FR64s & Orsonic Av-1s Effective mass ?


Hi Good folks!

I have an FR 64s with original headshell. Have ordered an Orsonic Av-1s/ 10 grams, to meet better compliance/ resonnance matching with higher compliance cartridges.

Any idea what the effective mass will be with this combination?

Would be funny to try for example how my London Decca Super Gold would work with this arm..ūüėÄ


geddyen
There are several ways to estimate tonearm effective mass, but none of them are really simple to do.  Safe to say that the static weight of the headshell is a factor, but not simply by the ratio of its static weight to that of the stock FR64S headshell.  Best way to approach this, in my opinion, is to try it.  You might also acquire one of the test LPs that permit estimating resonant frequency.  From that information, you can calculate effective mass of the assembly of tonearm, cartridge, headshell, screws, and the counter-weight at the rear.

Another trick:  If you think of the tonearm as a seesaw, with the counter-weight on one side and everything else on the other, then you can get at effective mass by balancing the tonearm such that the arm is hanging level in space, zero VTF.  Now measure the distance from the pivot to the center of mass of the CW, in centimeters.  Then remove the CW and weigh it separately, in grams.  The effective mass will be related to the product of the square of the distance from the pivot point to the center of mass of the CW times the weight of the CW.  Now, if I can only recall HOW the two are related, you'd be in business.

Dear @gddyen: With its own headshell the tonearm EM is 35grs. You just have to weigh the FR headshell and the diference with the Orsonic is what you have to add/ subtract to that 35 figure and you will be around the EM data you are looking for.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.




Hi lewm

I have already tried the combo, original fr64s/ Decca Super Gold, and it is playing music in a way.
Vinylengine calculator with fr64s original headshell ( 35 EM) says around 7.5 hz. I am also using the " Decca pod" that adds maybe 5 grams. ( Do not have an accurate weight here that exceeds 5 grams now).
But when I tried the arm/ cartridge compability track at Hifi news test record the cartridge jumped straight into the next track:)
About the resonance track on Hifi news test record, I read somewhere that the results/ cutting actually is wrong!?
I also have an Ortofon test record I can try on later..
Your trick / calculate formula seems interresting. But if it is as easy as Raulirugas is saying...?
Hi Rauliruegas

Original fr64s headshell FRS-3 as far as I know weighs 20.6 gr.
Orsonic AV1-s weights 10 gr.

Difference: 10.6 gr.

Meaning EM clocking in at 24,4 gr?

Resonance frequency 8.8 hz
Thats a green light ūüĎć

I don't know where to begin.   If VE says that the OEM FR64S + its OEM headshell have together an effective mass of 35g, that's a good place to start.  Then you have to add the weight of the cartridge and the screws and nuts used to hold the cartridge in place.  But you'd like to know the weight of the OEM headshell separately, so as to be able to compare it to the weight of the Orsonic, like Raul says.  And even then, the change in EM is not the same as the difference in static weight of the two objects.  (I don't know what a Decca pod is.  Perhaps it's something that goes between the headshell and the cartridge.  If so, the pod plus Orsonic might be close to the same weight as the OEM FR headshell.  The difference would be negligible, IMO.)  If it sounds good, especially in the low bass region, it probably IS good. If the calculated resonant frequency is 7.5Hz, that is not so bad either.  You might look here for some help: http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html
This is a Decca pod:

https://www.divineaudio.co.uk/fit-deccapod-recalibrate-service-for-london-decca-cartridges
Dear @geddyen :  """ a tonearm with minimum degree of bearing friction and efficiente DAMPING. """

that's the Decca advise to the Super Gold owners. The tonearm and the after market headshell you choosed for your Decca cartridge goes against ( both. ) the manufacturer advise.

Your FR tonearm is a very old non-damped design. " Rings as a bell ". Your choosed headshell is an non-damped design too.
In both cases that's means a way higher distortions that a well damped tonearm/headshell design. 

In the other side its VTF mechanism "" rings as a bell "" too.

 If you have not other alternative to mount the Decca cartridge then make the VTF set up as if the tonearm design was not dinamically by design but static one, using exclusively the counterweight to make that VTF set up with the additional advantage that the counterweight will be nearer to the tonearm/bearing pillar.

 Unfortunatelly you own one of the worst tonearm and headshell designs in those regards.

