Question on FR 66s

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.

Dear Halcro: Here you can corroborate everything what I posted. This is through the VE calculator:

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=233&a1=st&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate

at the end of the page you can read what I posted in Agon in that 2011 posts but with different words. I hope you can trust on VE!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Thuchan: I can and I did question/questioned you about your opinion but I can't remember that I questioned you or any one else that if it is true that you own/owned some audio item you mentioned about. As a fact I don't remember any single forum member that in the past did it with other member.

I remember that one time you posted that were along other gentleman the designer/manufacturer of your own speakers: I repeat self co-designer. Remember? and remember what happened down that thread ? do you want to talk about or about your co-designer/partner acts AGAIN?

I have nothing to hide but you are questioning my integrity and then I take it as personal injury and don't think that I can accept it by " free ".

R.