Yes, and at 231.5 using the Feickert, I was easily able to achieve Baerwald. So in this case, I trusted Dertonearm (who advised me to use 231.5 instead of the FR recommended 230mm P2S) and not FR. On that other issue, it was actually due to my own experience that I came to the conclusion (right or wrong) that one ought to use the geometry for which the tonearm was intended by its designers. When I set up a cartridge according to Baerwald in my Dynavector DV505 which was made for Stevenson or something near to it, the cartridge body was naturally at an angle with respect to the long axis of the head shell. Twisted inward a bit. The result was distorted sound that I could easily hear. I then took the same set-up and re-aligned it according to the Dynavector recommended geometry. This effected a marked improvement. I theorized that when the arc of the motion of the cantilever is not in line with the arc of the vertical bearing, this creates assymetrical forces on the cantilever, and that is not a good thing. Such a problem may only pertain to the DV tonearms, where the two bearings (vertical and horizontal) are completely separate. In a more conventional pivoted tonearm, the unification of the vertical and horizontal motion in one single bearing may allow for compensation, force-wise. I don't consider my little experience to be proof of my hypothesis, but it fits the facts so far. |
Dear @chakster : Yes, I know that but the protractor is the one that came with the TT/tonearm unit where they have a space problem to mount it. As almost all japanese manufacturers Sony did not cares to much of the importance of tonearm/cartridge precise/accurate set up according the standard alignments and that's why you said the PUA-7 comes with a special geometry. It's special because does not goes with any of the standards but it's even worst than Stevenson A. My advise is that you forget that protractor and make the tonearm/cartridge alignment set up using the Feickert you own, even if you choose again Stevenson A you will have lower distortion levels with the Feickert. R. |
Dear @lewm : I podted because your comment that could make your own alignment and you are rigth any one can, that was an example. I'm posting here even that the FR tonearms are a bad design because the owners like you can improve the quality performance level in the FR tonearm. I know that you don't care then is not for you but for the ones that cares about making some " simple " changes in the overall alignment set up all can do it. @ivelchev did it with out changing the P2S distance. My take here in this alignment regards and with any pivoted tonearm is always that tif he arm board and tonearm headshell permit it set up the alignment choosing Löfgren A/Baerwald or B with a bit longer length that the manufacturer spec for effective length. How much longer?, as the set up permit it. In that way the tracking error will goes down as the distortions levels and these means that we will have/listen more groove recorded information with less/lower degradation. Worth to do it . That's why I told you to test 247mm/250mm on effective length using Löfgren A/Baerwald, you will receive better quality on what you are listening today. No doubt about. No, I don't care if you do or not. Again, I know that you don't care and like in your Dynavector tonearm set up you follows the manufacturer specs even with higher distortions but that's you. Through the years I learned the critical importance of turntable/tonearm/cartridge alignment set up and the importance that the set up be made it with accuracy. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
I got my FR-64s from the postman today. Soon i’ll be able to compare FR64fx side to side to FR-64s. Both arms are in perfect condition, but my 64fx is almost like new. I’ve been using my FR64fx with original W-250 (30mm long) superheavy counterweight, this weight does not comes with the arm, it must be purchased separately and it’s extremely rare. The weight which i got on FR-64s is smaller (25mm long), probably it’s not the heaviest among those 3 different weight designed for FR-64s tonearm? Is that a medium weight @nandric ? I have not mounted FR-64s, but what i can say immediately from the first look is that the armbase design of the 64s is awful compared to the beautiful 64fx armbase ! 1) The base of 64fx is much bigger and thicker, it has two screws that does not require any tool to adjust/fix VTA of the tonearm quickly and easily. Actually there is no need for optional B-60 for 64fx! 2) The 64fx armbase has 3 vertical screws (tiangle) goes throught it to fix the armbase to the turntable base. The 64s does not have anything like that! 3) Then there is a huge nut under the base on 64fx. The nut of the 64s is much smaller and if we don’t have super expensive optional VTA on the fly base (B-60 for 64s) then mounting process is completely different compared to the 64fx tonearm. 4) Basically the 64s has some sort of thick washer and nut to fix the arm, the VTA can be fixed with two screws, but only with a tool. While the 64fx can be easily fixed manually first and then tighten up with a tool. 5) Tracking force ring on 64fx is much better! This ring works like an expensive safe lock, the movement of the ring is fixed step by step while the tracking force ring on the 64s has free smoth movement. 6) Curved pad of the armlift on 64fx is metal, while this pad on 64s is plastic (too bad). *** In my opinion the Fidelity-Research FR-64fx toneam build quality and usability is much better than 64s ! Many mechanical things were improved on "fx" version. The FR 64fx tonearm is more user friendly for sure. ** Now i understand why each owner of the 64s is looking for B-60, but the owners of the 64fx shouldn’t worry about it. * Later i will check is it true that 64s has better sonics than 64fx, but at the moment my choice is 64fx for many reasons described above. |
