Dear FR64S and 66S aficionados, What do you use for phono cable? Have you bypassed the DIN plug? For such superlative results as some of you describe, especially with very low output MC cartridges, I would think it is a necessity to get rid of the DIN plug in the signal path. (I have a 64S but have not had the pleasure of listening to it yet.) Thanks. |
For some reason, copper DOES have a slightly different tonal balance vs silver, comparing solid core strands of equal gauge, used as home-made interconnects. However, I am not convinced that the sonic difference has much to do with the slightly superior conduction properties of silver vs copper. But then again, I have no hard data either way.
Syntax, does your response indicate that you use DIN to RCA phono cables, with your FR tonearms? I thought you guys had hard-wired your FR tonearms, so to have an uninterrupted run of wire from the headshell plug to the phono stage. That's what I would like to do, but I am fearful of the risk to the bearing, if I were to do the job myself. |
Dear Raul, With all respect, this is your constant mantra. You are very consistent in your position vis a vis "distortion". The problem is, each of us needs a Raul doppelganger to come into his home to tell us what is distorted and what is not distorted. I have no opinion of Orsonic or FR tonearms. I only know that, while you are not alone in your dislike of Orsonic headshells (possibly confusing and unwarranted, due to the Chinese fakes), the FR tonearms are widely admired by most everyone but you. I have to wonder what it is that they all like and which you find so distasteful. On the surface, I can see your point as regards "resonance" of the structure. There is no damping to speak of, except I think in the bearings. On the other hand, they are structurally very stiff and there are many different shapes involved, so I can imagine that resonance of such a conglomeration could be benign, because it might be spread out broadly over a wide range of frequencies. It's not just the guys you don't like who do like the FR tonearms; lots of your internet friends do appear also to like them. |
This is likely to elicit another novella from Raul, but I think Suteetat hit upon something that I too think is very significant with respect to the question, "What makes the music sound real", in my listening room. When music is produced directly from an instrument or a vocalist, there are harmonics generated, both up and down the audio frequency spectrum. These come from resonances in the body of the instrument or of the singer, from room surfaces, the floor, etc. (Yes, real live music is partially composed of resonant frequencies produced en passant. Killing all resonance is not necessarily "good".) My thesis is that because microphones are not linear in their response with respect to sound pressure and with respect to bandwidth, much of this natural wide bandwidth energy is lost from the signal that gets to the tape or to the digital recorder. Thus downstream components of the reproductive chain that add benign harmonic distortion are not necessarily bad but can in fact serve to restore some of the "body" of the original performance. Thus very low THD solid state devices can indeed sound sterile. It's not that they have a sterile coloration necessarily, altho some do; it's more that they can be "too perfect". It seems to me we all know this, and it's what we are discussing. Why the best tube gear portrays a sense of depth and 3D that I don't hear with solid state is still a mystery to me, however. Perhaps that's another "distortion" I prefer. Then too, I have not auditioned everything available. Wasn't this thread about tonearms? Sorry. |
Nandric, In order to repeat oneself, it is absolutely necessary to write or say the same thing twice. Otherwise, one is not repeating oneself. We have no choice. Three times is inexcusable, I agree. |
I have to say that back when Halcro asked about setting up his cartridges in separate headshells so that each cartridge could be used with each of his tonearms (at the time, I thought he wanted flexibility among several tonearms, not just 64S and 66S), I was dubious that this could be done without at least some minor re-alignment each time. (And we know there is no such thing as "minor" realignment; each time one must do it, it is a pain in the arse.) Later, when Halcro claimed he had conquered the problem, and since he was pleased with the results, I assumed that perhaps I had been wrong and /or that Halcro may have found some compromise that is "good enough". Now that the issue appears to have been put before us again, I am interested.
Right now, the question seems to be that if you mount the 64S at 230mm and the 66S at 295mm (factory recommended, as I understand it), then a headshell bearing a cartridge that is correctly aligned for use on the 64S will also give perfect alignment when that headshell/cartridge is transferred to the 66S. It would seem that someone who has actually done this using a quality protractor to evaluate alignment on both tonearms could tell us the answer. Also, Euclid could tell us, if he knew the other relevant parameters. |
Tempus fugit.
Thanks, Henry, for the clarification. |
Raul, North of your border, a spoiled female would say, "Peel me a grape". There's a great jazz tune with that title, written by Dave Frischberg.
If one is going to use a protractor, is it a bad idea to use a "good" one? I think not. I did not use the word "expensive"; I used "good". |
By the way, good luck with getting the overhang accuracy to 0.3mm, so as to distinguish between 14.7mm and 15mm, anyone. A little cantilever flexing will obliterate any such precision. |
Not that Raul needs to be defended; he is good at it himself, but he and his compatriot have designed and manufactured a superb solid state phono stage with many great features. Therefore, he is not fairly subject to your criticism of him as a "wannabe". He pisses me off too, on the odd occasion, but let's be fair. We distortion-lovers have got to stick together.
As to Vinyl Engine and what's there: the only Stevenson protractor I have been able to find is the one available for free on VE. If you print it, make sure that the ratio of the image to the print is 1:1. I then laminated mine between two pieces of mylar, punched a hole for the spindle, and it "works a treat".
