Vetterone, And? If you answer the (remaining) question you can get the missing counterweight for your Reed without.
'I have' a spare. |
Dear Lew, Perhaps because they have different timbre or,as someone whose English is not his 'first' language would say, 'different timber'.
Regards, |
Dear Jfrech, Yes Vidmantas is the designer. He is a scientist involved in S.Union military complex and a real 'rocket scientist'. But since the fall apart of the Sovjet Union he started his own company in which he can combine his hobby and his work. We all dream about such an possibility, I assume.
I know Vidmantas longer than 5 years but I would never and deed never promote his products in the sense of 'trying to sell them'. I am as interested in tonearms in general as
anybody else and always curious about the new kinds. So my intention is to keep any information within strict technical bondaries. BTW I can only say something about
2A version which I own.
Regards,
|
Dear Lew, You can find some info on the Reed site (www.reed.lt). It is provisional prototype with a peculiar way to dampen the record wraps with the help of a magnet
situated above the counterweight. According to Vidmantas based on Lenz's law. I would call this construction 'magnetic- dynamic'. There is of course also magnetic anti-skate provision. The rest is excatly like your 2A. Only about 10 are made and sent to some dealers and old customers for the feedback. My specimen is more 'universal' than my 2A which has Pernambuco wood wand with 27g. eff. mass. Because of all those MM carts that I own I prefer the Magnetic version. With my Benz Ruby 3s and Phase Tech P-3G I was not able to hear any difference between them.BTW the P3 seems to be so successful that I don't believe that the Magnetic will reach production state. Anyway not in the near future.
Regards, |
Jfrech, My 'current' Reed (2A) is specialy made for my
Kuzma Stabi Ref. as second arm next to the Triplanar VII.
Ie with an armpod and 12'' lenght. My intention was to use
this arm for the low compliance MC carts. So in A-B-A
comparison I was limited to Benz Ruby 3S and Phase Tech
P-3G. My Basis Exclusive has two phono-pres so A-B comparison is easy to do. But in my second system I use the FR-64 S, Sumiko 800, Zeta and Lustre GST I. This system is not 'optimal' but meant to test MM carts. I am very fond of all of them (tonearm maniac) but the Reed and the Triplanar are superior to the rest in my opinion. BTW
the Reed and the Triplanar are meant for different carts and are in no way rivalry.
Regards,
|
Vidmantas was told that I started this thread about the Reed 3 P.
The strange thing is that while I know nothing about this
arm I may be in the position to answer any question about
the same arm. That is to say I need to put the question to Vidmantas first and than provide the answer which I get from him. His English is not adequate for the purpose according to his own opinion while his spare time is also very limited. I am also acquainted with his son and his daughter in law and can easilly get contact with them/him.
Regards, |
DearLew&Geoch, I wrote to Vidmantas about the azimuth adjustment and Geoch question which I formulated as a possible 'mechanical problem'. I have no idea about mechanics but I think that Vidmantas is also mechanical engeneer. As soon as I get his answer I will report.
So Lew if there is such an animal as an 'intermediary horse' you will probable hear the answer from me.
Regards, |
Dear Geoch &Lew, According to Vidmantas the azimuth adjustment is not working like Triplanar by which the armwand is rotating around it's own axis . The 3P is not rotating around any axis but by changing the tonearm vertical axis while keeping the bottom magnetic bearing in place and changing the position of the top bearing. This way the armwand swings (?) around the stylus tip .Also the
bottom bearing is at the same hight as the stylus tip. This
means that the mounting distance by 3P is measured from the
vertical bottom bearing. Ie the top bearing has not a stable (constant?)position. BTW in the new 3P headshell the azimuth adjustment is not removed but implemented in a slightly different way in comparison with the other Reeds.
NB Vidmantas also provided reference to some video but I have no idea how to post that.
Regards, |
Dear Vetterone, You deserve the counterweight which I promised to you under proviso that you should write more about the 3P then 'I have' in your first post. By looking
to your system I noticed that one of your Reeds missed the counterweight. I now don't believe that you need one.
What I need is some help to visualize the bearing 'system' of the Reed 3P. As with Kuzma's '4 point' tonearm the description 'uni-pivot' is ,anyway to me, confusing. I know
that pictures can be more suitable for the purpose then descriptions but I have never seen pictures of either with clear exposure of the bearing(s).
