FR66s vs Ikeda IT-407 CR tonearms

Lot of very dogmatic but rather dubious assertion in the post above. Lots of VERY and ONLY in caps ... excessive use of 'much more' etc etc.

Never owned an FR66 - heard a couple and really doubt their prices are justified, except as 'rare object' which I guess is increasingly common - but a couple of FR64S examples, the first of which turned out to be in need of attention, as many of them do these days.

I have an early IT-407 and a post 2011 IT-345 CR1 and both seem to me to be far better arms than the FR64. I put this down to the additional vertical bearing - the FR64 has only one, on one side, whereas the 407/345 have two, one each side. This has many advantages not least longevity. Other than that the designs are pretty similar and indeed many bits are interchangeable (I had an 64 and 345 at the same time for a short while and was able to compare directly on a well sorted TD124 with Miyajima Madake, Zero mono, assorted SPU cartridges and an Ikeda 9C.
Never found either of them that hard to set up either - using SPU standard distance (which I use for all my cartridges) the 345 is spot on at recommended 230mm, the early 407 need set back about 1.6mm, job done, no need to fuss any further.
The FR64 is a very good arm but there's a strong case (which happens to be my opinion too) that the Ikeda-branded arms are better - improved vibration control, significantly improved bearings, similar (slightly but not massively) less mass for a more expanded list of compatible cartridges, and in my view more successful aesthetics. If your preference is for the FR arm then fine make the case all you like, but for all the shouting in the above post, it's a matter of opinion, not in any way 'case closed'.

@montesquieu are you talking about FR-64 or FR-64S ? The "S" is different and it’s not about silver wire, it’s slightly different design. I use FR-64FX which is also different from 64 and 64S.

Don't let Raul see this thread, he despises the FR. 

@syntax 

The FR-tonearms can only be perfectly aligned with the Dennesen Soundtracktor.
Try with any other alignment tool of today - no matter if Bearwald or not....... no matter if IEC standard - and it will result in a misaligned cartridge and too little overhang thus in a pretty bad tangential curve with the zero-error points being too close together.
Do align them with a Denessen Soundtraktor and precise - absolute precise spindle center to bearing center of 231.5 mm for the FR-64s and 295 mm for the FR-66s and you will get sonic results which will open up your ears and minds.

Dennesen is just a  predecessor of Dr. Feickert protractor ?
Or there is any fundamental differense between them? 

Here is an old review for Dennesen by B. V. Pisha (Source: Audio magazine, Mar. 1980)

Seems like Dr. Feickert is much better tool today. 

I wondered whether Syntax's post, from late 2014, was written before the advent of the UNItractor, designed and built by his colleague, Dertonearm.  The UNI and the even later SMARTractor are in a way a homage to the Dennesen, so I was surprised that he did not mention even the UNI in his post about alignment.  That said, I own a UNI (and an original all-metal Dennesen).  It seems to me that I purchased the UNI prior to 2014, which means that it must have been on sale when Syntax posted in October, 2014.

After mounting the FR64S using the Dertonearm-recommended 231.5mm for P2S, I aligned it using the UNI.  I am very happy with the FR64S, and Raul has criticized me for liking it.  I guess that is a sort of badge of honor.  I have mounted an Acutex LPM320STRIII induced magnet cartridge on the FR64S, albeit using a Dynavector headshell which is much lighter than any of the heavy FR headshells, but still not really "light" as headshells go.  But still, this combo should not work well, because the compliance of the Acutex is given as 42!!!  Nevertheless, it does work very well; it's just a pleasure to listen to this combo, mounted on my TT101.  We just got home from Tokyo, where I purchased several headshells, including a Yamamoto carbon fiber job, based on Halcro's recommendation. I plan to try the Acutex on the Yam headshell, at some point. 

Does anyone have any idea why the FR64S seems in this case to be exempt from the "rule" that governs matching cartridge compliance to effective mass?  My hypothesis is that over the years, the compliance of my Acutex (which I purchased NOS) has gone down due to stiffening of the suspension, while the effective mass of the FR64S is less than typical due to using the lighter DV headshell.