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
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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,002 posts
 
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.
fleib
1,124 posts
 

As long as we're talking alignments, here's a post from Audio Circle:

**Not sure if we talked about this on this forum - UNIDIN alignment is a legit alternate alignment. Nulls - 66.3, 112.5mm
Here are more conventional nulls:
Stevenson - 60.325, 117.42mm
Baerwald - 66.0, 117.42mm
Loefgren(B) - 70.3, 116.6mm

You can read something about this in Stereophile or Analog Planet and see the alignment error curves. It looks pretty good.  I was playing with the numbers and what you won't read is that the alignment is nearly identical to Loefgren, but moved inward about 5mm. The distance between Loefgren nulls is 46.3mm. UNIDIN is 46.2mm.

Nice to get away from Agon. What'shisname is really a block head. Guess every forum has one.
neo**

I wanted to have the 3 standard alignments posted so no one would have to look them up.  Here's another:

**According to VE the nulls for the 507 II are 60.1 and 116.6mm.  That puts the inner null next to Stevenson at the lead out, and the outer null is Loefgren. This should optimize the middle and end of the record.**

Many people dislike Stevenson alignment, but you have to admit it's the best at the end where the grooves are crowded and the tip gets pinched. Some people prefer it. That would include Peter Pritchard (ADC/Sonus). He also recommended a low frequency resonance of 6.5Hz. That would put the resonance as far away from the audio band as possible, just above warps. If someone has a big fat spherical stylus or inner groove problems, Stevenson comes to the rescue, especially with a cart that emphasizes "musicality" over detail.

No, this isn't about taste or practicality. This is about distortion. People use the terms alignment error and distortion interchangeably. That comes from Loefgren - his description. There's no denying the cantilever excites the generator and lack of tangency is undesirable, but what's the exact correlation? Does 2° of error correspond to 2% distortion, and what kind of distortion? 

The reason some people find those zero offset arms sound good, is reduction of torsional forces on the cantilever. Do linear arms solve these problems? If and only if, they can maintain tangency at all times and otherwise behave as a proper tonearm Re: mass, friction, etc.

Something to think about.



More to discover