Tonearm recommendation

Crazy Bill,
The choice of headshells makes a significant contribution to the sound of a particular cartridge/arm combination.
I find it pointless to waste time on ’theoretical’ speculation on this subject when it is so so easy to experiment.
I have tried every type of available headshell in my FR-66s (except for the Arche) including the FR3, FR5, Yamomoto HS1-AS, Ortofon HS-8000 and various aluminium and magnesium ones.
They can all sound well with the appropriate cartridge.
FWIW I have found a rule of thumb to work most of the time...

• Metal-bodied cartridges sound rather better with wood shells
  
• Plastic-bodied cartridges sound rather better with metal shells
  
• Wood-bodied cartridges sound rather better with metal or ceramic shells

Have fun.....

Crazy Bill,
I also have a Sonic Frontiers phono signature. What tubes are you using? I recently upgraded to Mullard 6DJ8's (from Sylvania) & am impressed with the change. It's always thrown a huge stage, now it has that with more presence and definition. I've been running Mullard 12AT7's for years now & will have to be making a change there soon. Thinking about Bugle Boy's. Looking for your opinion.

Thanks, Tim

Crazy bill if you have a 66S keep it!  Also have to agree with another poster that you may be well served to audition some other phonostages, no insult intended. If I could humbly recommend the Herron vtph2. Also agree with atmasphere regarding the triplanar. 
A while back I bought a 103r to see what the fuss was about. Had it on an et2 and it is pretty good, just under my reference audioquest 7000nsx. Then I mounted it to an et1 which is a massive affair. Now it matches my reference which was around 3k 25 years ago. Pretty good for a 300$ cartridge. 

Dear analogluvr: " pretty good for a 300$ cartridge ", yes for that money is good because it makes sounds but that cartridge is part of the low-fi items where the Rosewood belongs to the mid-fi audio items.

Your nsx is better performer ( I owned ) and the Fe5 is even better and as you know these Audioquest designs were manufactured by Scan-Tech ( same as Lyra. ) to the Audioquest specs/characteristics.

Btw, as all the gentleamns here that " D4 the 66 noise/distortions generator " you only said: " keep it " but as the other persons give no single reason why that tonearm can fullfil the cartridge needs and makes the cartridges really shines. Could you put some light about?

Seems to me that I was and am the only one that make a wide explanation why not keep that tonearm and here more about that long tonearm:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/tonearms-longer-than-12-inches/post?postid=1289088#1289088

additional we have to remember that the 64/66 are dynamic balanced designs  and all dynamic balanced designs always generate ringing ( noise/distortions. ) through the dynamic mechanism but two tonearm design: the MAX 237/282 and Luste GST-801. Adding to that problem the micro and macro waves in the LP recorded surface makes that in a dynamic balanced tonearm design the " normal " continuous changes in VTA/SRA/VTF  that always exist in any tonearm ( static balanced included. ) been more pronounced do that when there is a crest in the LP surface the deflection in the cartridge cantilever is higher in a dynamic balanced design that in the static balanced one that works with natural gravity where in the dynamic the mechanis always force to mantain the VTF but when is against a crest the cantilever is pushed up making a higher cantilever deflection.
In both kind of tonearm designs exist the problem but in the dynamic one is bigger. Normally when the human been goes against the mother nature fall down.

I hope you will be the person that can explain that " keep it ".

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul - you are correct in your comments about the dynamic balance mechanism ( which is a coiled spring ) used for setting the vertical tracking force. I have removed the dynamic balance mechanism from some tonearms and you can hear a cleaner sound with less distortion. Removal is hazardous and not for the faint hearted as it is imperative that the bearings are not disturbed.

I have a couple of FR64S’s - here are a few tips that may apply to the FR66 as well -
I use a combination of dynamic and static balance to set tracking force. Basically what I am doing is putting a minimal amount of dynamic force to load the spring to reduce noise in the mechanism and then use the counterweight to set tracking force ( static ). Typically for my Koetsu I would dial up between 0.5 and 1g of dynamic balance and then adjust the counterweight to bring the tracking force up to 1.9gm or whatever.

Optimising the counterweight ( I have multiple counterweights for the FR64S, each of different mass ) is also an effective tool with the FR64S. Optimising the counterweight/reducing the headshell mass and using a combination of static and dynamic balance can improve the resolution and speed of this arm quite substantially in my experience.

I have also made a metal jig to ensure that the FR64S's that I use are installed with a 231.5mm pivot to spindle distance. It is accurate to 0.1mm and this pivot to stylus distance recommended by Dertonam makes for a considerable audible improvement over the factory recommended 230mm.

The other tip I found quite by accident. My Final Audio VTT1 only has facility for 1 tonearm, and having owned a Platine Verdier as a second deck I decided to sell it as the performance of the Platine Verdier was so far below the Final Audio I never used the Platine in practise. So I made a cantilevered pod to mount a second arm on the Final. This was constructed from a laminated crosscut bamboo block and a panzerholz arm board. I chose these materials simply because I had them in my workshop and they are easy to machine at home. The main arm pod on the Final is a gunmetal cylinder and gunmetal arm board. When I mounted my FR64S on the panzerholz/bamboo pod the upper midrange sharpness was gone. There appeared to be no downsides. Previously I had mounted the FR64S on the gunmetal pod and the upper mid sharpness is exposed. With the removal of this resonance peak I can hear more into the midrange and seemingly more depth to the soundstage.

The only other comments I would make is that the headshell leads, headshell, arm board material, cable & setup make a massive difference in the perceived performance of these arms. I agree with ct0517 that the Dynavector ( I also own a Dynavector 501 ) is a flatter and more even response with most cartridges but the bass issues that he alludes to is his post with the FR64S can be easily dialled out with careful set up.

As others have noted in the thread there are better arms - I personally prefer my Eminent Technology ET2 linear tracker and Naim Aro unipivot but the FR64S is a very good match with the Koetsu range in my experience and "the best arm" can be variable depending on cartridge. For example the Naim Aro destroys the both the FR64S and Dynavector 501 with my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D ( medium compliance LOMC ). On the other hand the Koetsu’s sound fragile on the Naim Aro and I prefer the FR64S with the Koetsu even though I lose a little speed and resolution through the midrange.

In my view the FR’s design goal is to provide a stable platform for the the FR7 low compliance cartridges and Ikeda cantilever-less cartridges. I also own an Ikeda Kiwame - you need an arm with exceptional gimbal bearings and structural stability to get the best performance out of this cartridge. The designer has chosen to trade off other parameters such as high effective mass and in the case of the FR7 a suboptimal alignment in order to achieve the stability he requires for his cartridges. Isamu Ikeda eschews the use of unipivots and jewelled bearings for this reason.