Now, due that the vertical compliance is very low in the Super Gold could be better that the resonance frequency stay very close to 10hz and if posible in a diferent tonearm/headshell.

Decca manufacturer knows very well its cartridge designs and that's why they give precise advise on what kind of tonearm mate well with it.

Of course we can use any tonearm and the Decca  will " sound " but ( at least for me. ) that's not the priority but try to achieve the best quality sound/music performance level we can.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.




Hi Rauliruegas

Good point about Decca recommendations. I actually did not know that, or thought that far. Typical caveman ideology, try first, read the manual after.
Also good point to use only the counterweight for VTF. Actually I tried that some time ago, most of curiosity reasons with another cartridge with acceptable results.

I also have an Basis Superarm 9 with good damping, so its no crisis here. But I was thinking to use the classic FR arm as my second/ dual mounted arm more or less for rock music/ casual listening. Would be fun to mount something else than low compliance mc's on the FR..
I have a FR 64S it has a Ortofon 2M black mounted (high compliance cart) and it sounds exceptional. Dynamic Tracking is set at 1.5g

In comparison i also have a SME 3010R with a AT ART9 mounted on a similar turntable and the 64S/2M combo sounds equally as good.

mt


An alternative way to get damping for the arm and/or Decca is to mount them on a Townshend Rock turntable, which has a damping trough at the headshell end of the arm. The Townshend damping system also reduces the Q of the arm/cartridge resonance.

One can't ''balance'' the FR-64 with an lightweight headshell and

cart. The old FR headshell is worthless while the Orsonic AV 101

is much better than the (lightweigt) Orsonic AV-1. There are

different FR-64 counter weights but difficult to get. The nearer the

conterwight to the pivot the lesser the arm mass. The lighter the

the headshell the less arm mass. LPgear sells and excelent

headshell for about $ 50. There are different names and prices

for the same (magnesium) headshell which is made by Jelco(?).

I bought 6 of those under the name ''Sumiko'' for about 40 GBP a piece.

@nandric 

Orsonic AV 101 is much better than the (lightweigt) Orsonic AV-1.


why 101 it's better? 

Dear Chakster, You probably enjoy making my life difficult with

your ''endless'' questions(grin). As you should know the stability

and rigidity of the headshells are very important. You only need to

look at both headshells to see the difference. Those small and weak ''legs'' on the Orsonic AV-1 are not very convincing. Besides, according to ''some Aussie'' they are produced in China. This means that they are also ''fake headshells'' . For their kind of prices I would also reproduce them if I knew how. The Orsonic AV 101 on the

other side is at present too complicated for the Chinese to produce

them . So they are probably made in Japan. I use them

for my best carts only . BTW I also own Dertonarm's Arche

headshell ( the best ever, sorry Raul) which I use only with even better carts than my best. 

Dear @fast_mick : """ AT ART9 mounted on a similar turntable and the 64S/2M combo sounds equally as good... """

good for you that sounds " equally " good when both cartridges are way diferent, both are good cartridges ( already hear it both. ) but with diferent quality sound performance level. Even you listen it with two way diferent tonearms and with the 64 with its " terrible " dinamically vtf engaged.

Seems to me that other that you like very high distortions maybe your system has very low resolution and you are not aware of your system distortions. Perhaps some tube electronics not up to the task or even all SS one electronics with " poor " performance?

Anyway, subject is that any single cartridge needs a well damped tonearm/headshell.

Some/many audiophiles " die for " very high distortions and do not care about.
Of course they all are wrong but we live in a free audio world and we can choose whatever but this fact does not means in any way is right because there are many audio things that we like but are not right but wrong.

Well, we have to stay away from undamped tonearms and undamped headshells. Name of the game in audio is to achieve the lowest distortion levels anywhere and overall in any audio system.

Audio ignorance levels always is a problem for each one of us.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.






Hi Raul,

We are in to a bit of thread drift re distortions but as the original poster has a FR64S.

i dont post very often but i been following these forums for 2 years or so. I know Jcarr doesn't like the 64S he prefers a technics EPA-100 (i have one but its not currently mounted). It was good it sounded more like the SME 3010R.

Mine is a modest system the top Atlas cartridge probably costs more than my system. In the context of his top cartridge the 64S most likely isnt relevant in the context of a $1k cartridge I believe its more than acceptable.

I like the sound of the 64S its a very nice tonearm and I also have the B-60 base for it so its easy to adjust.

