2. analog
  3. 1243274438

Fidelity Research cartridges

Any FR cartridge experts out there? Raul? Dertonarm? Syntax?
I have had an FR-7 which I bought a while ago. I tried it ever so briefly when I got it on an arm I now recognize as not being able to handle that weight (close, but no cigar). I just now pulled it out for kicks and after getting it adjusted with the big counterweight, I am VERY pleasantly surprised. Actually, I'm feeling kind of bubbly. It does not dig out the utmost in detail, but it just sounds very right.

Are there any other FR carts out there which are real steals if still in good condition? I know the MC-702 and the FR-1Mk2 and Mk3f by name, with good reps being assigned to the Mk3 and the MC-702. Given that the MC-702 and the FR-7 look quite similar, and they were offered at about the same time, what is different? And is the FR-7 just an integrated headshell version of the FR-1Mk3?
t_bone
nkj
130 posts
 
This is great to see all this information here from experienced users.

I just got a FR64s and FR 7f that I hope to assemble this week and try. I also have the Koetsu RSP that I will attempt to put on the arm with a Jelco headshell for now. I do have the lighter counterweight to use as an option as well.




nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Ikeda's tonearm geometry versus FR-7 series cartridges.

Nobody ever explained why the most Japanese tonearms

followed  Stivenson geometry. As is well known(?) the FR

64/66 as well the new  Ikeda 's can be adjusted to Bearwald

by changing the spindle- pivot distance to 231,5 mm with

246 mm effective length. But then the integrated headshell

by FR-7 kinds does not provide for ''effective length'' change.

Some Japanese MM carts with integrated headshells do have

such provision. As my comrade Don informed me about his

Supremo cantileverless kind also has such provision by

its integrated headshell. At ''the end'' of the headshell there

are two small screws by which one can move the stylus forward

and back for the needed distance.

My FR-7 fz sample was modify by Van den Hul to Bearwald

geometry in addition to boron cantilever and Van den Hul

(aka ''Geiger'') stylus.

edgewear
543 posts
 
The Stevenson alignment is generally regarded - on this forum and almost anywhere else - as inferior to Baerwald. Measurements seem to bear this out.

So why did one of the most revered cartridge builders stick to this inferior alignment? We would have to assume that Ikeda tried out all options before making his choice. Or was compatibility with SPU types perhaps one of his design objectives (SPU’s exactly fit the Stevenson alignment with FR-64 tonearms)?

My guess is that Ikeda was not of the ’compromising kind’ and must have had ’sound’ reasons for choosing this alignment. Obviously it’s impossible to make a comparison of both alignments with the FR-7, but I did try it with other cartridges without fixed headshell (using the FR-64 with either 230 mm or 231,5 mm spindle-to-pivot distance).

This remark will probably disqualify me as a serious listener, but I don’t find the Baerward to be sonically superior to Stevenson. If anything, the Stevenson has an edge in dealing with inner groove distortion. This is particularly helpful with classical music, as these composer guys usually liked to ’go out with a bang’.

So this question remains: was Ikeda a Wagnerite?


nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Dear edgewear, My question was why the most Japanese tonearms

producer followed Stevenson geometry. As you probably know

according to Japanese culture it is ''not done'' to deviate from , say,

national customs. Then there is this curious FR-702 with assumption

that this ''model'' is made for European market. But this cart has

shorter cantilever than other from the FR-7 series. I even assume

that experiments with shorter cantilever was a kind of evolution

to the cantileverless kinds. It may be also the case that Ikeda

deed not consider tonearm geometry as very important issue.

Nobody has to my knowledge claimed to hear something special

by whatever ''0'' points by those tractors. BTW I own about 3000

classical records but only few of them have the ''inner groove''

near the spindle. This may be the reason for the ''bad reputation''

of Stevenson (?). 



chakster's avatar
chakster
6,144 posts
 
This month i have PMC-3 mounted on Lustre GST-801 tonearm on FR RS-141 headshell with FR leadwires (Baerwald geometry) ... and Ortofon MC-2000 on its dedicated headshell with silver lead wires on Sony PUA-7 tonearm. Both on the same Luxman PD-444 turntable, both arms connected to Gold Note PH-10 phono stage with Signal Cable Silver Resolution phono cables (Xhadow RCA). It’s so cool that PH-10 inputs can be adjusted for two MC cartridges (like no other phono stage) !

Sony tonearm geometry is not Stevenson or Baerwald, it’s something Sony prodived with its own protractor that comes with the arm.

I use Baerwald for Lustre GST-801 with FR PMC-3 cartridge.

Two different cartridges, two different sound signature. Ortofon MC-2000 still have some sort of background noise which sounds like tape hiss when the music is off (+6db on Gold Note), but when the music is on this cartridge is very special.

Fidelity-Research PMC-3 on Lustre GST-801 is dead quiet with Gold Note PH-10 + PSU-10. On this particular tonearm and with FR-141 headshell this cartridge is much better than on Sony PUA-7. Very interesting. This cartridge is not so expensive as the ortofon MC-2000 and less problematic with gain. But i really like the sound signature of its Air-Core.

P.S. I must say i’ve never had a problem with Stevenson geometry and my FR-7fz sound is amazing on FR-64fx tonearm. I have no idea why FR-7 owners should worry about Stevenson geometry on FR tonearms. Ikeda designed them to be used with Stevenson. Cartridge/tonearm designer’s opinion is much more important for me. First thing to do is to follow the original instructions like it supposed to be.



More to discover