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.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Dear Lewm: That's exactly what I was thinking last night. If the " fancy charactersitics " are more or les the same in between then the HF-tunning or SR could " have " something inside to later and makes the differences???????

A characteristic from the SR fuses that is not shared with the other fuse manufacturers is this:

++++ " Synergistic Research Quantum Fuses employ a custom alloy for burn wire and end caps, treated with 2,000,000 volts of electricity, altering the conductor at molecular level! " +++++

that means almost nothing for me to be realy aware that's the difference. In the other side the fuses in my electronics and almost everywhere goes out of the signal path.

Too many questions and no answers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lew, Look at the speaker forum, 'Best Electrostatic speaker', the contribution by Albertporter 06-16-00. If he is right you will not care to pay $59 for whatever number of fuses you may need.

Dear Dover, I recognise your (scary) description but in my case this was my first visit to a disco. I had no idea how little people care about their own ears and how much about
their other organs. But to emigrate to New Zealand for this reason looks to me exaggerated.

Regards,
Hi Lew,
"My OTL amplifiers require a fuse on each output tube. In other words, the fuse and fuse-holder are in the signal path, so I have no doubt that there is a rationale for using the best possible."

That's one of the most ridiculous things I ever read. I wasn't going to say anything, but... I had mono OTLs direct driving electrostats at 50KV w/o such fuses. With 4 big cap tubes each and a ton of storage, they could play louder than the panels could. Maybe you could bypass the fuses, but if the amp is so stupidly designed in the first place, you're probably better off dumping them. You should get in touch with Roger Modjeski. I doubt if he would put a crummy fuse on the output of each tube. You could probably improve the sound and pocket the difference after you sell the other amps.
Regards,
I have been happy with my Bussman MDA ceramic fuses. Raul, maybe you could get some of them to compare to the audiophile versions.
Dear Ecir38: Thank's, Why not?:

http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electronics/products/cooper_bussmann_overcurrentovervoltagecircuitprotection/fuses_and_accessories.html

we can try even military specs ones.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib, In an OTL amplifier there is nothing between the output tube and the speaker. Therefore, if an output tube arcs over or otherwise fails catastrophically, there is real potential for speaker damage. By far most output tubes commonly used in OTLs have their own built-in fuse protection. This is true of 6AS7s (commonly used by Atma-sphere) and of the family of tubes commonly used in Futterman amplifiers (6LF6, etc). It is not true of the 6C33C or of the 7241, both of which are relatively recently developed for military use. Thus, use of an external fuse is advised with these two outputs. The point is that whether the fuse is external to the tube or not, there is still a fuse protection in nearly all OTLs. You're correct, I could take a chance and bypass the fuses. However, who are you to say it is "ridiculous" not to?

I am saying nothing about Roger Modjeski, in the interests of diplomacy. But I will say that I choose a fuse willingly in lieu of an output transformer. He designs transformer-coupled tube amps (in the last 3 decades or so); I don't use them. Of course, once upon a time he did design the direct-drive OTL amplifiers for Beveridge speakers, which amplifiers use---- internally fused output tubes. He's no cowboy.
Dear Nandric,
the cartridge industry seems to becoming a family circus, Japan, Switzerland (with the diamonds and Benz), The Netherlands (linked to Switzerland), Germany (Clearaudio, EMT), Denmark (Ortofon) The US (Soundsmith), - and then some retippers also catering the used and vintage markets. Did I forget someone?
I guess maybe not more than 3500 new MC carts in the High End Field are sold on a yearly bases, MM much more. I do understand that everyone wants to keep "their secret mixtures" and their margins as these are in the cart business higher than on electronics. We are a small if not exclusive group supporting the Cart Makers.
Raul, Lewm - the in line solderable fuses in the military link above that Raul provided look like an interesting option, particularly in tube power amps that use fuses to protect output tubes. Elimination of additional connections and push fit joints with contact resistance should be helpful. Surely the elimination of fuseholders and soldering the fuse in line would be better than most fuses out there.http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electronics/products/cooper_bussmann_overcurrentovervoltagecircuitprotection/fuses_and_accessories/axial_leaded_fuses/mcrw_series_fast-actingwire-in-airsubminiaturefuses.html
I see the Quantum redo the end cap material as well. This seems more scientific than most audiophile solutions. I have a friend who manufactures audio cable and in trialling connectors the removal of all plating yields significant improvements along with machining and polishing at all connections points. In other words go and get those lovely WBT's, Furutech's or whatever and remove the gold/silver/rhodium plating and polish the metals and you will get a significant improvement, assuming the base material is copper. The use of cold welding technique rather than soldering so that you are not destroying the cable at this junction, and the use of ceramic based composite powders for resosonance control all yield significant improvements, although now he has developed a solid air matrix for dampening instead of composite powders to maintain an air dielectric. These techniques should be equally applicable to power cable and fuses.
I wonder with the Quantum when they will come out with a fuseholder of the same material.
Lew, I didn't say it's ridiculous not to bypass the fuse. It seems ridiculous to go for an OTL and then have a fuse in line with each output tube. These are OTL and not direct drive so you have transformers on the panels? You have Sound Lab spks?