As you rightly mentioned in your post everyone has different audio goals.
I was a teenager in the 1970's... I have 2 x Denon DP-80's one in a DK-300 and one in the twin tonearm version. To me the sound is perfect, I have three arms to choose from the other is a Grace 704, it is excellent also.

mt





 
Dear fast_mick: """  To me the sound is perfect... """

good because that's the important issue to you and I can't disagree with.

Sooner or latter all of us go learning diferent audui subjects to improve our day by day music listening.

After several years I learned about the non-damped tonearms and headshells and why all goes against the music quality during playback. This statement has no relationship if what we are hearing through those kind of items like it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, What do you consider proper dampening of tonearm resonance?  I was thinking on this subject.  There are different methods adopted by different manufacturers.  For example, the Triplanar has that elliptically shaped silicon bath mounted on the pillar near the pivot point (and the Triplanar arm wand is wrapped in a shrink-tube-like material), whereas Townsend is alone in providing the damping up near to the headshell, where perhaps it is most needed.  Still others, particularly unipivot designs, provide dampening right at the pivot point.  And Technics has that resonance control device built into the counter-weight side of the pivot.  Further, dampening can be achieved by the choice of material used to make the arm wand.  (We know all to well that you do not like the steel FR tonearms, for example.) One potential virtue of wood tonearms in my mind is the very fact that wood, being a natural amorphous material, will tend not to display a sharp peak at resonance and will tend to dissipate resonant energy rather than transmit it.  For whatever reason, I find that I have tended to like wood tonearms. I have heard carbon fiber tonearms, and without exception I have found them to be not to my liking; the sound is dull and lacking in sparkle that I associate with real live music performances.  This subjective impression suggests to me that it is not only dampening per se that counts; HOW you achieve dampening may also be critical.
Dear @lewm : Agree with you, there are several ways to damp a tonearm. Maybe as many as tonearm manufacturers but some of them just choose not to damp its designs.

Technics not only comes with that damping mechanism at the counterweigth but the blend materials used on the arm wand and even in the MK2 the Boron/aluminum hedashell has additional top plate damping.
Normally designers damp his designs not only in one way but use 2-3 ways to do it at the same timwe in diferent tonearm places.

The build materials per se sometimes are choosed by its damping characteristics as is the case of wood tonearm designs. Silicon damping mechanism along build material as SME: silicon plus dampening and magnesium. Damping at the bearing as magnetism or as in the unipivots. Others damps the internal arm wand as Lustre or AT. Micro Seiki MAX models are very good damped.

Btw, I don't like FR tonearms not because steel choosed build material but because is a non-damped design anywhere.

The enemy of the cartridge signal are: resonances/vibrations/distortions created and that's why every single tonearm and removable headshell must be damped. No single doubt about.

Almost everythhing in the analog front end is about damping. With out it we have and are listening just " sound"noise " but no MUSIC, high quality level performance.

As many things in audio and especially in the analogue experience is that people just don't want to learn and don't care to improve and grow up and live " happy " sticky in is each one " deep black hole " and they will " die " for.

Damping is critical everywhere in the system audio chain it does not matters if our system is a modest one or a megabuks one.

For me is just " ridiculous " ( for say the least " ) that today many of us are in love with undamped audio items !! and are proudly to " spread " that undamped BS and that's part of the audio world HIGH END ( ?? ) market niche where we all live. Makes no sense to me and I'm sure makes no sense to you. A free world!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


Raul, Audio is not an exact science. In fact, it's not a science at all, and logic does not always predict what will sound best.  Thus, while I take your point on damping or "dampening", I still can listen to my FR64S and say "Holy Cow that's good".  I am trying to do some research on why it does sound good despite the problems you cite. One possible saving grace of my set-up is that I have the FR64S mounted in its B60 base adjuster, which adds mass closely coupled to the arm structure, and the B60 is in turn mounted into a massive aluminum arm board that is one piece with a bigger piece of alu bolted to the bottom of the plinth.  One theory is if you give the mechanical energy a good pathway into a high mass object, the energy will dissipate as heat without the ability to induce motion.  It's really dampening by another mechanism. I don't insist this is true; it's just a thought.

