Question on FR 66s


For some reason, search on FR 66s in agon did not turn up anything much. I recalled that recommended S2P distance is 296mm rather than 295mm and Stevenson geometry seems to work best. Is this correct? I already have FR 64s which works very nicely with Koetsu. In general, does FR 66s works well with the more modern cartridges, Lyra, Air Tight, Dynavector etc.
I am kind of curious to try it but not sure what to try it with. Beside those mentioned on my system page, I have Kiseki Blue, XV-1s and Miyajima Zero on hand currently.

Thanks for any suggestion.
suteetat
Not that Raul needs to be defended; he is good at it himself, but he and his compatriot have designed and manufactured a superb solid state phono stage with many great features. Therefore, he is not fairly subject to your criticism of him as a "wannabe". He pisses me off too, on the odd occasion, but let's be fair. We distortion-lovers have got to stick together.

As to Vinyl Engine and what's there: the only Stevenson protractor I have been able to find is the one available for free on VE. If you print it, make sure that the ratio of the image to the print is 1:1. I then laminated mine between two pieces of mylar, punched a hole for the spindle, and it "works a treat".

Also, in that vein, my personal experience is that I get the best sound when I align the cartridge using the geometry for which the tonearm was intended. For example, the DV505 was designed for Stevenson or something very near to it. When I align using Baerwald, etc, the sound is never as good as when I use Stevenson. The reason for this may be that in order to use something other than Stevenson, the cartridge must be askew in the headshell, twisted with respect to the long axis of the headshell. In the DV, this means that the arc of the cantilever is not in line with the arc of the vertical pivot. This may be the cause of the distortions I hear. (Yes, I can hear distortions; I am no Philistine.)
Dear Nandric,
Who told you i got my Arche headshells for free? I paid hard cash! Definitely. Also for the Axiom.
I was always waiting for the Mexican "Wunder Tonarm" but received nothing else than replies on distortion problems. Maybe HE was surrounded by distortions getting no other idea than that topic.

Anyway in the end it is more or less a question of reliability which got proofed now.

I was always wondering that Raul could invest in a very, very expensive Western Electric SUT he never mentioned before I came up with it. Suddenly
He wrote a negative comment about it and told the world he sold that crap.
Should I believe this story? .... pfft
Dear Thuchan: First than all you as any one else can read all posts in this forum but if you revise in the MM/MI thread I listed in two-three posts all the SUTs I bought trhough ebay and the one you name it was there.

Btw, you need to test the Denon AU-1000.

Now, what do you want? that I give you prove of what I bought like the last time I did it with other gentleman because he did not believe I own or owned an audio item?

Please, do it a favor and try to find out that Denon instead to try to tell me in this forum that I'm a liar. If you have a problem with me please email me you already have my email but I appreciated don't came to Agon with that: " Should I believe this story? ".

I respect you try to do the same and remember that I " work " with facts and first hand experiences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: Which part of my post you don't understand:

++++ " The VE calculator has not the Stevenson alignment that's the one I use to find out the correct overhang/offset angle with that 233mm StoP distance. The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang and that's why you have over 300% higher distortions over Stevenson alignment that's is the one of the three standards with higher overall distortions. " +++++

I´m speaking of the the VE calculator you linked.

there you can read very clear:

+++ " The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang " +++++

if you read on that link what VE are doing is to compel a set up changing only overhang with out change the offset angle and that's why distortions goes so high.

Using Stevenson ( IEC ) alignment a 233mm StP distance the Stevenson calculated overhang is 14.734mm ( I don't used the VE Stevenson calculator but you can do it. ) and its overall distortions be the ones for Stevenson alignment/equations.

So what's the problem with?, certainly you have a misunderstood on thw hole tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: +++++ " I was right about the 15mm overhang and you were wrong? " +++++

I don't know what or where you took information that told you that. Could you explain it?

++++ " There are dozens of posts from you extolling the advantages of Lofgren A (Baerwald) over Stevenson, and your understanding of the distortions of each geometry is obviously flawed.
It just reinforces the fact that you can never be trusted or believed " ++++++

that's the problem: or you can't understand or you can't even read ( btw, I reserve my opinion on that: +++ " you can never be trusted... " +++++ because you just can't prove it as I'm proving here and in other threads that your statement is the other way around!. ), never mind here you can read that what you said is not true:

+++++ " 02-28-11: Rauliruegas
Dear Geoch: That general acceptance on Baerwald is IMHO a wrong way to go, nothing I repeat nothing outperform the overall low distortions ina Löfgren B geometry set up: it does not matters what other people could say or already said it..................................

Löfgreen B IEC is very good option and has the best/lower overall distortion. The DIN one gives you a lower inside grooves distortions but with a higher distortions outside the inner grooves: I don't like it, my take is that good tonearm with good cartridges are very good trackers and I prefer lower distortions overall against a tiny lower inside grooves distortions that I'm sure you can't detect because the difference in distoprtion level between IEC and DIN is extremely small.

Anyway, the real subject is IMHO that you can use any geometry equations option it does not matters which tonearm you own.

Nothing impede that you can test Löfgren B or Löfgren A ( that's similar to Baerwald with the same offset angle/overhang. ) or Stevenson set up and decide which set up please you. .... " +++++

when I talk of " overall distortion figure " I'm refering at its average one and between null points.

this is another post:

+++ " The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking distortion at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in distotion between these points.

The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking distortion of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method. " +++

Stevenson is the worst of those three standard alignments.

IMHO you need to re-read the white papers I linked because you are understranding almost nothing. It's not me the only person questioned you but Dover too.

Now, prove that you are right and we are wrong. I posted facts but you can't understand it as you can't understand Dover.

Halcro, with all respect you are wrong!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.