I don't know the capacitance/power requirements of of your spks, but Roger does make a electrostatic system with direct drive amps. I think it's Acoustat panels. I had Acoustat panels in a biamp configuration with ribbon tweeters. Mine were Acoustat amps, rebuilt by Dan Fanny, formerly of AHT. He had to gut the entire amp except the power transformer. DD is the way to go with electrostats IMO. I know that Roger is currently making these amps and might be able to use it on your spks. Here he discusses the requirements of some diff brands:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=107869.0

Tuning fuses:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105425.0

Sorry to come off so outspoken, but in truth, I think we're all nuts. (Sometimes I miss those amps though)
Regards,
This is a response from Roger Modjeski re: fuses.

I read with some laughter, dismay and sadness the follow up on Stereophile May 22, 2012. page 109 concerning the latest hype of Tuning Fuses. Besides my opinion that these are a horrible waste of good money I want to let readers know that these fuses can damage your equipment.

I repaired a RM-9 MK II where the owner had installed 8 of the $49 tuning fuses in the individual fuse holders of the amplifier. Besides spending close to $400 the fuses they cost him another $400 in repairs and $320 for a new set of output tubes. When fuses cost more than tubes something is rotten in Denmark (actually they are made in Germany.) Not only had the fuses not protected the tubes but they had also blown a cathode resistor that I have yet to see fail in any other RM-9. Upon opening the fuse I found that it was not of a high-breaking construction. In fact the construction was such that a 10 cent RadioShack glass fuse offered more protection. Whoever designed this fuse evidently does not know about breaking ratings or how to achieve them. To my knowledge they publish none of the essential engineering graphs of time VS current. Furthermore, I can see nor can I find anywhere UL, CE or any of the standard safety approvals. Given their construction, I doubt they could get any.

I called the distributor to see if there was any technical data and he referred me to a white paper on the website which is down for maintenance for a week. Let's have a look at that when it's back up.

I know it's difficult to do, but if audiophiles would take the money they are tempted to spend on useless tweaks and start a savings account for that money, in some time they would have enough to buy something like a better pair of speakers, new amplifier or something that would really make a difference in their listening.

Now that I have had my say, here's something you can do if you want to experiment. Since we know these are made of silver wire you can get a enough silver wire for $40 to make hundreds of fuses that sound even better and will protect your equipment. Since these fuses are only good for the AC line lets look at what a line fuse does and what you have to do if it blows. An AC line fuse will protect your solid state and modern tube equipment (Not your 1960's tube amp or any tube amp where there are no tube or B+ fuses) from further damage if a rectifier, main filter cap or any short in the high current portions of the product. This is a good thing. We don't want a shorted rectifier to cause capacitors to explode or transformers to burn up. However if either of these occurs, it's going to have to go the the shop to replace the shorted rectifier which is a very simple matter.