Regards, |
Suttetat, I am sorry. 'Your earlier question' was actually
asked by Lbelchev (04-09-12) but because he also refered
to the FR-64 I mixed you with each other.
I need to add the folloving to my suggestion about the extra counter weight. As you know you can change the effective mass of your FR-64 by changing the headshells. The Reed has no exchangeble headshell so one can change only the counter weights. I own the Sumiko 800 with 5 different counterweight meant for carts from 6g till 22 g. as well the Triplanar with 4 weights. With the added weight from 9" Reed you can experiment with different added weights. By removing the adjustment weight inside this weight you get the min. weight but you can get other weights by sliding the adjustment weight forward or backward.
Regards,
|
Dear Vetterone, The Reed importer without weight? I am not
sure about America but in Europe there also, uh, a figurative meaning of 'weight': not much of an importer. Besides a 'strange one' testing visual capabilities of his
forum (co) members with his system. I thought that the meaning
of the 'system' is to show off with our toys? If you are not joking and if you are capable to reach me via the new Agon site I will first post the pictures to you of both of my spare counter weights with description of their own weight so you can choose one of them. I wrote about 63 e-mails to Vidmantas begging for extra weights so he had actually only two choices: the asylum in his neighbourhood or posting the extra weight to me. As a very smart person he posted to me two of them with the hope to prevent more e-mails from me. Ie the persistance is an important characteristic of an real audio enthusiastic. This of course imply the 'symetrical' character of the producer.
BTw otherwise than Lew I got the anti-skate 'theory' of yours straightaway right and was amused with Lew's confusion reg. azimuth versus anti-skate. I always thought that he
is a kind of expert in (a.o.) analog matters.
However I am very fond about my Triplanar so not willing to
accept your theory about the anti-skate in general and certainly not in particular reg. my Triplanar anti-skate provision. Besides we already have had an extensive discussion about the Triplanar by which (nota bene) I followed Lew's advice and ordered by my machinist 3 extra anti-skate weights in diminishing ordering qua weight.
BTW I am not sure about your quality as importer but there is
nothing wrong with your writing capability. So I will pretend to have grasped the bearing system of the 3 P as described by you.
Regards,
|
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, |
Sutteetat, the theory is to get the counterweight as near
to the pivot as possible. The heavier weight will get nearer but, contra-intuitive, reduce the eff. mass of the arm. The practice is: it depends... (see the thread about
the Triplanar). But there is no substitution for trial while you need some tools to try out.
Regards, |
Dear Geoch &Hiho, Hereby the responce by Vidmantas:
'Changing azimuth does have an effect on VTA and we are
aware of that. To be precise in numbers after changing the
azimuth by one degree with the Reed 3P ,12'', the VTA is
changing by approximate 12 minutes. However since
both parameters can be adjusted on the fly , after changing one
parameter the other can be easilly readjusted. The azimuth
adjustment feature which would not have impact on the rest
of the tonearm geometry parameters is rather complicated.
In case of the headshell based azimuth adjustment one need
to accept the higher effective mass of the arm as a trade off.'
Regards, |
Suteetat, Now that you provided the context I understand your eearlier question better. The luxury of choice between 7 kinds of wood may look rather confusing but is at this level of performance not accidental. This of course imply consultation in advance with the dealer and/or Vidmantas. I bought the Phase Tech P-3G because of all those awards this cart got in Japan but was not impressed and nearly (re)sold the cart. Then I got my 2A , 12'' with Pernambucco armwand (27 g. eff.mass) and had difficulty to believe what I was hearing. As one say: the match in heaven. However not I but Vidmantas made the wood choice for me.
As you know there is no consensus in our forum about the exact correlation between the arm mass and cart compliance. Halcro, for example, uses his FR-66S with MM
carts while others are searching for some 'widow(s)' to mate. I have this suggestion for you. Try one extra counter weight and use the lighter kind from 9'' for the purpose. That is what I have done. Vidmantas designed new kinds recently but I have no idea if there are also 7 weight kinds. Anyway if Vetterone is your dealer he can also use this occasion to order by Vidmantas one for himself as substitution for the stolen one.
