Tonearm recommendation

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.

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.

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.

dover:  """   5g rattly pressed tin headshell... """

that Denon headshell was only an example but if you don't like it then you can use a low weight magnesium damped headshell by Audio Technica.

The subject here is not the headshell but that the EPA 100 takes heavy/low compliance cartridges with no problem and with lower distortions.

EPA 100 was a serious advance on tonearm engineering design and repeat that its exclusive damping mechanism is an achievment and permit almost to mount on it anything you want and the cartridge will performs with low distortions.

No, the 64/66 sounds " odd to me " ( as you said. ) because is a distortions generator and that's all. No not for me, I posted here " hundred " of times: I want to be nearest to the LP recording not away for with that ridiculous tonearms.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.