Question on FR 66s

Dear Raul,
in the last 12 months you have stressed your ambition showing our community what you think about the FR designs, the SAEC WE 8000 and some other benchmark designs in phono-business. I was very surprised that you proclaim that all these designs are of mediocre sound capability and all the guys out there using these designs keep their houses full of distortion while yours is clean...

I don't mind that you have different assessments on these products and I tolerate everyone using and enjoying his "own best gear". But don't you realize that I cannot take these remarks you are giving in the last months as serious anymore??

Regarding the WE 618B you need telling me when you have discovered this item on ebay for what price? Maybe you can also tell me in which tonearm/table combination you were using the Western Electric SUT. I then might be able to assess your remarks that the WE is of low quality...

BTW among serious audiophiles in some European countries your assessment of the WE 618B (as of the FR-66s and the SAEC WE 8000) did raise the same questions I have.

If you are feeling I am questioning your integrity this is your assessment. I am just putting questions on some phono units and like to exchange other opinions. I am not putting it personal. Hope you understand this.

enjoy the music

Raul, When you have calmed down sufficiently, I would like to know what you think about my experience that suggests best sound is achieved when the cartridge is aligned according to the geometry for which the tonearm was designed. That means, for the vintage Japanese tonearms like my Dynavector DV505 (and in theory like the FR tonearms), the best sounding geometry is Stevenson. This is my personal observation with only the one tonearm (DV505) and two different cartridges. And it is only my opinion based on listening, only. I am NOT saying that Stevenson gives the lowest overall mathematically predicted "distortion". I am only reporting my experience, and I attributed the finding to the fact that with the DV505 one has to twist the cartridge in the headshell, in order to use anything but Stevenson. There is reason to believe that this could introduce a new source of distortion that over-rides tonearm geometry. I wrote about this on VE.

Dear Thuchan: Way before you bought the 8000 I posted my opinions on those SAEC tonearms along the 506 I own ( you can see the 8000 picture in my system. ) and that was way before no one here in this forum speaks about SAEC tonearms. I used those SAEC tonearms for years ( they came after I sold the 66. ).

SAEC had a very high quality builded designs and a beauty of tonearms in the hands but through all those years and comparing against other vintage tonearms as the MS 282 or the Audiocraft or Satin I learned about its performance " faults ". The double knife bearing is more resonant than other pivot bearing types as gymbal or jewel and puts additional distortions/feedback that you can hear, other " problem " in the 8000 is that way resonant ceramic headshell and of course its long effective mass.

Its very dificult that you can be aware of significant differences between the SAEC tonearms and other top tonearms if your system has not the resolution need it to be aware of it.

Now, that's part of my opinion that where I acumulate several experiences with different cartridges over several years not over 3 or 4 years and against several tonearms in the same set up.

Like you when I discovered the SAEC ones I was really impressed, you can't be in other way. Yes, the 8000 is one of your " new " toys when for me is a very old toy. Sooner or latter, as me, that toy will be out of your system for good reasons: when you learned about and be less impressed as I one time was.

If you want to talk about SUTs you can start a thread or go to the MM/MI thread. Very fast, I bought two WE transformers along two Denon, two Entré, one Audiocraft and one Sony SUTs. All that in one month to search again about the SUTs performance an its influence on signal degradation against non-SUT system. I modified all, you can read in the MM/MI thread.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Lewm: I owned the DV-505 and its a design that I respect a lot becaus e is unique, good for Dynavector.

You are right almost all japanese tonearms came with set up specs based on Stevenson.

When I try to mount my first cartridge on it I don't put to much attention to that fact and mounted according with the protractor at hand and I have trouble because the offset angle then I was aware of Stevenson and that's how I use it for some time but I changed to Löfgren B twisting the cartridge as you said ( I don't use it the Dynavector headshell and I can't remember wich ones I used because was years ago. ) and with the XV-1 mounted in that way I achieve better results that with the Stevenson alignment and that's the way I used. Maybe I could be wrong but that passed so many years that's dificult to be sure about. Yes, that tonearm conforms as no other tonearm with Stevenson.
In all audio alternatives exist trade-offs and perhaps those trade-offs " sounds " better for me. I don't mounted MM/MI cartridges down there but only LOMC. Unfortunatelly I don't have any more to test it again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, interesting: could you link your VE post to my email?. You know I'm willing to learn always.

Thank you.

R.