Dear Lew, To add to your thoughts or assumptions I would like to mention the fact that the original ''base'' or the collar holder is made from aluminum. Steel (hardened) from which the FR-64/66 are made is very difficut to process . This was the reason to introduce aluminum FR-64/66 models. But there was an steel kind of base

for the old FR- 64/66 as separate. The thing looks like an huge nut.

Other tonearm manufacturer also produced such ''weight addition'' to

the arm base . Probably with the intention to ''divert'' resonances

into heat  which is actually  the same as (resonance) ''dampening''.

The B-60 has the same function in addition to the VTA function.

The FR64S is one of the great pickup arms of all time, so I'm not sure what Raul's trouble with it is. I sold mine - complete with adjustable VTA base - to a friend who still uses it. It still sounds terrific! Of course, not every arm is necessarily at its best in every table, so perhaps that's where Raul got confused about it.
cleeds, While Raul’s English may be a bit fractured at times, he is never "confused" about any of his underlying beliefs, as I am sure he will soon tell you, where the FR64S is concerned. But I agree with you; I set mine up expecting the kinds of problems Raul has repeatedly described, but I don’t hear them so far. In fact, I am breaking other rules as well, using a high mass arm with a high compliance cartridge (Acutex LPM320). I am still giving Raul the benefit of the doubt, because I do respect his opinion, except when he accuses me of "liking" distortions. Before I draw final conclusions I need to replace the 64S with some other tonearm that is both lower in effective mass and higher in "dampening" characteristics, keeping the turntable (Victor TT101 in re-enforced plinth) and cartridge constant.

Dear Lew, You are right about Raul. He is never ''confused'' about

those whom he does not like. Say Dertonarm. Well if Dertonarm

was ,uh, more critical about those damn FR/64/66 Raul may have

liked them. The strange thing however is that cleeds sold his FR-64

but Raul deed not. The humans are , I think, inscrutable.

Nicola, You raise an interesting question:  I wonder how many of us now own or ever did own an FR64S or FR66S.  And among this group, what is the opinion of the tonearm in terms of sonic qualities? 

I will start by saying I own one and my opinion so far is positive.
(I think the voting among FR64S or FR66S users can be simplified to "positive" or "negative".)

Maybe this should be a separate thread, but it does relate to the OP's conundrum.  Nevertheless, if he would rather squelch this investigation, so be it.
Raul is actually the only person I've ever heard who didn't think the FR-64S was an outstanding pickup arm. I've heard the FR-64S on a variety of turntables and in a variety of systems and it has always sounded excellent. Perhaps he bought a used one that is defective. That might explain it.

Dear Lew, I admire the ''mechanical beauty'' of the FR-64s of

which I own the silver and the copper version. I also own the Ikeda

345 which is, according to J. Carr, Ikeda's best. But I have no preference  for one above the other.

Cleeds, Whatever one may think about Raul I don't believe that he

would buy an defective FR-64/66 . If he still owns both they should

be in excelent condition. If I could afford the FR-66 I would make

him an offer (grin). 

Interresting debate!

Got the Orsonic AV1S after some busy days with barbequing, beers and music. There must be no doubt that the AV1S was a much better match than the original FR64S headshell with the Super Gold. It sounds smother, cleaner and dynamics is really kicking. It is quite fun to drop the Decca needle now. And amazingly, the hum totally dissapearedūüėÉ!
According to HFN test record the ressonance are now about 9 hz. Still tweaking..
I should mention that I guess the relative good result also has to do with  the vacuum ( flat record/ no suspencion cantilever) and " oil spring damped" plinth/ Basis Debut..
As I implied in one of my responses to Raul, I think the coupling of the tonearm (any tonearm, but maybe especially undamped tonearms) to high mass is another form of dampening.  So, you're on the right track, IMO.
Yes, I was thinking about on what You wrote about the B-60, offloading the vibration energy. An interresting theory. By the way I do not have the B-60, but the arm is drilled directly in the Debut plint.
The fr64 is an excellent arm. Raul has some strange opinions some times. I think he loves distortionsūüėĪ
lewm "As I implied in one of my responses to Raul, I think the coupling of the tonearm (any tonearm, but maybe especially undamped tonearms) to high mass is another form of dampening."

I agree absolutely. When I had the FR-64S, it was on an Oracle Delphi Mk3 with a special metal armboard that sounded way better than the factory-standard acrylic board. That combo, on the FR adjustable VTA base, was just incredible. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I sold the whole package to a friend who still uses it. And it still sounds great. The various Orsonic headshells were also a major improvement, and helped match the arm to the cartridge.

