Tonearm recommendation

Dear friends: """ What don’t you understand? Effective length = pivot to spindle (mounting distance) + overhang (spindle to stylus). If mounting distance remains constant, then effective length (L) must change with a different alignment. """

that’s a common misunderstood on cartridge/tonearm alignment set up that I had for many many years and that many of us still have.

When a tonearm designer/manufacturer begin with his design he choose the tonearm effective length not the pivot to spindle distance. He does not care on this distance because tell him nothing. In the other side knowing the tonearm effective lenght in his design all the other alignment/set up parameters comes trhough the choosed alignment calculations it does not matters if he choosed Baerwald, Löfgren B or Stevenson.

The designer choose only one alignment type not 2-3 of them and even if he choosed ( this never happens. ) 2-3 diferent alignmets the effective length stay the same because is the foundation of his design. As I said no designer choose pivot to spindle distance as foundation for his tonearm design, has no sense to do it.

In the example I posted here on a 10" tonearm ( effective length. ) all the main parameters/variables were diferent for Baerwald, Löfgren and Stevenson. Here I write again he calculations:

OVERHANG: B L S

16.224 16.681 13.43

Off.ANGLE: 21.586 21.586 19.912

Pivot-Spindle: 237.78 237.32 240.57


and the Null Points calculated are diferent too:

inner null p.: 65.998 70.285

outer null p.: 120.991 116.604

this NP. is where on each kind of alignment the tracking error and distortion is cero in a pivot tonearm and the foundation to have a graphic/diagram for the overall distortions through the LP surface recorded grooves.


The data input in the equations for any of those alignments are:

innermost groove distance, outermost groove distance ( here we can choose between standards as: DIN, IEC or we can choose a different values. ) and EFFECTIVE LENGTH ( the one and only choosed by the tonearm designer ).

Through those 3 data inputs the equations gives :

Overhang, offset angle, null points and pivot to spindle distance. These are the variables in those standard alignment types.


If for a more easy task we just change the overhang and offset angle with out change too the pivot to spindle distance what we have are higher distortions in ALL the recorded LP surface!!!

So we have to respect the equations in those white papers and do not do it the other way around as fleib suggest. Looks the same but it’s not and what any one of you can do it to confirm it is to make your own calculations where you will find out those higher distortions figures I’m talking about.

Btw, a friend of mine that I respect and who owns like me the Dynavector 505 told me that he prefers in his tonearm the Stevenson alignment recomended by the manufacturer when my self do not like S. alignment and prefer Löfgren.

If in that 505 we try to make the set up with Löfgren alignment with out change in the pivot to spindle distance then because the distortions goes higher we dislike what we hear. Maybe my Agoner friend just don’t change the tonearm mount position in his TT.

Many of us make changes in the overhang/offset angle with out any change in the pivot to spindle distance and is a mistake. I understand that we do or did not because we can’t make new drills in the plinth every time we make those kind of changes. Now, if we choose not to change the PtS distance we can do it but distortions are different, as I said in other posts we can manipulate the original equations and makes whatever we want it but this is not the subject here. I’m talking of be orthodox in that regard.


As I recomend to fleib maybe is time to read again the original Löfgren papers and not like fleib just posting with out read it and not only read it but understand it.

Now, maybe with some of you the differences on what I hear with some cartridges is because the alignment set up difference.

The message here is that we don’t need to change the alignment we have but to reset it and make again the set up with " cero tolerances ".
Accuracy is the critical main parameter we must care during the set up because minimal errors as 0.5mm ( overhang ) represent not only where the distortions will happen but that those distoritons goes higher too.

I think that Baerwald or Löfgren is more than enough the alignment we need.

The message to all toearm designers/manufacturers is that take their main responsability to give usthe accurate and user friendly JIGs to set up their each one tonearm design. Responsability that today almost all just don’t give the vital importance for we customers and music lover audiophiles.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

PS:  I'm sharing my opinion here to learn and not to achieve that " I have the reason and you are wrong ". Nothing like that far away from that sentence. I can be wrong and I would like to know  if really I'm wrong and if yes then I hope that any one of you be so kind to tell me in a wide explanation why I'm wrong. That's all, always I'm willing to learn and if necessary accept my mistakes. With out mistakes we just can't learn and grow up.

Thank's for your help and understanding.

fleib:  """  The only stipulation is mounting distance remains constant """

I ask you or gave my advise ( twice . ) that take a look again to the original Löfgren papers and I can see you did not and follow posting that kind of sentences that does not help. Why don't do that and share with us your findings and if not that be that way. I can't help about.

"""   I'm too busy now  """.

OH !  I see that "  you're tenacious "  too!! and that you don't want to help you . Fine with me.

Anyway and with this I'm finish in this critical audio subject for any audiophile:



"""  Look to these real calculated numbers/values for a 10" tonearm using Baerwald and Lofgreen B alignments:

both cases the cartridge offset angle is the same: 21.586

the difference in cartridge overhang in between is only 0.457 mm  """


that is what I posted to don_c55 where that overhang diference came from the individual Baerwald/Löfgren calculations: 

Baerwald: 16.224  and Löfgren:  16.681

what fleib said is that the tonearm mounting distance in that 10" tonearm stay the same and only has to adjust the overhang.

Well, in those papers I'm talking about the equations solution, not only for Löfgren but for the other similar kind of alignments states this:

M= L - d      where M is the pivot to spindle distance and d the overhang with L as effective lenght that was part of the input data in those equations and here for this particular 10" tonearm.

L is data input and M changes according the new calculated overhang (d) . The new tonearm mounting distance is: 

237.78 for Baerwald   and   237.32 for Löfgren. Mantaining same effective length.

As I said we can manipulate those original equations to leave M as data input or anything  we wish but that is not the main subject here.

Btw, Stevenson calculated values are: 

overhang:  13.43  and offset angle:  19.912°   for that 10" tonearm.

Stevenson has two solutions as Löfgren the first one is similar to Löfgren A and the results here is his second solution, way diferent.


In the other side you can't embarrass me  on that subject especialy when  you don't participated  there. So, don't worry about, I'm not I have nothing for what there or any where I could have some kind of that " embarrass ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear dover: """ Rauls comments about the Technics EPA 100 are superfluous in this thread as it was never designed for heavy low compliance cartridges and in fact you have to modify the counterweight for heavier cartridges.... """

I respect your opinion trying to " disregard " my post.

Now, you say that was not designed for heavy/low compliance cartridges but its design characteristics does not confirm that.

The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.

I owned 3 EPA 100 ( one of them the MK2. ), 1 EPA 250 and 1 EPA 500  and always mated very good all the cartridges with diferent weight and compliance. I still own two Technics tonearms.

In the other side I never had any single trouble with all those Technics tonearms at its ruby bearings and as Pryso I never had the opportunity to read any where in the net that kind of trouble with other that the Pryso one.

So, I can’t see why my post was " superfluous " as you said. Nver mind.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

dover:  """   5g rattly pressed tin headshell... """

that Denon headshell was only an example but if you don't like it then you can use a low weight magnesium damped headshell by Audio Technica.

The subject here is not the headshell but that the EPA 100 takes heavy/low compliance cartridges with no problem and with lower distortions.

EPA 100 was a serious advance on tonearm engineering design and repeat that its exclusive damping mechanism is an achievment and permit almost to mount on it anything you want and the cartridge will performs with low distortions.

No, the 64/66 sounds " odd to me " ( as you said. ) because is a distortions generator and that's all. No not for me, I posted here " hundred " of times: I want to be nearest to the LP recording not away for with that ridiculous tonearms.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear lewm: Dynavector specs are really odd because don’t even the theoretical Stevenson calculations with the 241 effective length, 226 P2S and the 21.5° in offset angle they writed as tonearm specs.