I have more audio equipment and test equipment in daily use than most of you and I assure you, other than nuisance blowing, AC line fuse replacement is a very rare event in my experience. For those who are unfamiliar with the term "nuisance blowing" it is a commonly accepted term for a fuse just wearing out. It is caused by the simple fact that every time a piece of equipment is turned on, the inrush current, which is many times the run current, expands the fuse wire eventually causing it to break. Usually it takes years and when a fuse fails in this manner one simply replaces it and goes on for another similar period. It is more common with fast blow fuses which are not good choices for line fuses for reasons given below.

Fuses are of particular interest to me and every time I replace a fuse I give consideration to what fuse I would have used had I designed the product. Though cautioned "replace fuse with same type and value as original" I often wonder how carefully the "original" fuse was chosen. I have seen a lot of bad fuse choices and have replaced many a fast blow fuse with a much lower current slow blow which often ends the nuisance failures and improves the safety of the unit. I have found many products where the specified fuse would not protect against a shorted filter capacitor or shorted rectifier because the fuse would not blow under those conditions. Instead the power transformer would overheat and fail, then it would blow the fuse. Now there is a lot of stuff to replace instead of the simple diode.

In the original RM-4 I did many tests to determine that the 250 mA slow blow fuse would protect against every possible failure. I shorted a rectifier to see what happened. I shorted a filter cap. I shorted the main supply which never blows a fuse because, unlike many regulated power supplies it is short-circuit protected.

So, how do you make your own silver fuses. Simply wrap the right size silver wire from post to post of the fuse holder and solder.
« Last Edit: 13 Apr 2012, 06:03 pm by Roger A. Modjeski »
Logged
Thought this might be of some interest.
Fleib, You do have a point; my ESL panels have a step-up transformer, so it might be safe to do away with the fuse, but I believe that the fuse also protects the circuit of the amplifier.

Direct-drive OTL for Sound Lab has been discussed ad nauseam among the small circle of people who care about it. The bias voltage of Sound Labs is very high in comparison to most ESLs, something like 8kV to 10kV, so solutions that work for all other ESLs, with lower bias voltage, will not necessarily be sufficient for the Sound Labs. Believe it or not, I actually did speak to RM about this and about his design for the Beveridge amplifiers, which he is willing to rebuild, at very great expense. Since mine are not broken, I had no desire to drop several kilo bucks on a rebuild, but I am making some mods to the input and driver stages. The Bev panels, for comparison, only need 3200V for bias. I think other common ESLs, like KLH9s and Quads use bias voltages under 3kV. But when you look at the other compromises associated with direct-drive, the use of a step-up transformer is not so bad.

By the way, I misspoke, and I expected to get hammered for it. The 6LF6 does not have an internal fuse. I distinctly remember that Julius Futterman used hair-thin wires as fuses on his OTLs. He always supplied an extra set of these fuse-wires, which he taped to the inside of the chassis of each monoblock. I don't know what NYAL and other makers of Futterman type amplifiers did about fuses on the outputs. And truthfully, I am not sure about the output tubes that Modjeski used in the Beveridge amplifiers, 36KD6s, whether they are internally fused or not.
Lew, Roger says he can build amps that work at any voltage. You should read the first link (above). Current/impedance requirements are also a major consideration.
"Here is the run-down on what my direct drive amp can do. It can be made at any output voltage and I have a high and low current version because some ESLs draw very high currents due to high capacitance and some don't. This is just the same as the fact that speakers can be 2,4,8,16 ohms and anywhere in between. ESL speakers can be low capacitance, mine are just 100 pf. Beveridge model 2's are 4500 pF. That's a 45 to 1 difference, a much larger range than we see in cone speakers. In addition being capacitive the impedance varies inversely with frequency being lower at higher frequencies. When Beveridge went to transformer drive the result was a speaker that went from 100 ohms at 100 HZ to 1 ohm at 16 KHz. We had to find amplifiers that would deliver over 40 amps of current. These speakers were not suitable for most conventional amps tube or transistor. Roger Sanders makes a solid state mono amp that delivers 2000 watts at a cost of $8000 per pair."