Regards, |
Dear Chris, The new site is: www.reed.lt. You can find the arm pod by accessories (products). They call the armpod 'turret' btw. I am a kind of proud to have caused
the design and production of this accessory. As their first
customer I ordered both : the toneram and the armpod. For my Kuzma Stabi Reference I wanted an second tonearm which could be only put next to the TT. So Vidmantas was 'forced' to design his first armpod for my Kuzma. It is made as a
sendwich from layers of different materials: steel, granite, cork and acrylic. His idea was to make an acousticaly dead 'armbase'. You can find the data on his site.
Your other questions will be, I hope, answered by Vidmantas
via your truly Nikola. He is not the A'gon member so I am a kind of intermediary.
Regards,
|
Dear Lew, I am sure that Vidmantas compared different kinds
of materials, 'metallic' and composites included, before he
decided to use the wood. I think to be the only one who owned the composite armwand made by Vidmantas. He however insisted on wood so I exchanged the composite for the Pernambucco. But what kind of research he made and how extensive I don't know. But if you persist I can ask Vidmatas to address this issue.
Regards, |
Hi Sean, 'the Reed (arm pod) is made out of stainless steel'. As you can see on the Reed site their armpod is made out different material layers. There are two layers
of steel (top and bottom) and two thick layers out of granite for the weight. The cork and acrylat layers for the 'damping' , I assume.
Regards, |
Dear Lew&Sean, I have no idea what the best material for an
armboard or armpod is. I am totally innocent reg. any mechanical knowledge. My role or part in this thread become rather intermediary because I know Vidmantas very
well and am in the position to ask him any question you or
other members like. He is a mechanical engineer and inventor with many patents on his name. He used the expression 'acousticaly dead' so I 'translated' this in cork and acrylat because steel- and granite layers are certainly not 'acousticaly dead'. If however stainless steel is indeed 'ideal material' for the purpose he is (pre)supposed to know that I assume. Besides it would be for him much more easy to produce an armpod from steel than to construct and produce this complex sandwich from different material layers. However when I asked Lew if I should ask Vidmantas about those and other issues his answer was: no need to do that.
Regards, |
Dear Lew, I have no pretention to know much about the
question in casu. But by 'accident' , as you already know,
I also own Kuzma Stabi Reference with an considerable
armbase made from slabs of acrylat and aluminum. I have
no preference for any kind of sandwiches but am not sure if
this apply the other way round. Anyway I think to know that
you have high regards for Kuzma. 'There must be something to it' ,
in those 'sandwiches'.
Regards, |
Dear Sean, There was no other option with my Kuzma and back then I got my first Basis Exclusive with 2 independent phono-pres. Nobody want to embarrass himself but back then I thought that an armpod (aka 'turret') was much better solution than a 'simple' armboard connected with a 'trembling thing' like LP-12 which I owned before my Kuzma. Every time that I approchead the arm-lift I was 'trembling' myself begging the Almighty (as a pragmatic atheist)to have mercy with my stylus. There is btw no way to decide anything without some premiss which one hopes to be true. Not the deduction is a problem but those damn presuppostions.Anyway I was very
glad to find the Reed and even more so when Vidmantas agreed to 'build' both 'instruments' for me. I am still happy with 'both' but my armpod is more 'durable' then the
tonearms; my 2A is my third. BTW never 'knocked out' the armpod nor the alignment in 'all' those years. You may consider some other hobby with your character(grin).
Regards, |
As the oldest customer ( in both sense) by the Reed I feel
pretty embarrassed to admit to have just 'discovered' how
ingenious the headshell actually is. Embarrassed also because I made some 'technical suggestions' to Vidmantas about the headshell. My idea was to make the headshell exchangible and adviced Vidmantas to look at the SME 12 and Kuzma for 'inspiration'. He never responded to my suggestions so I thought that his pride as engineer was
'damaged'. Ie technical suggestions from a lawyer...
I now think that he wanted to be polite.
Well the headshell is, so to speak, 'composed' such that
one can use the azimuth part (or do without) and remove
the existing 'cart holder' and put the other one instead.
I just ordered one extra 'headshell' so I can install my
both carts which are intended for my Reed 2 A in advance.
