Refurbish Fidelity Research Tonearms

My favorite cart is FR-1mk3F

BTW those old FR-7f and FR-7fz monsters are also amazing in my opinion. 

@mijostyn, you say there is nothing special about ’boat anchor’ tonearms and low compliance moving coils, but exactly what modern technology and wisdom are you referring to that have rendered them archaic? The only real advance in cartridge design is the availability of more powerful magnets, enabling a better output/impedance ratio that potentially translates to better sonics. As you say modern technology and wisdom move on, but in vinyl playback it’s mostly towards ever more ridiculous pricing.

Also, your comment that high mass arms and low compliance carts induce accelerated record and stylus wear is a myth. My own record collection consists almost entirely of previously owned records from the late 50’s to the early 70’s. What do you think these records were played with in those days? Yet well kept copies (in NM to EX condition) have survived these guerrilla circumstances admirably and usually sound infinitely better than records pressed today, which 'benefit' from this latest technology and wisdom.

Of course you are entitled to believe that new is always better, but please don’t try to sell it as fact. And what’s the purpose of doing this in a thread about refurbishing one of these boat anchors you obviously don’t care for?

You say you want the best sound and don’t care what it takes. This suggests an open mind, but in the same sentence you contradict this by saying you try not to go backwards. Which suggests a closed mind towards anything not new. Why?

Dear @edgewear : " Either way I’ve found that static balancing sounds slightly better,...."

I own/owned at least 7 tonearms that were/are balanced design. All of them but 2 use the spring to set up the vtf that always is a resonance source.
This happens with the 66 and 64 ( I still own the 64. ) and the SME IV/V the other 2 balanced tonearm designs that I owned were the MAX 282 ( great really great tonearm ) and the GST 801 that been balanced designs do not use that spring and has not those resonances.

For years I posted that all balanced tonearms vintage or today designs must be used in static way to set up the vtf and it’s not only because that distortion resonance source but because the LPs are not totally flat and is better to use the gravity for handled in better way those waves and the other important issue is that in static way the tonearm will stay nearer to the tonearm pivot given it a better control to horizontal and vertical extremely fast movements demanded for the grooves tracking along those imperfections in the LP as off-center/waves and the like.

So, yes I agree with you.

In the other side around 40grs. of EM in the 66 is not the best for any cartridge because at the end the cartridge cantilever/suspension are looking that dynamic mass during playback.

Any medium mass tonearm can handled any cartridge in way better way than a heavy one as the 66 or 64. Yes, I know that some die for it, good for them.

Btw, for your last post seems to me that you are the other way around from what mijostyn posted and in some ways is true that today analog advancements maybe are not so spectacular over the years against vintage items but in tonearm exist many advancements not only in the use of build materials or pivoted LT designs but today tonearms are best damped than the vintage as the 66S and this is an important issue to achieve better quality levels of LP reproduction.
No I don't think that in the future " things " in analog changes to much due that this alternative is way limited and one way or the other it's at its limit. Anyway we can enjoying it.

.Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.