Using IEC standard the nearest ( Stevenson. ) equations calculations gives:

L = 241.162 overhang: 15.162 and offset angle: 21.624° for the specification of P2S: 226.

Seems to me that even the manufacturer calculations are not accurate neither the protractor that comes with the tonearm.

Btw, when you used Baerwald in that tonearm: did you changed the P2S distance?, because it must be change it.

In the other side the difference between the Baerwald/Stevenson offset angle is lower than 1.5° but the other Baerwald parameters must be take in count in precise way.

Anyway, what do you think about the Löfgren papers/equations and the fixed parameters/foundation data those papers/equations states?

I’m asking you because, as always, fleib never gives a direct answer about.

Could you help? or maybe: Dover?  griffithds or: some one else?

I think that must be at least one other person with the precise and right answer even if is different answer from my opinion.

Answers are appreciated.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

fleib: Finally! a more direct answer from you, good. I have no time now to give my point and I will give latter on.

Thank's.

R.

fleib: """ When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length ... """

according with that sentence a tonearm designer first needs to know the pivot to spindle distance to determine the effective length on his tonearm design?

You said that I have to forget Löfgren papers but makes no sense to me because there is the overall foundation on tonearm alignment and from there comes all the know type of alignments as: Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson, etc..

So, please tell me why me or any one must do that?. Don't put examples of nothing and please give a specific answer because through this thread you never give a specific answer with an explanation of why: yes or why: not.

You are reluctant one and again to avoid the Löfgren papers and just post nothing that makes reference to it:

which are your reasons not to do it? what's wrong down there?

The 3 calculations on 3 different type of alignments ( through Löfgren original papers. ) I posted showed that on each calculation the PtS distance was a variable and different on each type of aligment.

In the Löfgren his equations ( and all the other know alignments posted here: B, P, B, S. ) starts with a knowed L ( effective length ) and from here comes all the alignment variables like the PtS one that in there comes from here:

M = L - d    , where L is the knowed ( fix. ) effective length, d the calculated overhang and M the PtS distance.

Please don't just tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me why, give any explanation. This is not a contest as many gentlemans here I want to learn and if you are right then: good for all of us. This is all about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, forgeret about that 505. It's not the main subject in what we are discussing.
I repeat don't put examples just an explanation and please don't try ( again ) to change the subject taking a different " road ". Stay in the road!

Btw, I'm using the IEC ( not DIN. ) standard for the calculations in the original equations and through it the second solution in Stevenson ( first solution is similar as Löfgren A. ) calculated this null points:

60.325 and 117.417  , not the ones by VE not even if I choose DIN standard. Remember that accuracy is the name of the game: cero tolerance, but the point is that of these null points but about that effective length subject.


There are many internet calculators that as VE ones does not stay in focus.

The original equations are simple ones and by algebra we can do whatever we want ( I already said it 3-4 times in the thread. ).

If we want the PtS distance fixed then we can do it or if we want that the overhang stay the same with different alignments we can do it.
That's what shows all those calculators and create several misunderstood like the fleib one.

Fleib, I already did my job years ago because I had that misunderstood too. 
Now you need to do your job too just from the begining with the foundation of all this subject: Löfgren explanation and equations and I'm sure you will understand it or can confirm your point.

Repeat, forgeret about manipulations of those equations or new dedicated  alignments because no one can hear the level distortions changes in an accurate alignment set up.

Dear friends: I hope this could be my last post in this controversial and misunderstanding critical/vital tonearm/cartridge set up.

"  Yes, the Loefgren calculations are correct. They are the basis of all the others. ", with the fleib " approval " here it is:

" Löfgren’s prime strategy is the ‘Löfgren A’ alignment which is based on adjusting the offset angle and overhang so as to minimise the weighted tracking error (WTE) and so minimise tracking distortion. "

The equation develpments to achieve those targets has three data input: outermost groove, innermost groove and effective length.

Löfgren and also tonearm designers/manufacturers does not care about P2S but primary the knowed/choosed effective length ( this is the first tonearm design parameter for nay designer. ) and second the offset angle and then overgang and at the end and  for reference to mount the pivoted tonearm design the difference between L and d gaves in automatic the P2S.

Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson and other gentlemans developed similar equations to Löfgren A ones. Stevenson developed two solutions, his B one similar to Löfgren and the A one that´s the one knowed as Stevenson ( the one used in Dynavector and other Japanese tonearms. ).

Stevenson used his original equations and in his A solution what he changed was one of the equations data inputs: instead of innermost groove distance he changed for an  inner null point to have at minimum ( last inner grooves mms. ) the distortion levels/tracking error in these last inner grooves with the trade off that all over the other LP recorded grooves the distortion is higher.

In all kind of alignments/solutions always exist trade-offs, there is no single kind of perfect alignment.

Now, if a tonearm manufacturer wants to change the original choosed tonearm effective length or wants to design a new tonearm with different effective length he will use the same equations and only makes the change to the new effective length data to know the new offset angle and overhang but as the begining he does not cares about the P2S for his design.
As a fact a manufacturer need to know the P2S distance for two main purposes: to build the tonearm mount JIG and information for his customers and that's all.

Whatever solution/alignment is choosed by a tonearm manufacturer the data inputs needs no changes and must be the ones stated by Löfgren and the others gentlemans but the Stevenson A solution.

So, to mantain the required distortion levels on each one of those alignments type everytime that efective length change the solution equations give us the changes in: offset angle, overhang and P2S.

In those old times ( 30's. ) Microsoft Excel tools did not exist and no spread calculators as the ones we have over the net that far away to really help us can puts several misunderstandings as the fleib/dover/lewm/Dynavector ones and many others, I made the same mistake for years Maybe in a dedicated thread I will disclose their common mistake in the mean time I hope that by it self they can find out the correct answer that's the Löfgren one.

Through several net calculators we can change the data inputs in the way we can imagine: we can stay with the same offset angle for different effctive lengths or we can stay with the same P2S for different effective lengths or change the innermost/outermost groove distance out of the IEC or DIN standards or any " crazy " choice but normally with out any real sound quality improvements but more of the time with higher distortions and a change in the LP surface where those distortions happens.
All these non-orthodox algebraic manipulations to the original equations are reallu useless for the customers/audiophiles.

I posted that the name of the game in a tonearm/cartridge set up is: ACCURACY and through the posts in this thread all were exposed about and why we don't need to look " for three foots of a cat knowing has four ".

IMHO we don't need Stevenson A or an special alignments for some kind of LPs , is futile 
What we need is that the Baerwald or what we choosed  be made it with ACCURACY/CERO TOLERANCE because a deviation of less than 0.5mm on overhang or 2° in offset angle or in P2S makes that distortions goes severly high against an accurate set up.

We audiophiles like to take out the tonearm manufacturers main responsabilities and own 4 or 10 different alignment protractors and we have " fun " making changes with out understand in deep what are invloved through each single change we do about and I think that we have to take seriously this vital cartridge/tonearm set up that in many ways define the quality sound level of our each one system.

My advise is: stop to play that game like a child with a new toy instead to play with only one alignmet solution toy and play it with ACCURACY.

If we are playing all those " games " with out accuracy what we are listening are only sound/music information with higher distortions, it does not matters that we are happy with those distortions.

In the mean time that the manufactuers of tonearms takes by it self the responsability to give us the ACCURATE and user friendly protractors to mount the tonearm and to mount the cartridge what we need is not a protractor with multiple options ( is useless. ) but one with single option ( example Baerwald. ) that be ACCURATE like the MINTLP that's dedicated to your specific TT/tonearm.

I can see here that some of you are proudly owners of several after market protractors of different prices, good you are but normally almost all of them are not good enough. In the other side ask your self: how many times each week or month do you need to change the kind of alignment ( for whatever reasons. ) in your tonearm/cartridge set up and WHY you need to do it? is usefull?

