The Palladian-A step beyond


The new cartridge from Acoustical Systems may finally be the LOMC to fully realise the theoretical advantages of the genus.
And convince those long-suffering audiophiles to whom the 'modern' MC presentation has been anathema to 'live sound'....that the realism of vintage LOMCs like the SPUs and FR-7 series has finally been recaptured 👀
IMAGE 1 
IMAGE 2 
IMAGE 3 
IMAGE 4 
IMAGE 5 
IMAGE 6 
IMAGE 7 
128x128halcro

Dear Fleib, It all depends from describing things one way or the

other. Wittgenstein called this ''languge games''. I don't believe

that Japanese invented swords but they are able to make the best

kinds. You claim to have  ''never heard any of Brakemeiers products''

but what would you be able to HEAR from an alignments tool? I think that you have an very limited understanding of ''inovation''. Those are

other things then (new) inventions. In the context of the so called

''intellectual property'' there is diffrence between ''know how'' and

patent application. Ascribing to Brakemeir inventions is not the

same as his own pretention to have invented something or other.

I am not aware that he claimed any invention. But if he owns a

patent for any of his products you can't argue against . Neither can Raul nor even his Sancho Panza. Assumptions are not the same as

evidence.

Nandric,

What's the point, I didn't take the bait on aluminum so you get insulting?

I doubt if Brakemeier has a patent.  As far as I know he hasn't invented anything, but he takes credit for uni-din and on the web site makes some dubious claims about distortion reduction. 

If you want to tout Acoustical Systems there might be better ways than insulting people or crushing any dissent.  I tend to believe Halcro's assessment is honest, but that does not mean I think any phono cartridge is worth $10,000. +

If we could have a rational discussion of "damping", I would like to comment on Raul's long post covering that subject.  There is more than one way to skin the cat (with apologies to Flier's cat).  Besides damping spurious resonances one can also sink the energy that affects the magnitude of the resonance.  This is what I think might be happening with the FR64S/66S.  It may be that the tonearm is efficient at draining resonant energy away from the cartridge body and headshell. Because, as Raul correctly states, there is no impediment to energy transmission along the arm tube and back to the pivot and base structure, it may be that the energy is effectively drained away or "sinked".  

Taking a lesson from the structure of my L07D turntable/tonearm, I took great pains to add mass to the arm board of the turntable where I have mounted the FR64S.  Plus I use the B60 VTA adjuster, which also adds tightly coupled mass to the base of the FR64S.  Perhaps for this reason, and/or because the Acutex cartridge I mounted on the FR64S just does not energize the headshell very strongly, I perceive no issue that I can attribute to resonance.  And the sound is anything but the romantic euphonic one that I think R associates with "distortions".  It is quite uncolored across the entire spectrum. (I have read that MC cartridges are most guilty of this "sin" of producing a lot of mechanical energy into the headshell and beyond.)  Using a single material from front to back, as is done in the FR tonearms, also helps sink or drain away spurious mechanical energy produced by the cartridge.

I think this is an interesting topic.  I also think that trying to kill resonance purely by damping can be a losing proposition unless done properly.

Dear @fleib: """"   How is an alignment an invention anyway? Find 2 nulls along the recorded part and you have an alignment. I used similar alignments 30+ years ago setting up Japanese tables.  """"

As I said to Halcro the problem is that unfortunatelly majority of audiophiles did not learned the tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment subjects/premises by Löfgren but not only audiophiles but analog " guru " professional reviewers as MF or DS ( PF. ) and several others.

The ignorance levels in this regards is really high. The Löfgreen papers are of public domain and can be used for any one with out restrictions and coming from those papers we only see " number's manipulations " as the Stevenson one but does not exist any new method for tonearm/cartridge alignment set up not even new protractors where all are the same and only has real differences on its retail prices. I'm still with the unexpensive and very accurate MINT LP protractor, we don't need anything else.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.




From Lewm:
Besides damping spurious resonances one can also sink the energy that affects the magnitude of the resonance. This is what I think might be happening with the FR64S/66S. It may be that the tonearm is efficient at draining resonant energy away from the cartridge body and headshell. Because, as Raul correctly states, there is no impediment to energy transmission along the arm tube and back to the pivot and base structure, it may be that the energy is effectively drained away or "sinked".

While he is not a fan of the FR64s/66s, Jonathan Carr of Lyra has commented extensively on this principle of draining energy and it seems like a very valid approach:

In general, my cartridge designs use the arm as a path to bleed off excess vibrational energy (after the energy from the LP groove is used to move the cartridge coils and generate an electrical signal, it serves no useful purpose and is best gotten rid of as quickly and completely as possible). Therefore, my cartridge designs definitely prefer arms with stiff, non-resonant armpipes, and bearings that are completely free of slop or chatter. If the tonearm doesn't fit the above requirements, the tonal balance of the cartridge is likely to turn brighter and harder, due to excess vibrational energy reflecting off the arm and getting back into the cartridge coils.
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=165118