Also, in that vein, my personal experience is that I get the best sound when I align the cartridge using the geometry for which the tonearm was intended. For example, the DV505 was designed for Stevenson or something very near to it. When I align using Baerwald, etc, the sound is never as good as when I use Stevenson. The reason for this may be that in order to use something other than Stevenson, the cartridge must be askew in the headshell, twisted with respect to the long axis of the headshell. In the DV, this means that the arc of the cantilever is not in line with the arc of the vertical pivot. This may be the cause of the distortions I hear. (Yes, I can hear distortions; I am no Philistine.) |
Raul, When you have calmed down sufficiently, I would like to know what you think about my experience that suggests best sound is achieved when the cartridge is aligned according to the geometry for which the tonearm was designed. That means, for the vintage Japanese tonearms like my Dynavector DV505 (and in theory like the FR tonearms), the best sounding geometry is Stevenson. This is my personal observation with only the one tonearm (DV505) and two different cartridges. And it is only my opinion based on listening, only. I am NOT saying that Stevenson gives the lowest overall mathematically predicted "distortion". I am only reporting my experience, and I attributed the finding to the fact that with the DV505 one has to twist the cartridge in the headshell, in order to use anything but Stevenson. There is reason to believe that this could introduce a new source of distortion that over-rides tonearm geometry. I wrote about this on VE. |
If I can find it, I will. I actually attached the post explaining my observation to a thread where the OP was talking about the question of having to twist the cartridge in the headshell, when he was using some other vintage Japanese tonearm with Lofgren or Baerwald alignment. At that time, I was just starting to use my DV505 and was not so happy with the sound, using Baerwald (with the necessary "twist"). He claimed the twist caused no problem, but I then found that protractor on VE and re-aligned my cartridge using Stevenson. There was a big and obvious improvement in sound. As mentioned, this may be especially relevant to the Dynavector tonearms, because the vertical pivot is so close to the cartridge. I believe the vertical forces on the cantilever would be asymmetrical, if the cantilever and the vertical tonearm pivot are not aligned (another problem in vector algebra), and this may be the cause of the distortions I heard. Just a guess. I don't know whether the principle should be applied to all tonearms in general. |
Dear Henry, I am a bit puzzled about a recommendation for a specific headshell offset angle to go along with the recommended P2S distance and overhang for the 64S. In the case of headshell offset angle, isn't one "stuck" with the built-in angle? In other words, I believe that both tonearms are S-shaped such that the orientation of the plug for the headshell pre-determines the offset angle. If that angle is not the above recommended 20.5 degrees, how do the other recommended parameters work? I am guessing that the built-in angle is 20.5 for the 64S, and there is no problem, but it would be good if you can confirm that. Anyway, I've got a UNI with the 64S template. |
Dear Henry, I've got my answer. No worries. |
Dear Dover, I am well aware that one can "twist" the cartridge in the headshell to obtain a non-standard offset angle. I suppose I should have acknowledged that possibility in my post to Henry. In fact, that's what one has to do, in order to use Daniel's recommended FR64S geometry. Twisting the cartridge in the headshell did not work well with my Dynavector, which experience I described elsewhere, maybe not on this thread. Thus I am biased against thinking of doing it. But I also think that the issues that arose with the Dynavector (nasty distortion) had to do with the unique design of the Dynavector, where the vertical pivot is distinct from the horizontal one and very close to the cantilever. Ergo, I am open-minded about twisting the cartridge in the FR64S headshell. More anon. |
I am privately wondering how one can cite the true pivot of the FR tonearms to an accuracy of 0.5mm, since the top of the bearing housing is a flat circular plane, IIRC. (The FR64S is not in front of me as I write this.) So, you need a REALLY good eye to find its exact center. And in fact, one has no way to be absolutely certain that the center of the circle is exactly above the center of the pivot point. Well, I will make myself satisfied by believing that it is, in any case.
Nikola, Here is a philosophical question: if you know something is second best, then you must have identified a "best" with which to compare it. Having done so, how do you know that your own best is truly best? Which means that second best might in fact be third best, or fourth, etc. Subjectivism rules. |
So Chris, As an owner of the FR66S, what do YOU think of JCarr's opinion? There is another guy who posts regularly on the Analog blog who also does not like the FR66S for the same reason. |
John, Is it not the case that for your statement that the P2S is irrelevant for the Dennesen or the UNI to be true, the cartridge must be aligned (ideally) perfectly with the long axis of the headshell. If the cartridge is "twisted" inward or outward with respect to the headshell, then the P2S dictated by the alignment grid on the template surface would put the pivot at some position different from ideal. I guess this would still "work", in the gross sense of the word, but if you want highest precision for a particular specific classic geometry, what I say must be true. Yes?
Of course, for an SPU cartridge, the point I raise is moot. |
Thanks, John. As it happens, I own both an original metal Dennesen and a UNI. I tend to use the Dennesen only to set P2S. (I mark the desired distance on a piece of white paper and then set up the Dennesen so its pointy end is on one mark and the center of the spindle hole is over the other mark. Then set the adjusted Dennesen on the spindle and "Bob's your uncle".) I don't like using it for cartridge alignment because I have a very difficult time seeing its grid and sensing the position of the little dimple that marks the target for the stylus tip. (Also, many of the vintage Japanese tonearms are not meant for Lofgren A.) The UNI is a little better for that purpose. As I mentioned privately, I have a bias against twisting the cartridge in the headshell, based on one bad experience doing that. So I tend to favor using the geometry for which a particular tonearm was designed. |
