2. analog
  3. 119516-43184

Tonearm recommendation

Hello all,
Recently procured a Feickert Blackbird w/ the Jelco 12 inch tonearm.
The table is really good, and its a keeper. The Jelco is also very good, but not as good as my Fidelity Research FR66s. So the Jelco will eventually hit Ebay, and the question remains do I keep the FR66s or sell that and buy something modern in the 5-6 K range. My only point of reference is my old JMW-10 on my Aries MK1, so I don't know how the FR66s would compare to a modern arm. So I'd like to rely on the collective knowledge and experience of this group for a recommendation.

Keep the FR66s, or go modern in the 5-6K range, say a Moerch DP8 or maybe an SME.

Any and all thoughts and opinions are of course much appreciated.

Cheers,      Crazy Bill
wrm0325
fleib
1,124 posts
 

Raul,

You're fond of calling other people ignorant, questioning their sensibilities and powers of discernment, yet your ignorance is so great you're like a child who skipped school.  Look what you've done. Nearly a day has passed and the conversation has stopped except for Raul trying to prove his superior knowledge level. I was trying to give you an easy out, but you're tenacious like a bull dog ripping someone's pant leg.

You quoted a sentence out of context. Ironically, that sentence happens to be correct. The only stipulation is mounting distance remains constant. I thought that was obvious from the context which wasn't about either of the Loefgren alignments, so put it to bed. You don't know what you're talking about.  Now you have an explanation why a table S/N can be 92dB or whatever and you're saying I'm dogmatic?  Ignorante!

What happened at Lenco Heaven? There's a wild story on your MM/MI thread about your emotional problems and cat photos etc. I don't want to embarrass you, but you make it impossible not to. 

I think you need a time out from here to straighten out emotions. Why don't you take a break and find someone to talk to?  I won't be back to this thread. I'm too busy now and can read about any further developments. I was serious when I said you have many friends here and I don't think people will hold it against you.

Regards,




Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,002 posts
 
fleib:  """  The only stipulation is mounting distance remains constant """

I ask you or gave my advise ( twice . ) that take a look again to the original Löfgren papers and I can see you did not and follow posting that kind of sentences that does not help. Why don't do that and share with us your findings and if not that be that way. I can't help about.

"""   I'm too busy now  """.

OH !  I see that "  you're tenacious "  too!! and that you don't want to help you . Fine with me.

Anyway and with this I'm finish in this critical audio subject for any audiophile:



"""  Look to these real calculated numbers/values for a 10" tonearm using Baerwald and Lofgreen B alignments:

both cases the cartridge offset angle is the same: 21.586

the difference in cartridge overhang in between is only 0.457 mm  """


that is what I posted to don_c55 where that overhang diference came from the individual Baerwald/Löfgren calculations: 

Baerwald: 16.224  and Löfgren:  16.681

what fleib said is that the tonearm mounting distance in that 10" tonearm stay the same and only has to adjust the overhang.

Well, in those papers I'm talking about the equations solution, not only for Löfgren but for the other similar kind of alignments states this:

M= L - d      where M is the pivot to spindle distance and d the overhang with L as effective lenght that was part of the input data in those equations and here for this particular 10" tonearm.

L is data input and M changes according the new calculated overhang (d) . The new tonearm mounting distance is: 

237.78 for Baerwald   and   237.32 for Löfgren. Mantaining same effective length.

As I said we can manipulate those original equations to leave M as data input or anything  we wish but that is not the main subject here.

Btw, Stevenson calculated values are: 

overhang:  13.43  and offset angle:  19.912°   for that 10" tonearm.

Stevenson has two solutions as Löfgren the first one is similar to Löfgren A and the results here is his second solution, way diferent.


In the other side you can't embarrass me  on that subject especialy when  you don't participated  there. So, don't worry about, I'm not I have nothing for what there or any where I could have some kind of that " embarrass ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,002 posts
 
Dear dover: """ Rauls comments about the Technics EPA 100 are superfluous in this thread as it was never designed for heavy low compliance cartridges and in fact you have to modify the counterweight for heavier cartridges.... """

I respect your opinion trying to " disregard " my post.

Now, you say that was not designed for heavy/low compliance cartridges but its design characteristics does not confirm that.

The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.

I owned 3 EPA 100 ( one of them the MK2. ), 1 EPA 250 and 1 EPA 500  and always mated very good all the cartridges with diferent weight and compliance. I still own two Technics tonearms.

In the other side I never had any single trouble with all those Technics tonearms at its ruby bearings and as Pryso I never had the opportunity to read any where in the net that kind of trouble with other that the Pryso one.

So, I can’t see why my post was " superfluous " as you said. Nver mind.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
fleib
1,124 posts
 

Raul,

Sorry, I gave you credit for being a little smarter than that, but you've proven me wrong. I wasn't planning to return to this thread and now I'm teaching remedial geometry.

**Dear fleib: Not really. Let that I try to explain all that. As you I 'm talking of standards alignments as both Loefgren A and B solutions ( Baerwald/Loefgren. **

I wasn't talking about Loefgren alignments.

**In those Loefgren equations the main target is to find out the precise offset angle and overhang with foundation/knowing the tonearm effective lenght ( L in the equtions. ) and radius of the Lp grooved  surface ( most inner and outer LP groove recorded area. ). For difference between that L and the overhang the Loefgren solutions achieve the distance between tonearm pivot to TT spindle. The L does not change in those Loefgren standard solutions, WHAT CHANGED IS OFFSET ANGLE, PIVOT TO SPINDLE, AND OVERHANG VALUES.**

What don't you understand? Effective length = pivot to spindle (mounting distance) + overhang (spindle to stylus).  If mounting distance remains constant, then effective length (L) must change with a different alignment.

The rest is nonsense. The Loefgren alignments are close in headshell length and angle, especially for arms longer than 235mm.



dover
2,229 posts
 
The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.
Raul - if mounting a heavy low compliance cartridge like a Koetsu in a 5g rattly pressed tin headshell floats your boat, then good luck with it. This may go some way toward explaining some of your odd conclusions on cartridge evaluations, in particular MM vs MC comparisons. This explains why a FR64S with a solid headshell would sound odd to you, you would miss all the tinny distortions in your standard set up. Have you tried a plastic headshell in your FR - that may get you closer to the kind of distortions you like to hear.
More to discover