Fidelity Research FR64s Headshell dilemma

The only German joke I  have ever heard and is curiously 
connected with my post about''simplicity'' and ''reality'' is
as follow:: ''If theory and practice coincide than both are
probably false''.
What Kessler and Pisha discovered is that by te most tonearms 
the offset angle and overhang were wrongly chosen . That is
to say not optimal according to the  3 mentioned equations. 

Dear @bukanona : I owned SAEC tonearms and it’s a disaster for say the least. The only model with an orthodox alignment is the WE-8000 that I owned and that uses Löfgren B wiith JIS standard not IEC one. I have to say that the 8000 model was thenlatest SAEC design.

All the  other models only SAEC knows what they did it  and why did it that way( exist a mix-up in the EL data.) . The other model I owned was the 506-30 that I used with Löfgren A ( IEC. ) alignment (with out any cartridges problems. ) because the SAEC specs are not near any normal alignment and cause problems to mount some cartridges on it.

Those both SAEC models I owned are really good looking tonearms with very high quality build skills, unfortunatelly SAEC is more resonant ( not very well damped ) that what I prefer.



R.

Dear @nandric  :  """  What Kessler and Pisha discovered is that by te most tonearms
the offset angle and overhang were wrongly chosen...""

for me that only speaks that not all tonearm manufacturers took with the necessary professional attitude the tonearm/cartridge alignment and its critical main importance because as I posted before and if the designer is " serious " about he only ned it to choose the EL of his design and the other parameters are the result/output of an orthodox alignment calculations. There is no way/margin of error, he only needs to paste the calculated values and that's all.

Other " confusion " that could happened with the gentlemans you named is that their observations were made using IEC standard and maybe do not try with DIN/JIS standards. Who knows from where came those " mix-up ".

R.

Other often " trouble " is that tonearm manufacturers sometimes like to " round off " the values, example: if the off set angle real value is 15.22° they just round and use 15° and same thing could happens with overhang too. The FR/Ikeda analized here is an example because the correct P2S is not 230mm but 230.09mm as I posted and any one can corroborates in the vinylengine links.

R.

Your ’’short’’ headhells are very frustrating
when one need to ’’wrestle ’’ with them in order to get them
connected with both : cart connectors and headshell connectors .
Add to that different dimensions of headshell ’’clips’’ for the
carts as well for the headshells connectors so who would
understand our hobby except by masochism assumption?

I want to quit from this discussion, i have great headshells that none of you using here for some reason, i always read recommendation for the shells i never use. So if someone have a problem with headshell i must say this is not what i use. I have no problem to twist and adjust a cartridge in the headshell for any geometry.

As i said AudioCraft headshells (especially rewired) are great and available in different size from short to long, ZYX LIVE 18 is modern headshell i use. Grace Carbon HS-6 and heavier Grace metal HS-8 is what i really like too.

As some other members i can’t hear that re-aligned cartridge (Baerwald) is any better than aligned cartridge (Stevenson) on many tonearms originally designed with Stevenson geometry.

P.S. Saec did it wrong, but the brand is gone, while IKEDA and Technics are still making tonearm and alignment is Stevenson.

If you’re able to hear the difference at your age than maybe i will have to wait 20-40 years, right now i can’t hear any benefit of Baerwald over Stevenson on tonearms originally designed for Stevenson. So i will follow manufacturer’s recommendation for each tonearm.

P.S. I don't read Rauls posts, not interested.