With the azimuth provision on the headshell one can adjust
the azimuth as good as possible and than 'fine tune' by
ear with the azimuth on the fly. Or so I think in a pure
'abstract' way. I wish I owned the 3P already.
Regards, |
Dear Jfrech, I am not sure how your comment is intended.
Anyway my own assumptions should not be attributed to Vidmantas. BTW I wrote to him and asked for his comment if my 'interpretation' is wrong or need some added explanation. The azimuth provision on the headshell is optional but on the 'cart-holder' there is, uh, provision for this provision. The headshell 'composition' has 3 parts. One can buy extra 'cart-holders' for other carts and simply exchange carts without the troublesome adjustments. I only recently bought the second cart for my Reed 2A so I had no need to 'study' the headshell earlier. The 'light' was switched on when I 'inspected' the Reed site and noticed the headshells as separates. I had no idea that the headshell was exchangible.
Regards, |
Dear Sonofjim, I am, I think, even worse. I adjust my carts only once ( troublesome enough) and don't bother further about any, uh, parameter. But when I buy an tonearm
I want all the extras. Asking for the reasons in our hobby is only a way of speaking...
Regards, |
Dear Sean, I was also to slow to to see the 'light'.
But you need to unscrew just one screw to exchange the cart
holder. The Allen keys are everywhere obtainable. The azimuth part is a separate option and has no connection with 'cart holder' exchange. You may but do not need to use (or order) the azimuth part. The long screw which keep the cart-holder connected to the armwand needs a very small Allen key. I own many of those because I am a tonearms addict.
Regards, |
Dear Jfrech, For my other tonearms ( the Triplanar and the
Reed 2A are 'fastened' to my Kuzma S.R) I always buy headshells with azimuth adjustment. One never knows in advance how the stylus of some cart is glued or fastened to the cantilever. The cantilevers are also not always as
they should be. So the azimuth provision is a kind of precaution in my opinion.
Regards, |
Vidmantas informed me that my 'reading' of his azimuth construction is correct. His intention was to make 'fine tuning' by ear possible for all parameters. However by
looking at the pictures of the 3P I discovered that not all headshells are 'equal'. Only the 'cart holders' which are fastened to the armwand by the (long) screw are exchangible. Because the azimuth provision on the headshell is optional there are also 3P's with 'one piece' headshell (the other is 'composed' from 3 parts). One should pay attention to this fact when ordering and mention if he wants exchangible kind.
Regards, |
Sonofjim, Vidmantas is actually 'one man company'. So each
tonarm is hand made by him. The only helpt he gets is from his daughter in law who answers the e-mails and helps with accounts. Deed anybody try a second headshell btw? I am waiting for my for two months now. BTW Yip from Mint tractor should be back from vacation at 28-7-12. |
Hi Sonofjim, Glad to see you at last got your Reed 3P. Coincidentaly I just got the Benz LP S but my objective was to substitute the Ruby 3 S in my Triplanar VII with the LP S. My Reed 2 A got the Miyabi Standard already as 'upgrade' from Phase Tech P 3 G.
I hate those carts changes and adjustments but because you are so happy with your 3P / LP S combo I will try both combinations. For those who are reluctant to mess with cart changes and adjustments such report as yours is a kind of encouragement.
Regards, |
Hi Maril 555, Coincidentaly I also own the SP 10, mkII and installed one of my FR-64S on the TT. I use this combo as my second system in order to test all those carts that I still buy on ebay. The removable headshell as Henry pointed out is the pre-condition for such adventures. I also use 6 different headshells by which one can regulate the eff. mass of the arm. This way I can 'mess' with whatever carts and their compliance. Fantastic! Thanks Henry! |
Dear Henry, There is this Aristotelian teaching reg. the distinction between 'essential' and 'accidental' qualities in objects. You are of course familiar with this obsession
with rigidity by tonearms. I was aware that this teaching was totaly wrong but I also bought only tonearms with fast headshells. The experts and the 'ignorant' you know. But now I can (pre)adjust 6 carts in 6 headshells and switch between them in 4 minutes time. I want mention the 'minimalist' approach reg. the number of soldering 'points' in the tonearm wire. Some even avoid the preamp connectors and solder their ( the best there are) wire in the amp. |
