Glanz moving magnet cartridges

Dear Professor, Thanks for your advice but my experience is
the other way round. For the low complience carts I use my
Reed 2A, 12'' and 27g. eff. mass. For such carts there
is no other option. But ,as Halcro, for all my MM carts I use
the FR-64S with excellent results. This arm is considered
as a 'havy gun' but the eff. mass depends from the used
headshell (+cart weight) as well from the 'place' of the
counterweight relative to the pivot. Now all or at least
the most MM carts are about 6-7 gr. so the counterweight
nearly touches the pivot. For some MM carts
one need to use heavier headshells to compensate. I also use
the Lustre 801 which is much less(?) heavy but the FR-64 is
much better 'tracker'. My quess is that the bearings by
FR-64 are exceptional. However I also own the Sumiko 800
(aka 'Breuer') and can provide the 'optimal conditions'
according to your opinion for both Signet's.

Regards,

Dear Halcro: I own the FR and I posted that I still own because I like it.

Now, I think I don't posted that VTA/VTF can't be changed because that is something that any one can do it through the tonearm facilities.

No, it is not " only " azymuth as you said ( latter on that. ). I don't know if you really don't care about azymuth or what you posted is only in " defense " ( no sense defense. ) of a IMHO a limited wrong cartridge designs:

++++ " but I have found that azimuth, when adjusted by the majority of users......is more often wrongly set.... " ++++

the main subject is that to make and achieve the best any cartridge can show us we must have the azymuth facility to make changes during the set up/alignment, azymuth changes makes a difference always. So try to diminish its importance makes no sense to me but I respect your " no sense " defense????

Halcro, why in the hell today you own several tonearms and dozens of HEADSHELLS? why? please let me know.
As many of us you already learned the critical importance to match the cartridge not only with the tonearm but with the " right " headshell and this " characteristic " that always makes a paramount differences on performance cartridge level is " deny " in an integrated design.

At least two other critical characteristics that are " deny " on integrated designs: you can't change the internal(headshell wiring for a better today one and you can't make a precise alignment never because you can't align the cantilever in an integrated design.

Halcro, what is all about?....you are aware of all these so why post something like what you posted?
Are you telling me that all what we learn on cartridge/tonearm set up/alignment is not true or important?.

I respect your opinion but not only can't agree with you but with those kind of posts I even am in doubt I really know you as I thought I know you!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Halcro: ++++ " but the fixed headshell of the FR-7 cartridges is not one of the places that I would select to work upon? " +++

of course not because you can't do nothing about!!!!!

I repeat: IMHO today an integrated cartridge design is a wrong very limited design. That some of us prefer it does not means is a good design and IMHO can't justify that ignorance level/marketing that the cartridge manufacturers had it.

You own or owned the Technics 100C in an integrated version ( MK3. ) and for what you posted on that cartridge performance I remember that you was not " happy " enough because that cartridge can't shows you what really is. Ask any one that own the stand alone version and everybody can tell you its very top performance even one of those Technics owners posted in the MM thread that he prefers the Technics ( MK4 stand alone. ) over the Lyra Atlas that he own and compared in between!!!!

Again, what are we talking about? what are we achieving through this " excercise " in favor of music, in favor to improve our each one system? what???????

R.

R.

what is the new lesson?, because as you know I'm always willing to learn.

R.

Dear Henry, As Raul stated I assume that we all want to learn. The first review about the FR-64s that I have read was the German Magazine 'Das Ohr' (the ear) from 1984. Our
member Dertonarm was then a reviewer by this Magazine. Regarding the tonearm geometry already than both reviewers made the remark that the geometry in the user manual was not optimal. They recommended the spindle -pivot distance of 231,5 mm instead of 230 mm in the manual. With 'optimal' geometry they meant the Bearwald. Well I recently ordered by Yip his Mint protractor for my FR-64- SP 10 combo. Yip wrote to me that the geometry in the user manual is Stevenson : 230/ 244,9 ( spindle -pivot/ eff. lenght).
For my combo I wanted Bearwald which according to Yip imply :231,5/ 248,2 mm respectively. I am not sure if you referred to your FR -66 or 64 with your statement that the geometry of your FR tonearm and FR-7 cart is 'perfect' Bearwald but if you referred to your FR-64 this can't be true. I never owned the FR-66 so I have no idea which geometry is assumed in the user manual for this tonearm. But I am familiar with the FR-64 from 1983 till now.
I agree with Raul reg. the integrated headshell/carts combos's but my reasons are more pragmatic than theoretical.

Regards,