Question on FR 66s

Halcro, thanks again for your information. I will wait for SMARTracker to arrive before experimenting. I assume that once setting P2S to 231.5 and using UNIdin and align it to null point properly, offset angle and overhang would be adjusted to the new spec automatically, if I am reading your post correctly.

This is a lot of fun and please hijack the thread as you wish. FR66s, FR64s, I needs all the help I can get for both!
I also recently got the B-60 VTA adjustment replica for FR66s which is great. Now I will have to save up for another one for FR64s. However, I will need to find a new armboard as my Micro Seiki armboard for FR will not accomodate the larger diameter VTA on the fly module.

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.

Thank you Nandric, I am very eager to get in contact with your uncle Boris. We may put his Nataljia into the speakers and tell him everything is fine. The speakers are big enough. Do you think it might become a bit risky for me...?

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,