Remember that the distortion levels change in tiny increments/decrements at each recorded groove and no one of us can discern those distortion levels it does not matters the overall quality of the audio system we own.

Of course that the after market protractors builders tell us why we have to use diffeent kind of alignments and they take advantage of our each one misunderstood level.

Btw, from the last years the audio after market item market niche was and is growing up and maybe is better business than to market audio products and are all these audio products manufacturers whom permited the grow up and existence of all those after market items. Pity.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


dover, no I don't modified my 505 and the new set up is only 2mm ( around it ) on P2S and less than 1.5° on OA. The dyna specs are not accurate.
Never mind, has no critical importance your posts but a misunderstanding by your part. Please don't give any answer to this opinion.

Dear lewm: What I try to say is to use one: Baerwald or if we like Löfgren A/B. I don't think we can need more.
Today almost all the cartridges comes with a better suspension " mechanism " than in the past and the tonearms are more or less well damped with better damped TT, clamps and platter mats and all these makes things better than in the past. In the other side electronics and speakers improved too and makes that we can make a better cartridge/tonearm set up than in the past. There are many audio topics that improved and helps for that we needonly just kind of alignment if and only if the set up has ACCURACY/cero tolerance. Tha's it.

I use the MINTLP as an example because is one of the more accurate in the market and is dedicated for your TT/tonearm combination and for less than 150.00.  Could you ask for more or need something different?, I think not but I respect each one opinion and remember that my advise is only in the mean time that manufacturers of all today and future tonearms can give us their answer we all are waiting for in the way that we customers do not need again to look for an after market devices.

Respect the 505 we can talk private through email but as I posted not important in the main subject because is only another tonearm with some unique kind of design, maybe not a good example for my meanings.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

dover: do you have right now on hand the 505?

If yes just try Baerwald or Löfgren alignment changing the P2S distance from Stevenson. Then listen and listen in between ( B, L and S alignments. ) and return here to share your experiences there.

If not, your post is useless and futile this time.

Through all your posts in this thread and IMHO your contributions helps to no one because you have not today facts on hand.

R.

Dear lewm: I'm only want to clarify mi overall position on your last email:

I can´t see nothing really wrong on Baerwald or Löfgren that could preclude I don't use it. The one that I'm not advocated is Stevenson alignment.

If I choose B or L the main subject is that the overall alignment be accurate when mounting the tonearm and when mounting the cartridge: offset angle, overhang and P2S. Tha's all.

Regarding that the MINT protractor is a dedicated one for the TT/tonearm and when you or me own 4 tonearms ( example. ) you will have the right protractor for each tonearm for only 400.00 but how many audiophiles has 4 or more tonearms that really are in constant use?, only a few audiophiles.
In the other side as I posted that some protractors came with options to make alignments for different LP labels is something useless and out of reality because how many times each week we will be willing to reset the whole tonearm/cartridge alignment only to listen 2-3 LPs and after that return to the original alignment.
I can understand that could exist audiophiles that are doing that " every day/week " but 99.95% do not cares about and the fact is that we really don't need it.

Lewm, what do you want: listen MUSIC all the time or just making changes in hardware loosing the time?
My opinion is that if my audio system is already fine tunned at every single link in the audio system chain the we have to worried only where exist more time to listen MUSIC and not looking to play the hardware when the system is already fine tunned.
Well that's me, maybe you think different and is ok.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear chakster: I don’t like unipivots ( even that I own some of them. ) and the 401 has no universal removable headshell but Denon had other good tonearm as the 307/309 that I owned and are good options too.

I think that a very good option for your system is the EPA 100 or GST 801, better than the JVC 7045/7040 that I brought to this forum first time years ago. I’m not saying that the JVC is not up to the task because it’s but the other two are better ones. Grace gimbaled tonearm designs are good option too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

.

Dear lewm: """  with the arm mounted according to factory instruction   """

What I'm saying to you and dover is to use Baerwald/Löfgren alignment according the " numbers " calculated in those alignments: offset angle, overhang and P2S, what must stay the same is the 505 effective length.

You did not changed the P2S and that's one of the main problem with those distortions you mentioned.
I know that's a pain in the ass to change ( in any tonearm. ) the P2S each time we want to change the alignment but if we choose ( example ) B/L alignments and we want to stay with the same distoertion levels then we have to mount the tonearm and cartridge according to those alignment calculations if not then distortions goes higher as you experienced.

Anyway, only to clarify my opinion .

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear analogluvr: """  there is no lack of low frequency information. """

I would like ask: compared against which other tonearms and with which cartridges and in which audio systems? did you compare it against the same digital tracks in a digital player using at least 24 bits/192 DACs?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

dover: """   do you have right now on hand the 505?

If yes just try Baerwald or Löfgren alignment changing the P2S distance from Stevenson. Then listen and listen in between ( B, L and S alignments. ) and return here to share your experiences there.

If not, your post is useless and futile this time. """

That's what I posted and ask to you looking for your in focus/precise answer or answers and this is what you answered:


"""  You are wrong again.
I own a Dynavector DV501 ....."""


I can't see why I'm wrong because I'm not saying you don't own a Dyna tonearm and things are that you own the 501 that shares exactly the same geometry design than the 505. Where is the problem because my question was very specific for the 505 or the 501 that is similar.

Instead to give a in focus answer your first sentence was trying to disregards ( as always with no single real contribution. ) mine but things are that in that same sentence who is wrong is you. Go figure!

Now, instead to say something in direct reference to my questioning post you followed your starting sentences with a " history/tale " that has no apparent reason to do it other that try to justify your self in some way ( what did you try to justify with that " tale "?. ). Has no sense to me that history that I really don't care because don't gives  any " light " in my questioning to you.

Never mind, I really don't care about your answers about because you have no real and serious answers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear kirkus: I agree on the STAX build quality level. 

I never like me the cartridge quality level performance using the manufacturer alignment specs and if I remember I used Baerwald with better results.

Something in your post that hold my attention was and is:

"""  and it also sounds great with an integrated-style headshell for B&O cartridges (MMC20CL .... """


I respect your opinion and I never mounted my same cartridge sample by B&O in the STAX but I did it in at least other 4-5 arms and always with a degraded sound quality level against the same cartridge mounted directly in a universal headshell.
That plastic headshel type used with the 20CL is more or less the same concept for some of the Acutex models and I experienced the same disappointment with: sound degraded quality level.

Good that you share same opinion about the critical importance of accuracy on tonearm and cartridge set up alignments.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib:  """   It's good you gave opinions on some arms. """

I already gave my opinion about tonearms for wrm0325. What other kind of tonearm opinion you are refering to?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear analogluvr: I posted that it will be useful to know which cartridges and which audio system to evaluate quality bass response.

It's desired that for that overall system bass management evaluation one of the audio system links be a pair of active subwoofers wired in true stereo fashion, that the system electronics link be SS using cartridges with not only flat frequency response but very good trackers and natural tone and wide separation between channels with no bias to any frequency band preferences and with very well damped tonearms and TT.
Yes, sounds as we need the " perfect " system but we really don't need a perfect one but one that at least goes in that " road ". We need an overall low distortions system.

In the other side that the tracks used for the evaluation we choosed ( between other things. ) because we own the digital counterpart too. IMHO to evaluate bass quality level a digital counterpart is a must to have.

Of those tonearms you named I don't know nothing of the SME 3: I own/owned the IV/V/3009/3012. The unipivot for this evaluation is no real contender ( at least that model. ). The one I heard but never did that bass evaluation was the MS that is a good vintage tonearm.

As you can see it's not easy for any of us try to make bass management evaluation and probably the hardest frequency band to evaluate.

