Hi Raul: The Audioquest is a very, very old design that has little to do with the Lyra cartridges of today. The mechanical concepts are different, the magnetic concepts are different, the suspension concepts are different, the stylus design is different...
The Akiva's weight, compliance, key dimensions etc. were designed to optimally match the Linn Ekos tonearm. And unlike our "Lyra" branded designs, it had a plastic body. However, the core design of the Akiva (including the cantilever and suspension sections) is not so different from other cartridges that I designed around that period, such as the Argo and Titan.
I repeat that to track the 1812 has never been my goal - not even remotely - so for me personally this entire thread is a non-issue. The only major statement that I dispute is that extreme tracking ability is the key parameter that should be used in general to distinguish OK cartridges from not OK cartridges. This is like claiming that the ability to take a certain corner at 455mph at one particular race track in the entire world is what distinguishes an excellent motorcar from a so-so one, even though the legal limit for public roads in every country is 60mph or 80mph.
But Raul, if the Akiva is the cartridge that pushes your buttons, I am happy for you. Enjoy, and perhaps consider picking up a spare (prices of low-hour Akivas have dropped somewhat now that the Kandid has replaced it as Linn's top model).
Regarding tonearm resonance and tracking performance, a tonearm acts as a high-pass mechanical filter to relieve the cartridge of reproducing low frequencies that are below the tonearm resonant frequency. The resonant frequency is normally placed between 8-12 Hz because this filters out pressing defects such as warp wow components while leaving the music mostly intact. If the resonant frequency is set higher than 12Hz, the tonearm will start to respond to bass signals rather than the cartridge, which is good for tracking, but may attenuate what the cartridge reproduces of the LP's lowermost frequencies.
Hi Dover:
>have you tried a FR64S on your Final Audio TT?
Certainly. It's not bad, although outclassed by modern tonearms such as the Graham Phantom Supreme, and vintage arms such as the Technics EPA100MkII (caveat - my EPA-100 has been completely rebuilt with ceramic ball-bearings rather than the original rubies, and rewired with flying-lead signal outputs instead of the original 5-pin connector).
>I do not get any upper midrange coloration in my system.
In my applications, adding constrained-layer damping to the armtube made it considerably more neutral to my ears, and made the dynamics more linear.
>I use static balance only with this arm which opened the soundstage and improved resolution considerably compared with the use of dynamic balance when using a LOMC.
After trying dynamic, static, and combining the two, I found that a combination worked best.
I have a spare FR-64S that I am planning to rebuild with an alternative armtube of different geometry and more sophisticated construction. The FR64S is a nice tonearm for experimentation.
BTW, Dover, are you aware of the original Kitamura generation Final Audio Labs, or are you only familiar with the brand post-Takai?
kind regards, jonathan carr