"Thanks for report on an excellent comparison. Here are a few contributing factors. If played loud the Futtermans have not the current needed to drive Acoustats, especially ones 3 panels or larger. The impedance of any large, full range panel speaker is going to approach 1 or 2 ohms at high frequencies and Futterman amps put out nothing into 1 ohm nor do the tubes appreciate the task.

It is a long standing myth that OTL amps and ESL speakers were made for each other. This is true in one combination, the Futterman OTL and the KLH-9 which was a 16 ohm speaker that stayed pretty constant over the range. I have a copy of Julius Futterman's impedance measurements in my "Futterman File". He was certainly interested in driving this speaker as he measured its impedance at over 20 different frequencies. The advantage of his amp over others was it had lots of voltage which the KLH-9 needed. I am told that one of the classic listening tests was to compare the Futterman vs the Marantz 9 driving the KLH, particularly on Saturdays at Lyric Hi FI, NYC.

A Futterman can drive the QUADs or the Stax that airhead has but one has to be very careful not to exceed the maximum voltage which is 35 volts peak for the QUAD 57's and about 40 volts peak (100 watts from a 8 ohm amp) for the 63's. I do not know what the peak is for the Stax. I do know that most Futterman amps can put out 150 volts peak and therein lies the danger.

When Acoustat gave up on making their "Servo Amplifier" they went to a two transformer system, a system that is flawed in its very nature,. There is really no way to drive a single panel ESL with two transformers one being for the lows and one for the highs. One can split the band on the input side but they have to re-combine the bands on the output side and that causes the high frequency transformer to "see" enough of the low frequency information to cause saturation at higher levels and significant 3rd harmonic distortion at moderate levels. Although I don't have my measurements of the Acoustat Magnetic Interface handy, I do recall it is not easy to drive. It needs lots of voltage and lots of current.

Although rarely mentioned, the transformers in ESL speakers often eat up 25 to 50% of the drive energy due to their capacitance at the high end and saturation at the low end. When we eliminate them and the output transformer in a traditional amp and connect the tubes directly to the panels there is a great relief of work that the tube have to perform.

As you can see, from both a safety and sonic perspective, direct drive makes a lot of sense. When you can go directly to the panels, an ESL is actually easier to drive than a magnetic speaker."

Did you ever talk to him about Sound Labs? From his post, I got the impression that a Beverdige rebuild would include the complete amps, hence the price.
With your OTL I don't know if the high voltage speaker transformer would protect your amp if a tube or capacitor failed.
Regards,
10-21-12: Rnadell
This is a response from Roger Modjeski re: fuses.
Rnadell - excellent post that everyone should read.
So, how do you make your own silver fuses. Simply wrap the right size silver wire from post to post of the fuse holder and solder.
« Last Edit: 13 Apr 2012, 06:03 pm by Roger A. Modjeski »
I distinctly remember that Julius Futterman used hair-thin wires as fuses on his OTLs.
I did suggest this about 40+ posts ago and was pooh-poohed. Never mind, I'm sure in post number 14684 or thereabouts the same discussion will be had again.
Dear Dover, You obviously overlooked the human rights issue. Everyone has the right to his own opinion as well the right to express his opinion. Now the problem is if this apply to whatever subject matter. That is to say reg. everything thinkable. I always thought that this right is the prerogative for the philosophers only. One can perhaps
add some kind of lawyers to this 'category' because they are supposed to be capable to defend or accuse whatever there is to defend or accuse. This kind consist of attorney and prosecutors. Alas I am neihter of them so I have no opinion about the fuses. But if enyone is interested in particle physics ...

Regards,
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,
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.
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.
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.
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,
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 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?
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,
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 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.
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,
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 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,
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,
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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,
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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 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? :-)