Btw, I already posted that the ET-2 is an audio icon in the audio industry history. Good, for you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear kirkus: Through the B&O adapter the audio experience with those cartridges you own is a good one.

Those models you own along the MMC2/1 are great performers. Normally only a few audiophiles cares about B&O and the ones that did not try it are loosing a very good audio experience.

I still own my STAX tonearm but is in its box, maybe some day I will mount it again and try with my B&O cartridges.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: Curious, this is what Dover posted at the end of 2013:


"""" I prefer Baerwald A for all my pivoted arms including the Dynavector which was designed for Stevenson. """


and in this thread he disregards me " severely " because I used/tested Baerwald/Löfgren B with Dyna tonearm !!!!!!!!!!!

Btw, that’s the first time I read: Baerwald A, maybe a new kind of alignment by dover. Now, I understand why dover posted his " history " and seems to me that was to justify him self with other people eyes about his audio " knowledge " level.

Anyway a learning day as always.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Lewm: I will do by email.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear azjake: I really don't care of those people trying to " insult/disregards " my opinion. Some one, like me, that post and posted several times a day always exist persons that because their audio knowledge level disagree or because they can't understand my points puts at " defensive " attaking me with out success and normally ends in the frustration of each one of them but that's how things are " around here " or " around me " because it happens in other forums through the net. All these kind of people still think that each thread/post is a contest and each one of them wants to win when my self only want to learn and share first hand experiences, that's all.

There is a telling people here in México ( please is not an insult to any one, far away from that. Is only a way to say things in some ocasions.): " let the dogs shout ".


Nice to know from you again. It's pity that many of the " regulars " in this analog forum suddenly " disappeared "   ??????


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear kirkus: Maybe people do not give especial attention to those B&O cartridges because its very low weigth that gives some problems to balance it through the tonearms. IMHO, is worth to listen to.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

fleib: In page 6 of this thread you posted:

"""   I won't be back to this thread. I'm too busy now ... """

since then you posted 21 times starting in that same page six and those 21 posts were only because you were " busy ". Go figure!!

Now, I understand your very high level of frustration through this thread that between other things hurt/damage your health, emotions are a human been " killer ".

I can't understand why you follow trying that I stop to living in the " error " in this audio subject, just leave it that way because I just want to live in the " error " and this can't hurt you.

I think that something that can help you is that I can accept not only that I live in the " error " but I can accept and accept that is your " bible " the right answer and that you are " the One ". Fine, there is no problem with me.

Btw, there is another " people say " in my country :

" even what you don't eat it hurts your organism/stomach "

Please be happy following the  Lewm's advice: " life is to short ".

You don't need to increment your today very high frustaration level in this thread.

Btw, I posted that the Dyna tonearms are not my cup of tea so I don't care about any more.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear chakster: EPA 100 or MK2?, that's a hard call because both are almost the same design in all but the build material.

For good reasons boron was choosed and the favorite material for cartridge cantilevers and from this perpective the MK2 coukld be the better, however I can't remember remarkable differences in its quality performance.

Perhaps what we have to take in count are its own customer facilities, the MK2 VTA/SRA on the fly is ( IMHO ) the best mechanism ever made like a dream to use it, the output connectors are RCA type and I prefer it over the DIN Pin 5 because today we have very good RCA connectors and other factors is the difference in the tonearm internal wiring. Of course that always exist the felling of be a proudly owner of a MK2 but any one with the EPA 100 can be prodly also.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear wrm0325:  I don't know what phono stage/linepreamp you own, I know that your TT is a good Denon/Cotter.

Now, I owned almost all FR tonearm models including the 66 and years ago ( along other japanese tonearms as SAEC and Micro Seiki/Audiocraft. ) I left goes for very good reasons.

In the old times the audio industry and the inside market in japan was focused on those all heavy metal and long tonearms. Was the fashion and over the time gone out japan to the world market with more or less success. Stereophile/TAS reviewers of those times reaslly did not " care " about and their preferences gone for other tonearms but we more or less " rockies " in audio bought those japanese tonearms mentioned and stay with till some of us learned about.

The 66 is a non-damped tonearm and builded from metal that as a metal is extremely resonant and instead to damps the cartridge/LP/TT self vibrations/resonances/distortions only magnify it.

Yes, almost all those japanese tonearm designs are very good " looking " but that's all especially in the FR's.

Read what an expert posted about, a music expert not only an audiophile:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/tonearms-longer-than-12-inches/post?postid=1289705#1289705

what am I trying to say here?: that every one that is listening through the 66, IMHO,  is listening a lot higher distortions and less music information from the LP grooves.
I'm not questioning to any FR tonearm owner that I respect all of them and their privilege is that they like those higher distortions. My reference is live music and that's my home audio system listening quest day by day.

For me, the name of the game in our hobby is to lower ( put at minimum. ) all kind of distortions at each link in the audio chain and any one can do it if has the knowledge and skills to discriminate between real music information and those distortions.

IMHO, the standards of home audio/music listening quality level is way different to the standards of those very old times. At least my today audio standards quality level.

Now and with out knowing your whole audio system and music/sound priorities if I was you I put on sale at once the 66 and stay ( for now. ) with the Jelco and put on sale too that Koetsu and that Denon cartridges. 
For what you get for that sale I put part of that money ( before to decide for a new tonearm/phono stage. )  for a way better phono cartridge and is where I would like to start.

Only an opinion but the " ball " is in your " field " and you are the best judge.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear lewm: I have a direct culprit because years ago I spread everywhere that we can use any kind of tonearm effective mass with light-weight/high compliance cartridges. That the resonance frequency values between the effective mass tonearm and cartridge compliance were not critical.

That kind of statements were a big MISTAKE/ERROR that I had it by some kind of self " ignorance ".

I posted several times in the long MM thread and other threads about. As a fact way before FR came ( in this specific subject ) to this forum I posted that using my heavy mass SAEC tonearms and other similar EM ( including FR ones. ) tonearms the cartridges I mounted on them performs very good and through these kind of experiences I spread my mistake.

Suddenly I experienced what means and how sounds the IMD when I added to my audio system my active subwoofers and left out/off from my main speakers the frequency range: 80hz and down ( any one can read about here: page 1 in my longest post " Dear friends ":
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer ).

Now always exist the bass frequency intermodulation distortion and you can read about here:

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=L38MrvScG3gC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=low+frequency+reso...

read specifically on tonearm/cartridge resonance.

So, right now I really care that in my tonearm/cartridge combinations I can stay inside the " ideal " resonance frequency range: 8hz-12hz, but even here we have those bass/subsonic modulations.

If we are out of that resonance frequency range the distortion levels goes higher and this is what I was hearing over several years. Today I still have distortions but at low levels.

So we have to take in count that kind of BID before decide which tonearm or headshell weight we are using it.

That BID is an additional kind of distortion that we can’t avoid 100%.

Through the years some tonearm designers/manufacturers were/are trying to have better ways/mechanisms to design a better DAMPED tonearms. I don’t know if they are aware of that additional kind of " problem " or are not.

That BID is other form of generated distortions that we have to avoid and one way to do it is not buy or use NON DAMPED or NOT WELL DAMPED tonearms: ANY.

That we can like those kind ( and other ) of distortions is not the subject and only can tell us that we are wrong in what we like.

Lewm, you can use almost any well damped tonearm with any cartridge if the combination is inside that " ideal " resonance frequency.

One problem with the tonearm specs about effective mass is that the manufacturers just give the EM value with out any sign of where the tonearm counterweight should be positioned for that EM can be meeted.

