Question on FR 66s

05-19-13: Lewm
Dear Henry, I am a bit puzzled about a recommendation for a specific headshell offset angle to go along with the recommended P2S distance and overhang for the 64S. In the case of headshell offset angle, isn't one "stuck" with the built-in angle?

Option 1 - Buy a headshell with slots
Option 2 - Drill the headshell holes oversize
Option 3 - Drill the cartridge holes oversize
Option 4 - No bolts, superglue the cartridge to the headhsell
Option 4 is the best sounding, but you need to keep the glue ultra thin for maximum energy transfer.

Dear Dover, I am well aware that one can "twist" the cartridge in the headshell to obtain a non-standard offset angle. I suppose I should have acknowledged that possibility in my post to Henry. In fact, that's what one has to do, in order to use Daniel's recommended FR64S geometry. Twisting the cartridge in the headshell did not work well with my Dynavector, which experience I described elsewhere, maybe not on this thread. Thus I am biased against thinking of doing it. But I also think that the issues that arose with the Dynavector (nasty distortion) had to do with the unique design of the Dynavector, where the vertical pivot is distinct from the horizontal one and very close to the cantilever. Ergo, I am open-minded about twisting the cartridge in the FR64S headshell. More anon.

I was as puzzled as Lewm with the offset angle .etc., and reread the article by Kessler and Pisha about the Tonearm Geomtery and Setup. I see that Lewm 'got the picture' in
his next post ( 05-19-13) but he is better than I in, inter alia, math and physics. The confusing part is the P2S distance. One should forget about this parameter and
consider that overhang and offset angle are also involved in tonearm geometry. According to Kessler and Pisha the most Japanese tonearms got the overhang wrong. That is to say not optimal in correaltion to the eff. lenght.
I got the answers from Daniel about his reasons to change his opinion about the 'usual' geometry but I need his permission to quote from his email first.
Now my own position is this. While I like to consider myself as 'pedantic' I am, lucky me, not an perfectionist. I made so much effort to get this damn distance for my FR-64 exactly at 231.5 mm and even more effort to adjust 7 headshells with carts on the 'line curve' of my Mint protractor that I have no intention whatever to mess with offset angle and overhang at all. O. Wilde wrote:'I have simple testes, I am always satisfy with the best'. My philosphy is: I am satisfy with the second best.

Regards,

I am privately wondering how one can cite the true pivot of the FR tonearms to an accuracy of 0.5mm, since the top of the bearing housing is a flat circular plane, IIRC. (The FR64S is not in front of me as I write this.) So, you need a REALLY good eye to find its exact center. And in fact, one has no way to be absolutely certain that the center of the circle is exactly above the center of the pivot point. Well, I will make myself satisfied by believing that it is, in any case.

Nikola, Here is a philosophical question: if you know something is second best, then you must have identified a "best" with which to compare it. Having done so, how do you know that your own best is truly best? Which means that second best might in fact be third best, or fourth, etc. Subjectivism rules.