Dear @analogluvr :  Audio world must lives with distortions and yes I love distortions as you too but difference is what kind of distortions makes less harm to the MUSIC and to what is recorded in the LP grooves.

I'm sure that you love diferent kind of distortions than me as many of other audiophiles. That's the main subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
"FR adjustable VTA base" = B60, to which I referred.  Using it has the non-obvious advantage of adding mass to the arm by virtue of its close coupling to the vertical shaft of the arm proper.  To add even much more mass, I created an aluminum arm board that is in turn connected to a second massive piece of aluminum bolted to the bottom of the plinth, via a half-inch diameter bolt that joins the two.  So, from the headshell all the way to the mount, there is solid metal which should facilitate the transfer of energy away from the cartridge.  This could be just mental masturbation on my part, but it does sound good, and I hear none of the problems cited by Raul.  In fact, the outstanding characteristic of the sound is that it is very "clean", no evidence of a resonant signature in the treble or anywhere else. But I do take Raul's comments seriously, because he is a careful listener, albeit he listens to a system quite different from mine. (By the way, I too am using a light weight headshell; I think it's magnesium.  The cartridge right now is an Acutex with very high compliance; I was expecting the worst from this combo but got something great.)

rauliruegas " ... yes I love distortions as you too ... I’m sure that you love diferent kind of distortions than me as many of other audiophiles ... "

Raul, it’s certainly fine that you love distortion, but it’s really presumptuous of you to speak for others and state that they love distortion, too.

Many of us have worked to minimize or eliminate distortion in our system. For some of us, that’s the whole point.

But this may explain why you don’t like the FR-64s pickup arm. It can be a very neutral pickup arm, relatively. You’re missing those euphonic distortions that you crave.
Dear @cleeds :   """  but it’s really presumptuous of you to speak for others and state that they love distortion, too. """

No it's not. As I said in my post till today we have no altenative but live with distortions. Like it this fact or not.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


rauliruegas" ... As I said in my post till today we have no altenative but live with distortions. Like it this fact or not."

Pardon me, Raul, but you stated, " I love distortions as you too ... I’m sure that you love diferent kind of distortions." That is profoundly presumptuous on your part. Please speak for yourself. Please don’t tell me what to think, what to love, or pretend that you know me better than I may know myself. Please.

That fact is, Raul, that you have enough trouble here just explaining yourself. Perhaps you should focus on that, rather than trying to divine the positions of others who you know absolutely nothing about.
Dear @cleeds : Again, IT'S NOT. I don't care per se what any one loves to listen and how is listening it or what they think.

But any one of us and you are not an exception are listening " distorted " music through our audio systems and you can't change this fact. Any one of us can " pretend " that fact does not exist but is useless to do it because exist.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


rauliruegas""Again, IT'S NOT."

Really? You're now shouting at me that it's not profoundly presumptuous for you to state, " " ... yes I love distortions as you too ... I’m sure that you love diferent kind of distortions than me as many of other audiophiles ... "

Ok, Raul. You insist so much that I love distortion that you'll resort to shouting. You must have some crystal ball. Why not tell me what else I love? What do I love most in wine, beer, cars, women and shoes? Go ahead. Tell me what I think, how I should think,  and how you have some special insight into what goes on in my head and my life. Go ahead. tell me.

What a freakin' jerk.
Dear @cleeds :  """  Raul is actually the only person I've ever heard who didn't think the FR-64S was an outstanding pickup arm. """

Not really. Now, one main target and I can say critical target in any tonearm design is that can cope with the cartridge needs and to achieve that main/critical target ( between other things. ) the tonearm it self must be " dead silent " adding no single kind of " distortions " or increment the cartridge/TT generated original ones.

To stay nearest that main/critical tonearm design the tonearm must be very very well damped and even if well damped there is no way to avoid 100% its " influence " against the cartridge signal.

Unfortunatelly the FR is a non-damped design and is far away from that main/critical target. That tonearm " promote " and increment " distortions " that does exist in lower " quantity/quality in a very well damped tonearm designs. I'm not talking what we like because that's does not change the premises.

