due to what current? Thanks to the internet, such information is probably available somewhere, or from the horse's mouth, since we have guys like Ralph at Atma-sphere and possibly Modjeski to ask. Possibly, one has to select gauge by trial and error. Keep goosing the current until the wire melts, then take note of the current at which this occurred.

If you suggested this approach to fusing previously, forgive me for not having noticed. I was always aware of the Futterman approach but had stuck it away in some cranny of my memory. I do think a fine wire soldered in place would be superior to any fuse, because of the necessity for end caps and fuse-holders, when using a fuse.

I finally got off my duff and started listening to some of my MM cartridges; I want to wittle down to a select few to keep. I've got the LPM320 running now, replacing the Grace Ruby, and I am hearing it the same way as before. Not as rich sounding as the Ruby, so far. But is "rich" a good thing? Raul would say no, I think. I might call it a guilty pleasure.
Gentlemen, I'd like to point out that Modjeski's post (which is the one I linked to above) is an indictment of one brand of boutique fuses that don't meet industry standards. It would be illogical to draw any greater conclusions from this, even though it may be implied.
Regards,