FR66s vs Ikeda IT-407 CR tonearms
- ...
- 87 posts total
@syntax The FR-tonearms can only be perfectly aligned with the Dennesen Soundtracktor. 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. |
The general statement made by Gordon Holt which is quoted by Syntax can be made even ''more general'': ''devaluation as function of time''. This mean more than only monetary devaluation. I mentioned earlier the German Magazin ''Das Ohr'' in which both the FR-64 S and FR-64 FX are reviewed (1984). The German importer was also allowed to comment on the reviews. His advice was to buy FR-66 because those will be in short supply and explained that the cost of their production are such that the arm can't be sold for a 'reasonable price''. That is why the FX is produced from aluminum. The curious fact is that the same happened with SME 3012 , 3009. Their first version were made from steel the following from aluminum. While without anti-skate provision those steel versions are much more expensive and rare. Impressed by J. Carr's authority and knowledge I purchased Ikeda 345 ''the best ever made according to Ikeda'' according to Carr. I just sold the 345 but still keep my two FR-64 S and use the silver variation in one of my systems. To me the FR-64 S is better made and much more easy to use. The anti-skate provision by 345 is an enigma. But consistent with my ''general theory'' I just purchased the ''older'' IT 245 about which very little is known. This is the first arm made by Ikeda's own company after the FR- kinds. I hope to inform the members as soon as I get and test this arm. |
- 87 posts total