Has anybody tried the Reed 3P?

04-07-12: Geoch
I see that he abandoned the provision of alignment by the headshell (the only right way) and adopted the Triplanar's method of align the azimuth by twisting the arm tube (very convenient but wrong).

I don't know if you saw the youtube video I included in my previous post. It shows there's no touching the arm tube, even with background being out of focus. And the adjustment is done at the pivot area.

Thanks to Vetterone's explanation, I get a better understand of the azimuth on the fly adjustment and the bearing arrangement. I think the 3P's bearing design is brilliant.

______

Dear Nandric, Have you compared Reed and FR-64S for the low compliance MC carts?

Dear Lbelchev, I admire the FR-64S as a work of art. The first tonearm which awaked esthetical feelings in me. I always thought about our 'gear' in functional terms. My
problem is the fact that my Kuzma Stabi Reference needs a
separate armboard for each separate tonearm. This imply ordering them by Kuzma in Slovenia for about 600 Euro a piece. My solution was a second system in my bedroom with a comfort of a chear in front of my (simple) Thorens 160 Super such that I can easilly change carts and tonearms.
However the most carts I recently bought are MM kind so
I prefer my Sumiko 800 and/or Zeta for the purpose. I just
completed my SP10 mkII with provisional Lustre GST 1 as
substitute for the Thorens. The armboard in the plinth is
only usable with this tonearm. But those can be made for
cheap , I hope, so I will be able to use all of my tonearms . My first trial with the FR-64S will be the Phase Tech P-3 G (LOMC and Low compliance)which is in my Reed 2A at present (27g eff. mass).

Regards,

Dear Hiho,
Please forgive me if I can't see clearly the video and correctly understand what is going on, but ....
IF :
1* The rotational axis is determined by the 2 bearings of the armtube's vertical movement.
2* These 2 bearings are attached at 90 degrees (to the armtube).
3* The armtube has a strictly straight shape from headshell to counterweight without any interval on it's length by which could possibly been parallel with the cantilever axis.
4* These 2 bearings are not attached (to the armtube) at an angle equal with the headshell's offset angle.
SO :
1* Touching or not touching the armtube is irrelevant.
AND ALSO :
2* Adjustment at the pivot area is irrelevant.
BECAUSE :
3* This does not count as azimuth on the fly adjustment.
AND FINALLY :
4* The bearing design must brilliantly modified by changing it's horizontal axis (parallel with the heashell's) in order to fulfill the claimed azimuth adjustment.

I have no reservations about how one can likes the sound of the Reed 3P. After all the bearing and antiskating designs are an upgrade from 3Q. I just don't understand how this lower than average azimuth proximity can offer so much. Perhaps "The concerns over changing the rotational axis is a non issue for most cartridges" as Steve believes. Maybe it is so, (if they carry conical stylus), but by changing the VTA with this (on the fly) method, seems like changing also the overhung and the zenith during play! I can't see how this can offer any good.

Again please let me know if I can't see clearly the video and if this is the case, I'm deeply sorry and I apologise in advance.

Geoch, you are absolutely correct about the vertical bearings at 90° with the armtube, therefore not matching the angle at the headshell and therefore changing azimuth will change the VTA. I have harped on this issue with many tonearms before but nobody seems to care or at least sonically not noticeable to many so I stop commenting on that. Glad you bought it up. And, yes, changing pivot point will change overhang and zenith.

I was more impressed by the bearing arrangement than anything else, that having only three contact points is quite an achievement in design cleverness. Your concern is a legitimate one. And, yes, the video is too blurry in the background to make good judgment so I am one who should apologize.

Keep up the probing. :)

______