Btw, independt of all that acomplish with that resonance frequency value and when we are outside we are not helping the cartridge ride on the LP grooves and we can exite subsonics bass frequencies that make that the cartridge " jumps " at micro levels in a higher level that's normal way of tracking and in extreme cases even we can see how the tonearm/cartridge jumps over the LP. I had only one time this extreme experience and I can't remember with what cartridge/tonearm or LP track.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear L.: We can use any of the net resonance frequency calculators over the net like this:

http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php?eff_mass=35&submit=Submit


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear lewm: Yes, I learnen about the IMD critical factor on speakers when I added my subs and that's why I gave my advise to you with those great Sound Labs. Before that I was unaware exactly on the speakers IMD problems.
Subs always help but qwe can't avoid 100% of the speakers IMD, so mantain it at minimum must be our each one target.

In the other side and contrary to my last audio years " preach " that: it does not matters if we like what we are listening if we are listening high distortions then we are wrong and must change about.

I can't remember exactly why I just forgot that because as I said I spreaded everywhere that if we like what we are listening we have not care about tonearm/cartridge resonance frequecy.
Big mistake/error that fortunatelly I already fixed. I know for sure that some of us still live " in the mistake " and are happy as I was.

People with FR or SAEC tonearms can't be satisfied with what they are listening. These tonearms has 30+ effective mass even with a lightweight headshell and if we mount on it a MM high compliance cartridge that normally has 6 grs. of weight and at least 35 cu the resonance frequency will be around 4hz and maybe lower. Has no sense to do it but I did it for years.

I posted several times from years now and every where that the most critical and vital frequency range for a truly excellent audio system quality performance is the bass range and mostly the low frequencies in that range. Any audio system quality performance level depends on the system quality of its bass management. Well this is an overall subject that needs other thread.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear halcro: """  The Market Place is never wrong. """

not really because what exist over the audio market is a high ignorance level and this is normal because customers ( like me. ), as in any kind of market , go for " the today fashion " with out ask before why that audio item is " a fashion " and a must to have.

All of us bought and buy " mistakes/errors " audio items and IMHO we have to learn from each one " mistakes ", as a fact that is an important part in our audio/music learning ladder. Of course exist audio people that does not cares about and are sticky till they " die ". Nothing wrong with that.

Now that you mentioned, I remember that DaVnci tonearm that was launched with huge shouts and trumpets and every one gone for it and everyone was satisfied with.
But things were that in that high price audio item you was/are not abble to make changes on azymuth that's is always a necesity in any cartridge for it can shows at its best.

The manufacturer explained why was/is not convenient  in its design  and if I remember was because a compromise with the rigidity or something like this.

Time latter when customers ans reviewers ask for that azymuth tonearm facility they changed and not only that but even ( against their rigidity argument. ) designed with removable headshell.

If I remember you was one of those satisfied customers.

DaVinci learned  ( as I said. ) from their own " mistakes " for not do it again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear jmwick: I'm not against but I don't be in favor of long tonearms that on playing status has more disadvantages that " theoretical " advantages. However I heard 5-6 times the " normal " Kuzma 4point and as its TTs is not only a very good design but very good performer that helps the cartridge to performs at high quality levels.

IMHO this is a today very good example of tonearm engineering that as I said works as a cartridge " slave " and not the other way around as the 66 and smilar items.

Btw, that Proteus is a " cartridge ".


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib: why is the best team those cartridges with that 66?, maybe I'm missing something and always is time to learn so some " light " from you can help all of us.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear wrm0325: Please don’t ask for something that no one have on hand ever and I mean not only amateurs like you and me but professionals in audio.

""" the final proof for each of us is in the listening """

this depends mainly in which step of the audio/music ladder you are because if youare a rookie then what you listening has very small value or even if you are at average level.

Now, can you distinguish/discriminate between diferent kind of distotions? say: wrong cartridge overhang vs wrong SRA? , if you can please give me an example of them: wich are the differences during listening? what is the kind of sound you percieves?

If you can’t do it then keep with you the 66. It’s not important wich tonearm you own as is not important which cartridges you own.

I know your answer because you agree with halcro who was one of those " satisfied " DaVinci tonearm owners. DaVinci fixed its mistakes but halcro did not and as many other of us make other mistake with the 66, this time worst than with the DaVinci and he is not alone.

We can´t  talk about if you can’t discriminate between musical information and subtle distortions and its harmonics.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear halcro: """ that’s why arms like the FR-66s and 64s, Micro Seiki Max 282, SAEC WE-8000/ST, Dynavector DV507/II, 505, 501, are still in demand world-wide...even against the very best and latest modern iterations """

that’s only say the level of audio/music ignorance that even today exist in our beloved hobby and nothing more than ignorance.

Ignorance to don’t understand what is happening down there: cartridge/LP/tonearm/TT combo, to not understand the cartridge/LP needs and the delicated role that tonearm plays in this " picture ". So delicated that the best that a " perfect " arm can do is to mantain at minimum all the generated distortions and we can’t even dream with a " perfect " tonearm: just can’t exist, so figure what we have in each of our tonearms!!!! and the damage that all does to the cartridge signal and you are in favor of the " champ " of those distortions!

Nothing wrong with that, as I said somwhere that’s each one privilege: have fun with.

I learn each single day and I don’t turn back my face for what I left but go a head to the audio heaven and the only way to find out is growing  up thinking several times " out of the box ".

For many years I was deffending those heavy metal good looking tonearms till I understand what is happening " down there ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear chackster:  """  high mass tonearm made especially for low compliance """"

could you explain this and its importance?, I think is critical during playback.

Thank's in advance.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear halcro: Exist no mantra. Your tonearms mistakes ( every one learned through each one mistakes. I learned through them too. ) are facts  but you still live with those mistakes and other ones that are facts and no mantra.

Please don't try to hide the sun with your finger because you can't.

You  bought that DaVinci " GREAT " TONEARM AND YOU WERE PROUD OF IT. It does not matters that you accept it that was a mistake an ignorance mistake.

Normally our mistakes are ignorance mistakes and some other comes by " accident ".

Enough, the thread does not about you ( be happy. ), me or even wrm0375 but looking for advise. and I already gave mine.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear wrm0375: Btw, looking for advise but seems to me that that was not your real target because you are happy with the mediocrity/average level of your tonearm and cartridges.

The advise I gave you was an unbiased one and looking for a real improvement of what you have today, looking for an improvement and that you can grow up enjoying a better audio/music experiences in your system but you have to have an open mind .

As I said that's only my opinion and the best one comes from you and if you are satisfied in your today status then stay there.

If all that is true then your thread has no sense asking for advise when you are not open to receive it and put wirth a defensive attitude.

Anyway, live with your choices. That's what deserve each one of us.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib/chakster and friends: That advise that we need a high mass for a low compliance cartridges has many " roads " surrounded it.

Mantain frequency resonance value, between tonearm/cartridge, in the range of 8- hz to 10 hz is something that many of us always are looking and is something all of us want it.

In theory that’s the frequerncy range we have to look for and I say in theory. In theory that can gives the cartridge7tonearm better tracking and mantain at minimum bass resonances that has a huge influence in all the frequency spectrum during LP playback. I’m not questioning that theory.

Now, what happen during playing because the theory is on static way where the cartridge is not ridding the LP grooves.

Everything change during playing because the cartridge has to fight not only with the movements in the LP grooves but with the excentricities of the LP and its micro and macroscopic surface LP waves.
The theory of that cartridge/resonance frequency is that to low frequency like 4-6 hz cabn be exited and coincide with vibrations/resonances generated by the TT/cartridge and then can make that in some areas of the LP surface the cartridge/tonearm " jump "/mistracking.

Well, how the real tonearm designers fixed that real problem?, using engineering concepts and the main one that even today is a must in any tonearm design was to damp the tonearm to mantain in effective way those " terrible " resonances that always affect directly to what we are listening in the full frequency spectrum.

