Glanz moving magnet cartridges

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,

Dear Nandric: My take on that subject is based on facts not theory.

Btw, almost all Japanese tonearms alignment by manufacturer advise were made it through Stevenson. I don't want to go inside again to that subject but IMHO Stevenson is the " wrong " way to go against Löfgren A and B.
Stevenson is a " way to think ", Japanese manufacturers took it. My way of thing is different and in no single of my more than 25+ tonearms I use Stevenson alignment. I respect to whom did it or like it.

As I always say: each one of use like differnt kind of distortions and each one of us common sense level is different too and each one of us music sound priorities are different too.
So it is not easy to agree in every audio subjects.

Regards and enjoy the music,

R.

Dear Nikola,
I really don't know if 230mm for the FR-64s gives Stevenson or Baerwald as I only have Dertonarm's template to align them and it doesn't say what geometry is used?
The strange thing is......that Daniel recommends that 231.5mm be used for the FR-64s yet accepts the Fidelity Research specification of 295mm for the FR-66s?
To allow the interchange capability of all my interchangeable headshell/cartridges......I must use the 230mm and 295mm figures.
This then relates to a S to P distance of 223mm for the MA-505s tonearm?