J.Carr that's the Lyra cartridge designer, a music lover and an audiophile years ago posted this about the FR tonearm you love and that you think sounds " terrific ":

"""  but truth be told, I'm not overly enamoured of the "S" family either (and I say this as the long-time owner of a 64S with Elevation Base and Arm Stabilizer). The stainless steel is great to look at, but less great to listen to, and when I run mine I prefer to keep a compression wrap around the tube. """

A compression wrap around the tube.?.  Please ask your self: WHY that compession wrap? 

Easy answer: to damps in someway that " terrible " undamped design. To help in some way the delicate cartridge signal can't be totally corrupted by that non damped tonearm design.
Things are that I used that same compression wrap ( by Sumiko. ) with my FR and SAEC tonearms and for the same JC reasons.

It helps?, yes a little but nothing more.

In the other side the FR designers choosed the worst mechanism for set up in dynamic balance the VTF, that's a focus of added distortions all the time is in use.

JC, added:   

"""  Finally, the headshell has a major impact on the sound, but I am sure that you are well aware of that. """

As the FR the Orsonic headshell are non-damped ones and cooperate in full to " promotion and added distortions ". Both terrible headshells for say the least.


Again, if the FR/Orsonic " fantastic " distortions are the ones that people like then good for all of you that like it.

Btw, @lewm , I don't know which Acutex model you are talking about but if it's one of the top in the Acutex lines I can tell you that you can't listen it in bad way even if you use your " hand " as a tonearm.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


Good to read Raul’s broken record about his distortion "knowledge"
i bet, even when he is 6 feet under, we will hear it from him... And his last word will be: "Distortions"
Never able to move the sonic curtain in the last 6 years.. But always present to spread the outdated opinion which is covered as " knowledge".I think, distortions can be in brain, too
Btw. Your german friend, DerTonearm became a very well respected designer and his Arms, which share FR qualities, won many awards and side by side comparisons.
How long we wait now for "your" benchmark Tonearm design made in Mexico? Five years? 


Post removed 
rauliruegas " ... Problem is that you can’t , not even in dreams, imagine ..."

Raul, you are amazing! Not only do you know what people think, we now learn that you know what they dream. That is truly remarkable and we are so unfortunate to have you in this forum. That you for conversing with us, and sharing your wisdom with us. We are all in such debt to you!

Raul, As I mentioned once before, the cartridge I am running on my FR64S is an Acutex LPM320STRIII.  Acutex say the compliance is 42; I forget whether that is a static or dynamic measurement and at what frequency. I also own the snub nose earlier version M320, but have not tried it yet. Yes, it is a great cartridge. I wonder whether paradoxically MM or MI cartridges like the Acutex might actually work BETTER than MC types on an undamped tonearm such as the FR64S, because the MCs are said to put more energy back up into the arm wand, perhaps due to low compliance.  A high compliance cartridge is acting like a good auto suspension to minimize energy that might go back up into the cartridge body, and therefore there is less need for damping the tonearm proper. Plus, I said my piece on mass loading. Just a thought.

@syntax : Your skills/abilities to avoid answers to my specific questions are " admirable ".

I never ever read or " listen " that you and your audio advisor ( btw, any one. ), that " die for FR marvelous performance/design ", any single argument and reasons WHY that FR helps in better way to cope/cover with the cartridge needs against a damped Tonearm and headshell designs and WHY the damped tonearms are an inferior kind of designs WHY does not helps to be a better cartridge match as the non damped tonearm designs.

So, you have other opportunity to put real light with specific arguments/facts of all the cartridge benefits of undamped designs against damped tonearms and headshells other that " I like it or sounds terrific ".

Btw, JC already gave you and your advisor a precise answer for all of us can learn and in diferent threads not only my posts but other people posts gave you very specific arguments about that no one prove are all wrong.

JC is not only the Lyra designer but he made and make cartridge designs for other " people ".
He was and is so succesfuly because not only his high knowledge level on design but because made and make his cartridge voicing and even makes voicing/tests top competiors cartridges and for do all that he has the right skills ( other than be a music lover. ) to do it.
He already tested almost any tonearm you can imagine ( included the FR as he answered to both of you. ) with " dream " TTs and electronics.

In the other side no one knows better the Lyra cartridge quality performance levels than JC and this is an additional fact that till today both of you never posted any single specific argument against JC " certified " arguments.

My " broken record " on DISTORTIONS came not ( as you said. ) from 6 years ago but years before that when I learned not only about tonearm or cartridges but about DISTORTIONS in any single link in the audio system chain and how to be aware of those distortions and what to do to put each one at minimum or near as we can.