In the golden Audio magazine times ( 80’s. ) B.Pisha made a full review of the LOMC Ortofon MC 2000 ( I think 1984. ) that for every one is a learning review ( including for today professional reviewers. ):

things are that this cartridge is a heavy weight high compliance one. Pisha mounted in all Technics TT ( SP 10 ) and S-shaped tonearm and he measured during playback a resonance frequency of 5hz in between cartridge/tonearm and he started to listen diferent LPs with no problems at all and he said that because he can’t believe that the cartridge/tonearm with that so low resonance frequency could works so good he measured for second time and confirm that that resonance frequency was that low. He measured during plasyback a dynamic cartridge compliance of 31 cu!

That combination tracked totally clean all the cannon shots in the Telarc 1812 ( and other torture recordings. ) where you can find frequencies so low as 8 hz!!!

So what was happening? all that gone against the theory and believes of all audio experts, why?:

thing are that that Technics tonearm ( 250/100. ) has a self damping mechanism that just works marvelous, a mechanism that even today can be an envy for any single tonearm designer.

That is real science in tonearm design but Technics was and is part of the electronic gigant japanese corporation: Matushita, where the research and work is not made it for one person but for dozens of them where there is no resources limitations.

There are other old examples of great engineering tonearm designs as the Lustre GST-801 and others.

As I said the all metal FRs are because of that metal a natural/self resonace/vibrations generator device but along that is a NON DAMPED DESIGN!!!! go figure.

There is other critical problems with high mass and long tonearm designs:

The main target in a cartridge is to follow/ride perfect the LP grooves and for that the cartridge tracking is a constant in horizontal/vertical fast movements where the tonearm has to react in the same faster way to those cartridge movements.
Now, during playback exist an inertia to the cartridge/tonearm to the center/inside the LP that inertia goes per se against the cartridge ride and the tonearm needs to control ( but has not that control in any way. ) that inertia movement/force and here as higher is the dynamic mass in a tonearm as higher is the dificult to change that inside inertia when the cartridge rides to the opposite path.
Always is easy to " stop " a lighter dynamic mass than a high mass device.


So and IMHO we need very good damped tonearms with no high effective mass.

You can think what you want and stay happy with what you want but those are facts. I learned and time to time all of us can do it if we want to do it.

regards and enjoy t5he music,
R.

Dear friends: The advise to the audio community is to stay away from heavy mass, all metal and not WELL damped tonearm designs: vintage or today ones.

Regards and enjoy rthe music,
R.

Dear fleib: It has to do with all the situation on hand.

For me is 8 hz to 10 hz the ideal resonance frequency. As a fact there is no rule about the precise frequency range.

""" No, it’s not about static. There is no resonance with static as the name implies. We’re talking about dynamic compliance, arm mass, and resultant resonance or affect on performance. """

sorry that I can’t explainit well. What I want it is to say that for that happen exactly as the resonance formula gives us we need a perfect LP recording with perfect LP surface. Yes the resonance frequency in a spring works with that formula, my mistake in the way to explain it.
Now, you really don’t know wich is the real tonearm effective mass in the tonearm because depend on the tonearm counterweight position.

""" No one is talking about that. """

maybe you did nt but the target to achieve that resonance frequency is to stay " save " from those frequency additional exicitemet.

Maybe I did it when I was a kid but that’s what happen with a metal non damped tonearm, it function as an additional resonance/vibration/distortions generator. Like it or not.

Maybe you are running that kind of distortion generator.

No it was not an anecdote but a proved fact by some one that knows a lot more than you and me together or at least than me.

Btw, B.Pisha was not a " simp’le " professional audio reviewer, he was a way talent engeneer that between other things created an alternative to Löfgren, Baerwald or Stevenson geometry set up tonearm/cartridge parameters that was reconized for the audio engeeering societies.

Anyway, what I think is that you have nothing on hand against my statement on: " heavy ,all metal non-damped tonearm designs " and only look where on my posts I made it a mistake and put " light " on that mistake.

IMHO, could be better that you can prove how is that a heavy and long all metal and non damped tonearm helps to improve the quality cartridge performance satisfiying all the cartridge needs and mantaining all the generated distortions at minimum.
This is what al of use like to hear from yu: a real contribution and not only to say: no, that’s the easy way. The right way is to say no and prove it showing why not.
At the same time we all are waiting why that tonearm is a good team for the Koetsu Rosewood and Denon 103R becvause you forgot to explain it: could you? because was your advise to wrm0375.

You are welcomed to do it. As I always say: we all need to learn and if I’m wrong then I can rectify about. Waiting for your in deep explanation with first hand experiences about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib: That Audio magazine review ( and exist many similars. ) tell us the importance to have a well damped tonearm because with the Technics " disconected " damping mechanism Pisha listen tracking problems/distortions and was till he " switch on " that mechanism when he was surprised the effectiveness about and where the cartridge shows it at its best.

I think that you have a misunderstood on what I'm  explain it here or I did not explain it in the right way.

Forgeret about that resonance frequency theory and analize only the facts on  playback.

" It does not matters " the cartridge compliance and tonearm effective mass if you have a well damped tonearm design.

Btw, I have to rectify on the Micro Seiki 237/282 because is not all metal design, is not 12" but shorter ( its flag  ship model in japan was the 237 not the 282. ) and is well damped. Good design against the " terrible " SAECs and FRs.

In those all times when some one in japan ask to a japanese audiophile which was his preference and why between SAEC and MS tonearms the audiophiles gone through the SAEC because they said " is more alive ".
That " alive " touch are in reality not music information but the distortion touch of the SAEC bad damped and ringing bearings against the the MS with lower distortions.

problem with persons like you and many many other is that are not trained ( self trained ) to discriminate  those additional subtle distortions exited and out of control because those undamped heavy metal tonearms and that " alive/power " are not but distortions and not  real music information.

In the last 36 hours I received  several emails asking why to bother about low frequencies that we can't hear and that almost all audio systems can't reproduce:

well, any resonance has fundamental frequency where happen that resonance ( it does not matters where it comes. ) and that means that at the same time that is happenuing are created its harmonics exactly as the harmonics in the music and that's why those " distortions " always affect all the listening frequency spectrum and we have to take in count that those " distortions " happen all over the frequency range not only at 8 hz or 20 hz but at 3 khz too ( for whatever reasons. .

Non damped tonearms only increase that minute to minute " phenomenon ".

Got it ?


Fleib, any thread is not a contest so please don't try to beat me because a thread is a whole opportunity for all of us to learn. A thread is not who is right but what we can learn.

Appreciated your attitude about. We need your contribution and if your contribution was what is in those posts, that's ok. for me.


Btw, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Is very dificult for any one of us to have a dialogue when exist diferent levels of ignorance in between persons. My level is high and I know it.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear wrm0325: """  While my ears told me.... """"

are your ears trained in specific way to discriminate subtle distortions?  because I know people in this thread that can't discriminate the IMD but I said that we don't have speak of persons but explain why yes or why not and not only say: yes or not.


"""  any more very biased unsubstantiated nonsense from you.  """

You don't like my explanations and I can't do nothing about because that is my ignorance level, btw my opinion always is unbiased and reflect my and other audio experiences. Sorry for all that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear cleeds: That professional review is a fact that have certainty that maybe you don't agree with has nothing to do with my posts where nowhere I said my knowledge is superior to yours.

Regards and enkioy the music,
R.

Dear atmasphere: I agree with that Triplanar tonearm and when you have the opportunity the Kuzma 4point is a must to " hear " in your own system, very good too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib: """ Raul, I think your patronizing attitude about others’ knowledge on this and other subjects, is not appreciated, .......... It was you who challenged my recommendation .... . """

Even that you saw it that way in reality I’m not challenging you or any one else ( it does not matters that people see that way. ), that is the way I’m and the way many persons in my country speaks but with out trying to offend.
Ignorance is a day by day word in Mexico and means that we don’t know about that or this or whatever subject.
I never go inside a dialoge where I’m ig norant of the subject under discusion.

