Question on FR 66s

Dear Raul, thanks for your very thoughtful post. I understand your point and certainly see why you think this way. However, I have to say that my priority is a bit different from yours and this should not come as a surprise since I like FR/Koetsu combination so much :)
I do think that Graham is a more neutral arm than Reed and since Reed and FR share some trait in common, I guess by default, Graham is more neutral than FR as well.
What I don't like (big disclaimer, according to my taste only!) for example, piano, on Graham, you hear the initial attack of the note very clearly and cleanly. However, you get a lot less decay from the string, even if pedal is fully engaged. I don't know if microphone, even placed over the soundboard/string bed, are not capable of picking this up or if they are lost once mixed in with other tracks for ambience etc. I practice on my grand piano pretty much daily and I am very familiar with this rich tone from a piano. On Graham, it just sounds drier, leaner like sustained pedal is not engaged or only half pressed. Reed and FR have these in spades. May be the data is not really there as much on recording and may be it is really distortion from the arm that give the illusion of this decay but I love it. I feel it is closer to what I hear every day on my piano. In fact, during the one year that I have Graham, I hardly ever play any piano recordings on Graham as I find it less bearable.
At the end of the day, we all have to make some compromise and pick and choose strenght of each stereo equipment and accept the flaws that appear the lesser evil to our ears. To my ears, to the kind of music that I love, I just find virtue and flaw of FR/Reed more to my liking and tolerable and since I am the one paying and listening to it and have to live with it, my taste rules in my living room :)
However, your point is well taken and I certainly take that into consideration when I audition a piece of equipment as well.
By the way, up to a couple of days ago, I only heard FR with Koetsu. I just mounted Air Tight on FR 64s/Micro Seiki and the result is quite interesting. It sounds a lot more different than when I have it on Reed/TW or my VPI Classic. I am still adjusting and fiddle with it so I am not quite ready to make up my mind yet but it sounds almost like a different cartridge to me. Good but in a very different way, go figure!

Dear Lewm: As Suteetat posted:

+++++ " However, I have to say that my priority is a bit different from yours " +++++

that's all about.

Yes, my priority is to listen and enjoy MUSIC with the lowest distortions I can achieve because live MUSIC has the lowest distortions we can get. Normally there is only " air " between you and the Music ( near field. ) that is what Suteetat is enjoying every time he plays his piano.
He thinks and I respect him that what he is listening through its system is almost what he experienced live and said that he did not herad piano recordings through the Graham. I'm not a fanatic of Graham and I can't argue almost nothing on his statement because I never been there other that maybe and only maybe the Graham/cartridge combination was not a good one or that that combination performs nearer to the recording. What we like could be not critical but what we heard/hear and why we heard that kind of performance knowing that the music signal passed through a long recording process and through long playback process.
Complex? sure it's a little complex but we can take some help from digital technology using it as a tool to tell us which analog combination is nearer to the recording. You already know that as other audiophiles as Dover or Nandric because they posted and that's why I posted this:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10147&4#10147

yes, digital IMHO is an extraordinary tool to achieve information that will help to improve our analog experience. Only requisite: lates digital DACs technology player, this means: 32/192 or 32/384.

Anyway, all of us are in an audio long learning process every day and is through this learning process that our system improved and will improve with out doubt.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

I forgot. A digital tool has lower distortions ( lot lower. ) and we can use it in repetitive way in real time and always we will hear the same performance quality through that digital tool.

Of course we have to choose good digital recordings that we have on LP too. As in all playback mediums there are awful recording in digital as some LPs too.

R.

Dear Analog Lovers: The main subject here is not to find out which medium likes you more: NO, the main subject is to use digital as a tool it does not matters that you don't like it.

What to look for when we are comparing same recording in both mediums?:

look for the non obvious " sounds/artefacts/distortions ". All of us are accustomed to enjoy the music through our analog rig that we know perfectly where we are aware of the obvious and not so aware of the non-obvious because we not even know what is that non-obvious " distortions " because we almost never compare it against other kind of source different from analog.

A first step that I can recomemded when using the digital tool is to focus/concentrate in both mediums Bass Management looking for differences, some could be obvious and other not so obvious.
Why start/begin with that frequency range?, because normally the bass management quality performance in digital is not only more accurate and neutral but where the differences are more obvious against that same analog frequency range.

This are very good CDs that can help us and you can find out the LPs at least in Gladiator and The Mission:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10148&4#10148

please listen very well to Memories of a Geshia.

Now, you can use the DVDAs I already tested where you can find out the LPs because all those DVDAs has its LP counterpart. Here are those DVDAs, please " forget/don't read " ( it's not important. ) what I posted other than the digital/analog comparisons:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10142&4#10142

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10109&4#10109

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10228&4#10228

it does not matters if the kind of music you don't like it, remember that we are not comparing here what we like or the medium quality but we are looking for non-obvious differences trying to help to improve with some modifications/changes somewhere in the system our each one analog experiences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: How could you improve your analog experiences?. IMHO improving the audio system resolution and this means lowering its distortions.

So to improve analog first you have to improve your system resolution: not a new cartridge or a new tonearm or a new TT or all these.

If we take Suteetat system he already has those great Q5 that certainly will tell him about improvements/degradations through any single system link changes and has a very good digital tool too ( that maybe even can improve it to 32/384 status. ) so what left down there, mainly electronics, room and cables and there we have alternatives to improve as go for tweaks through electronics: better fuses or caps or signal resistors or even tubes ( leave tubes for the last. ). All those changes helps to improve his system resolution even that he does not touch or touches the analog rig and IMHO he does not have to do it till the system achieve higher resolution.
Changes through tweaked electronics always are worth to do it and always gives huge rewards. We need the best electronics system quality performance: ¡ if for no other thing because through those electronics the cartridge signal must pass¡¡¡¡, so it's obvious that as better are those system links as better the analog experience. Of course that we can go to other electronic extreme and this is to change the unit but IMHO if we have the possibility to up-grade/tweak what we own this has to be the path to go that even if we want to change in the future we will know which kind of electronics quality performance we could need: certainly that can surpass/beats my upgraded/tweaked ones.

Then, we have room and cables where we have several paths to take to improve that system overall resolution.

In all those up-grade system steps the tool to use is the digital one because ( believe it or not ) has lower distortions and higher accuracy with lower colorations. Lower distortions means more MUSIC information.

When can we start to improve the analog rig?, when we can support/" enjoy " the digital alternative. When this happen then our system is ready first to enjoy the analog rig we own and then start to improve with the certainty that due to the " new " higher resolution system our analog changes/tweaks will be the right ones.

Right now in several of our systems the analog real experience is a lot better that what we are listening and we are satisfied with because we don't know that with the same system with small changes " here and there " we can have a huge improvements over what we enjoy today.

My message is to make a hard work to improve system resolution more than buy new analog toys.

Money is important to improve the system resolution but is more important your knowledge level because you have to decide what to do to achieve that system higher resolution and I can tell you that the answer is not on buy " new analog toys ".
You already have those toys and when you achieve that higher resolution your today analog rig will sounds as " new analog toys ".

You don't believe me?, well that's your prerogative/privilege but if I was you: why not try it. What can you lose ? even you can have a lot of fun!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.