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
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.

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.



Dear friends: """ 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. """

that’s a common misunderstood on cartridge/tonearm alignment set up that I had for many many years and that many of us still have.

When a tonearm designer/manufacturer begin with his design he choose the tonearm effective length not the pivot to spindle distance. He does not care on this distance because tell him nothing. In the other side knowing the tonearm effective lenght in his design all the other alignment/set up parameters comes trhough the choosed alignment calculations it does not matters if he choosed Baerwald, Löfgren B or Stevenson.

The designer choose only one alignment type not 2-3 of them and even if he choosed ( this never happens. ) 2-3 diferent alignmets the effective length stay the same because is the foundation of his design. As I said no designer choose pivot to spindle distance as foundation for his tonearm design, has no sense to do it.

In the example I posted here on a 10" tonearm ( effective length. ) all the main parameters/variables were diferent for Baerwald, Löfgren and Stevenson. Here I write again he calculations:

OVERHANG: B L S

16.224 16.681 13.43

Off.ANGLE: 21.586 21.586 19.912

Pivot-Spindle: 237.78 237.32 240.57


and the Null Points calculated are diferent too:

inner null p.: 65.998 70.285

outer null p.: 120.991 116.604

this NP. is where on each kind of alignment the tracking error and distortion is cero in a pivot tonearm and the foundation to have a graphic/diagram for the overall distortions through the LP surface recorded grooves.


The data input in the equations for any of those alignments are:

innermost groove distance, outermost groove distance ( here we can choose between standards as: DIN, IEC or we can choose a different values. ) and EFFECTIVE LENGTH ( the one and only choosed by the tonearm designer ).

Through those 3 data inputs the equations gives :

Overhang, offset angle, null points and pivot to spindle distance. These are the variables in those standard alignment types.


If for a more easy task we just change the overhang and offset angle with out change too the pivot to spindle distance what we have are higher distortions in ALL the recorded LP surface!!!

So we have to respect the equations in those white papers and do not do it the other way around as fleib suggest. Looks the same but it’s not and what any one of you can do it to confirm it is to make your own calculations where you will find out those higher distortions figures I’m talking about.

Btw, a friend of mine that I respect and who owns like me the Dynavector 505 told me that he prefers in his tonearm the Stevenson alignment recomended by the manufacturer when my self do not like S. alignment and prefer Löfgren.

If in that 505 we try to make the set up with Löfgren alignment with out change in the pivot to spindle distance then because the distortions goes higher we dislike what we hear. Maybe my Agoner friend just don’t change the tonearm mount position in his TT.

Many of us make changes in the overhang/offset angle with out any change in the pivot to spindle distance and is a mistake. I understand that we do or did not because we can’t make new drills in the plinth every time we make those kind of changes. Now, if we choose not to change the PtS distance we can do it but distortions are different, as I said in other posts we can manipulate the original equations and makes whatever we want it but this is not the subject here. I’m talking of be orthodox in that regard.


As I recomend to fleib maybe is time to read again the original Löfgren papers and not like fleib just posting with out read it and not only read it but understand it.

Now, maybe with some of you the differences on what I hear with some cartridges is because the alignment set up difference.

The message here is that we don’t need to change the alignment we have but to reset it and make again the set up with " cero tolerances ".
Accuracy is the critical main parameter we must care during the set up because minimal errors as 0.5mm ( overhang ) represent not only where the distortions will happen but that those distoritons goes higher too.

I think that Baerwald or Löfgren is more than enough the alignment we need.

The message to all toearm designers/manufacturers is that take their main responsability to give usthe accurate and user friendly JIGs to set up their each one tonearm design. Responsability that today almost all just don’t give the vital importance for we customers and music lover audiophiles.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

PS:  I'm sharing my opinion here to learn and not to achieve that " I have the reason and you are wrong ". Nothing like that far away from that sentence. I can be wrong and I would like to know  if really I'm wrong and if yes then I hope that any one of you be so kind to tell me in a wide explanation why I'm wrong. That's all, always I'm willing to learn and if necessary accept my mistakes. With out mistakes we just can't learn and grow up.

Thank's for your help and understanding.


Someone is not paying attention. Dynavector nulls were just posted and they are not Stevenson.  The inner null is close to it, but outer null is Loefgren B.  How does this change tangency and alignment error?

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_database.php?make=Dynavector&mdl=&sort=2&eflo=&ef...=

Click on the nulls to find out.  Scroll down to the columns headed with the stock and standard alignments. Notice the odd relationships between various alignments with regard to eff length, offset, and overhang.

What remains constant?  Pivot to spindle = mounting distance. 

The equation is L = MD + OH. Where MD is mounting distance and OH is overhang. If L remains constant, then the values of MD and OH change for different alignments, but still total to equal L. 

Forget about Loefgren's papers, it's all right there. You're confusing yourself trying to reinvent the tonearm. If you start doing the math for different nulls, your arm will be released around the year 2127, or the 2nd of never.

What interests me is the DV total alignment error - looks pretty good. They say "Distortion figures are calculated from samples of tracking error in the modulated groove area." Samples?   Sounds like smoke and eyewash. Distortion analyzer?