Btw, I only wanted from you an explanation why that combo is a good team when for me it’s far away to be it. As I said, I like to learn. Sorry to disturb you.

I think that every one of us have diferent audio/music knowledge levels as I think that each one of us have diferent kind of " natural talent " in some audio/music subjects and in others just we have not.
In the other side our audio/music experiences and self training is diferent.

That’s what overall I think and my posts reflect that kind of thinking. Now, if I’m wrong to think that way I can rectify if yo tell me where and why I’m wrong.

In this post to me I can see you are more relaxed, I hope you can understand my explanation.


""" Waiting for your arm to be introduced, or is that not imminent? """

my tonearm design looks as no endless " picture/movie " even for me and Guillermo.

There are several subjects why is not yet out there ( as a fact it’s but it’s not. You know what I mean? ).

First my friend ( an audiophile. ) and I are not dedicated to it full time maybe we take 1% to 3% of our time to that tonearm design in some days and that’s why so many years with.

Second and more important is that I’m a " perfectionist " and we want a " perfect " tonearm. The design is unique in several subjects and not " more of the same ".
What means ( for me. ) a " perfect tonearm ? one that can fulfill the needs of any cartridge, it does not matters if it is l/m/h compliance opr l/m/h weight or MC/MM.

That’s the main target and exist other " auxiliar " targets in our design. So to fullfil the cartridge needs you have to make a serious research which ones are those cartridge needs, all of them and each one relationship with the LP it self, tonearm, TT, etc. We don’t think in the tonearm for its a priori design but in the cartridge and how this cartridge is surrounded. What are the needs and main cartridge challenge it must win.

Looks easy but I can tell you was and is not so easy.

Right now I have three samples mounted in my system that looks exactly the same and where all of them have very high quality level performance but when you listen the same cartridge on each one you have subtle very tiny sound differences that only if you are trained can discriminate.

To stay there I made and still make hundred of tests not only with our different prototypes but against no less than ( vintage and today ) 25 tonearms and more than 60 cartridges( today and vintage. ).
Those tests were made not only in my system but in other home audio system.  Additional I made it several tests with different build materials and in between combination and even I tested with different type/design of tonearms bearings ( no, it's not an unipivot design for good reasons. ).
I forgot other main targets is not only to be " bullet proof " but extremely user friendly.

I have to change and refine my overall evaluation/comparation test methodology that I already had it for years.

Even if our tonearm never goes out I can tell you that was and still is a deep learning lessons.

Things are that first to be marketed have to satisfy to me and right now is extremely close to do it, so this year is the year for it.

Anyway, thank’s to answer me that way and please take in mind that I never be trying to offend any one, except who offend me first and you can be sure that I have patience about.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Fleib: I forgot too that the tonearm is totally builded at home. My friend is the leader distributor of USA Hass ( and from other manufacturers world similar tools. )  in México, Central América and now in Spain too. We have at home what any mechanical engineer can dream to build anything.

R.

Dear ct0517: Your self experiences about needs no further explanations and as you said that FR ( worst in the 66 because its higher non damped mass. ) showed that LF resonance ( read: DISTORTIONS. ) and that’s was what you was more sensitive aware but that kind of distortions happen in all the frequency spectrum alongn its harmonics distortions in a non damped tonearm.

In can bring now another " fatal " experience through an agoner that I did not want it to post because in this thread are at least to gentlemans that because they feel not good enough builded a " superhero " ( that’s what ignorance can makes when we have not self arguments. ) that is that FR seller.

In this agoner experience this gentleman the in good faith audiophile not only bought the FR tonearm but it boughts a new cartridge and tonearm cable under that " superhero " advise to make in the audiophile system a test to prove that the FR tonearm makes dust the ET2 tonearm that the agoner owned in those times and not only that but this gentleman followed any single advise from the " superhero " to make the set up. Here it’s the final result posted by the ET2 owner who invested big dollars to made that test:


""""" First of all, I want to say thanks to Dertonarm for starting me on this journey and all of the help he gave me in setting up my arm. As some of you recall, I purchased a Fidelity Research FR64s, a NOS Orsonic headshell, and an AQ LeoPard tonearm cable. This was all mounted on a new armboard on my VPI TNT table. After I had removed the ET-2 from the TNT and while I was waiting for the new arm and all of the other parts to arrive, I went ahead and did some maintenance to the TNT. I removed the bearing assembly and took it to a machinist for inspection. He didn’t like the fact that there was .004 clearance between the spindle and bushing. He pressed out the old bushings, machined new ones, line bored them, and pressed them in. There is now .001 clearance between the spindle and the new bushings. The machinist also micro polished the spindle, cleaned all of the remaining parts, put in new oil, and declared it finished. Dertonarm was emphatic that I install the FR64s 231.5 mm from the spindle to the center of the bearing instead of 230mm as the manual recommends (as well as the template FR provide with the arm. The machinist made a tool from barstock that fits over the spindle of the TNT and has a hole drilled at the other end with the center at exactly 231.5mm. He machined a tramel point that fits in the hole so you can mark the armboard with the exact spot for the correct distance. This tool was used on my new armboard and the hole was precisely drilled for the FR64s. I used the Dennesen Soundtracker to set up the cartridge as recommended by Dertonarm and VTF was set using a digital scale. I have the SDS for my TNT and speed was checked and set using the KAB strobe. I am telling you all of this so that you understand that I went through great pains to install this arm correctly. The cartridge I used during this time was my almost new Benz Glider SL.

I found the FR64s much more difficult/time consuming to set up compared to other pivoted arms I have used over the years. Some of you may disagree, but this is my experience. Most pivoted arms, once you have the cartridge installed, you slide on the main counterweight, make sure the anti-skating is set to zero, move the counterweight until the arm floats level, set the counterweight scale to 0, and then turn it until you have the correct VTF and bingo-Jed’s a millionaire. Then you set your anti-skating for whatever makes your socks roll up and down, and your pretty much done. After that you just start dialing your cartridge alignment in with your favorite alignment jig and readjust your VTF. Not so with the FR64s. The FR64s has a main counterweight, a dynamic stabilizer weight, and an anti-skating weight that all must be installed. I am not going to go through all of the necessary steps to get this arm set up, but trust me, if you have never set up a FR64s, it is more difficult than your average pivoted arm that I am used to. Again thanks to Dertonarm for all of the help during this process and Syntax offered some help to me as well which I also appreciate.

Before I removed the ET-2 I broke out a NOS Maxell UD 35-180 tape (I love this tape by the way). I recorded a selection of songs (at 15 ips 2 track on my Otari MX-55)that would showcase the FR64s arm’s ability to boogie in the bass as well as track the many dynamic swings that many of these cuts have. I recorded the following songs:

Lyle Lovett-My baby don’t tolerate
Lucinda Williams-Righteously
Herb Alpert-Rotation (from the MoFi version)
Talking Heads-Burning down the house
Herbie Hancock-Rocket (from the 12" single)

After I had the FR64s installed for about a week and had it as tweaked out as I knew how to make it, I re-recorded the above selections in reverse order on the same tape. That way at least I had one cut that would play back to back.

Now some of you had sent me emails asking if I had any preliminary findings to share and I demurred. I never claimed to have the fastest ears in the west so I like to take my time and make sure I know what I am talking about so I don’t have to eat a plateful of crow later (which I have certainly done before). Well, the jury is in for me, and it is my opinion that the ET-2 is much the better arm. The only thing the ET-2 gives up to the FR64s is a bit of bass punch, but I don’t think the bass from the 64s sounds as natural as that from the ET-2. The bass from the 64s almost seems detached from the rest of the music if that makes any sense. There is a myth that linear tracking arms don’t have good bass or can’t reproduce the bottom octave at all. This is nonsense in my opinion. I can speak for the ET-2 and tell you confidently that it reproduce great bass............--.-..........-.-..