In favor of Agoners and audio industry please don’t try to avoid again your good founded facts and give us that light/answers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


As always dead silence/no answer. Have not any single argument/fact as all the other promotion's gentlemans.

I'm sure that some day all of us will learn: or not?

R.
rauliruegas7,575 posts "As always dead silence/no answer. Have not any single argument/fact as all the other promotion’s gentlemans."


Your question was answered before you asked it. Perhaps you might consider going back and reading this thread more carefully.

Here’s a little tip, Raul. When you write, "... WHY that FR helps in better ... and WHY the damped tonearms are an inferior kind of designs WHY do ..." the use of all caps is considered shouting. That gives contributors here just one more reason to ignore you.

In any event, no one here in this group owes you an explanation for anything.
Dear @lewm : A tonearm manufacturer " normally " makes his design for any kind of cartridge compliance included his kind of tonearm damping choice .

Feedback, vibrations, noises, resonances, distortions comes from everywhere ( TT platter, platter mat, LP, arm board, TT motor, air borne noise, etc, etc. ) in the room/audio system and the tonearm designer have to deal with all of them to achieve his tonearm targets.

Cartridge compliance is part of the cartridge suspension system that's " affected " by the suspension damping mechanism cartridge designer choosed and between other things the kind of dampers and damper build materials.

Each cartridge, independent of its compliance, has its own kind of vibrations/feedback/cartridge body ones, diferent compliance values only can change the amplitude or frequency where " vibrations/distortions can happen and of course tracking abilities.

In all type of cartridges a damped tonearm always helps against no damping at all.

Through our life, inside and out of audio world, we like several things that we know are wrong but we still are sticky to them.
Example: sugar/comercial chocolat are a human been " murderer " that always goes against our safety health but here we know is wrong and accept it ( does not matters that we go on eating sugar. ) and with the non damped tonearm we can't accept is wrong even with evidence against a damped designs.

What do we in the audio world?, nothing but try to be " self  convinced ) through that: " I LIKE IT " and that's all and that's why one gentleman posted here:

"  Raul is actually the only person I've ever heard who didn't think the FR-64S was an outstanding pickup arm. """


With that sentence he thinks is confirming he is rigth when in reality is wrong on that subject.

Anyway, as always a learning day.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

 
rauliruegas
" ...What do we in the audio world?, nothing but try to be " self  convinced ) through that: " I LIKE IT " and that's all and that's why one gentleman posted here:

" Raul is actually the only person I've ever heard who didn't think the FR-64S was an outstanding pickup arm. """

With that sentence he thinks is confirming he is rigth when in reality is wrong on that subject. "

Once again, Raul, you pretend to know what others are thinking when, in fact, you have enough trouble explaining yourself.

My remark that you quote means no more than it states: I've never conversed with anyone - other than you - that didn't get excellent results from the FR-64S pickup arm. And I allowed that, because you bought yours used, that might explain your confusion. When you buy used, it's difficult to know exactly what you're getting.

It's fine that you don't like the FR-64, Raul. I really don't care. But that others like it doesn't make them wrong. Your insistence that they are wrong is why I shall again return to ignoring you and the Pronouncements and Proclamations of Truth According to the Great Raul.


CLeeds, In all fairness to Raul, where do you go these days to buy a NEW FR64S?  In fact, so far as I know, Raul has owned his FR64S for a much longer period of time than I have owned mine; there's at least a chance that he DID buy his FR64S new.  I would wager that nearly all of us who have commented on this thread bought their FR tonearms as used items. I bought mine off eBay about 3-4 years ago, with "silver inside", from either 2juki or one of the other regular Japanese eBay sellers.  When I got it, the bearing was a little stiff.  Dertonearm advised me to just leave it in a warm place so as to allow the bearing lubricant to warm up, and indeed he was right; the problem just disappeared while the FR64S was sitting at room temperature in my house.  Other than a broken internal wire or a very stiff bearing that does not "thaw out", I don't know what else could go wrong with an FR64S that would not be immediately apparent.  Thus I conclude that Raul's opinion, whether we like it or not, is based on listening to a fully OK sample of the tonearm.
By the way, I am wondering whether the lubricant that evidently surrounds the bearing in fact does constitute a form of damping