In closing, I know that the FR64s is not the most expensive pivoted arm in the world and some of you may sniff your upturned nose and say I should have used a "better" arm. I am really not going to listen to any of that drivel. I spent around $3K setting up this experiment and I know that the FR64s is considered a damn fine tonearm which is why I bought it. ..............

I reinstalled my ET-2 last night and I haven’t stopped grinning since. .....
I stayed up until way-late o’clock last night because I just didn’t want to stop listening to music. Over and out . """""


Chris, there is no doubt that a non damped or not well damped all metal lon tonearm can’t be a " DISTORTIONS GENERATOR ".

That some persons like it is only because they are not trained to discriminate about. That’s why the post answering you where that that LF resonance does not exist in his experiences with. So what is happening with that gentleman, easy: his ignorance level is way diferent from yours or the other agoner experience I posted here and diferent from my ignorance level.

Sad to say it but for me it's clear that wrm0325 can't discriminate about distortions.

Your ET is a champ and as I told you in your thread an icon in the tonearms history.

Regrads and enjoy tyhe music,
R.

Dear wrmo325: "" You are quite the PIECE OF WORK. And that’s not a compliment. """

That’s not my target here or in any other internet audio forum.

""" "Are your ears trained in a specific way to discriminate subtle distortions ".
No. Of course not. Are YOURS ? And if so, who trained you and what are their qualifications and what is their methodology ? I doubt you’ll have an answer ... """"


yes mine are. No one can gives you that kind of trining other that by your self if you know what you are looking for by your experiences and sometimes by " accident ".

I say by accident because with some kind of distortions/anomalies I discovered the diference ( on reproduced sound. ) between a error on cartridge mount overhang: Things were that I mounted a cartridge and did not re-check ( as usually do and not used my evaluation methodology neither. ) the overhang set up and during playback ( that was a very good cartridge performer. ) everything " sounds " good but next day my felling was that even that I listen a good performance quality " somethimng " din not made click in my brain and started my evaluation methodology ( a well proved and repeatable " bullet proof " method. ) and then I knew that really was a wrong set up and when re-check the overhang it was out of position by more than 4 mm.
I followed making tests with diferent overhang errors till was clear for me how to detect that kind of errors against other kind of distortions.


""" And THAT is the basis for my judgements on what sounds like real instruments and music when reproduced, ... """

as you my reference is live music. I still attend each month to at least 4 live music events that helps me not only to know the real sound of any instrument but that helps me to understand the differences between that live music experiences and a home audio system experiences why and what to do to improve our home experiences.

""" " because I know people in this thread that can’t discriminate the IMD "
Really, name them. Tell us who they are so they can either confirm your accusations that they’re stupid or defend themselves against them. I’m going to guess that no names will come forth, .... """

Year ago when I already had connected two subwoofers in true stereo fashion in my system I gave an advise to that gentleman in this thread. I told him that due that the crossover frequency in the woofer speaker is to high he had higher IMD that what he can imagine. His answer was a precise NO and explained to me that his marvelous speakers are custom made by " God " and needs nothing at all.

Time later I started a thread about and posted this:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer/post?postid=310058#310058

after that some one ( latter ) told him again about subs and he followed in that road and even that he knew all the thread information ( by me and other Agoner’s. ) he took a bad choice of subs that he can’t connect in true stereo fashion ( latter he had to bought and additonal kit to do it. That additional kit means additional distortions because was not in the sub opriginal design. ) and that has higher distortions that what we recomended in that thread and then he choosed a " weird " room position for those subs that as Chris posted here ( i told him that problem with. ) not the best place to do it. Obviously for this gentleman the overall sound in his system is " out this world ".

In those " old times " I made several advises to him in cartridges ( MM/LOMC ) but he always said no.
Even I told him here in Agon the advantage with similar TT as my Denons to try the naked/no plinth in similar TT as the JVC and others. As always negative answer.
Time latter because other Agoner that follows my advise told him that really works he started about.
I think that like amonth he posted that he " discovered " a better way to the JVC naked set up and things are that years ago I gave to him ( I posted . ) that same way to make the set up that he " discovered " after all those years.

Years ago he posted:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/why-the-sudden-popularity-of-12-inch-arms/post?postid=340132#...

and my answer to that was this post:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/why-the-sudden-popularity-of-12-inch-arms/post?postid=340140#...

and this gentleman is the same that today " dies for those " distortion’s generators. ""


wrm0325: do you know whom speaked ( seriously speaking ) for the first time about those AC,FR, SAEC, MAXs, etc. tonearm or the real DD alternative through Technics/Denon and the like or a real alternative to LOMC cartridges named MM/MI cartridges or about the real necesity to use in any audio system, with pasive speakers ( where their woofers crossover 150-hz-200 hz and up ), active subwoofers or the DD TT set up with out plinth or to stay away from 12" and upper tonearms or non-damped tonearms ? IMHO was me and in all cases I gave wide explanations about as I always do.
In each Agoner's laughed of me in my face with their posts and I'm not talking ( example: DD TT advise by me. ) of Rega owners ( no offense to Rega or its owners. ) but Walker TT owners, Ravens and other remarkable BD TTs of this level that today use DD Technics and other DD designs instead the big BD names. As I said the DD is a real alternative.

Btw, " my superhero " is always MUSIC and LOW DISTORTIONS and learn how to mantain it at minimum.

In the other side, I own 6-7 diferent headphones sets including Stax and I learned throught it and through the listening of live music and other experiences that the right way to listen music at home is through sopeakers because things are that the human been listen and capture the sounds through all its BODY not only ears. We " hear " sound frequencies through our head hair and whole body hair and through our skin and bones.
Sop the headphones is an incomplete experience that preclude you can detect some kind of distortion and music information.

I’m not douing a critic for your way of listening, so stay calm about and make a research for your self and if I’m wrong I appreciated return and share with all of us.

Enough for now.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear wrm0325: """  I won't respond to his gibberish in the hopes he just goes away. """


That has no sense because was you who ask and made me specific question and in my last post to you I try to gave a wide explanation for each one of your question and now you posted that????

Make sense to you?, maybe your moniker is not really a moniker.

In the way that a shooter wears his weapons you know if it's Billy The Kid and you want to be a shooter but things are that you have not weapons: go figure!

It's obvious that if any one like you ask through a thread for help ( like you. ) is because you are not prepared and have not the knowledge level to take the right choice for your self and this talks per se that you are not only over the average step in the ladder audio knowledge lever but way down that average step . At least is what you already showed here as other gentlemans in the thread.

Nothing wrong with that, sooner or latter you will learn. Have faith on that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear stringree: Appreciated.

The ignorance in the people makes that when any one shows them something they are ignorant at once puts at defensive and if they can't understand it then go inside in a deep frustration like almost all the gentlemans here.
They have no real arguments other rthan express their deep frustration. Additional to that they are not willing to " hear "  and are so frustated because their high ignorance level on the subject that even fall in insults.

Other problem is that they want to beat me in the discussion and because they can't do it and never will and not because I'm right ( because I can be wrong. ) but because they don't understand the overall subject and have no arguments to " fight ".

Understand northing about even with facts and clear evidence that all of them are wrong with the CT0517 ( Chris. ) post where he made the comparison to find out those distortions through the master tape recording and he detected those distortions and not only him but the gentleman experience I posted and even Dgarretson did it it does not matters if he likes those " alive " distortions because I'm not talking here what we like but what is right, that's way diferent.

Again your post appreciated.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.