Mepearson indeed deserves the applause he received. He conducted a great test in his set-up and with as few variables as possible. He reached a conclusion for his question and for his individual taste and surroundings. Some may jump on the carriage now and abuse it to draw universal conclusions. Mepearson only did so for himself and that is perfect fine and honorable.
The FR6xs tonearms do command a pretty high price on the used market (... no, I do not have any to sell...) since about 2 decades now (ever increasing .... even now as all other audio hardware on the used market is nose-diving in price) and were the core of fierce discussions here on Audiogon between admirers and enemies the past 8 months.
Why I favor the FR-66s (and his smaller brother too) to all other pivot tonearms (in fact - to all other tonearms brought to the market so far....) I have described in length. Neither me nor anybody else does so for its looks.... I am happy to demonstrate its sonic possibilities to any serious listener in my listening room in a US$250k+ set-up. We can even arrange that side-by-side (same phono-cable, cartridge, phono-stage..) to a Triplanar VIII and a Phantom 2. There is a reason why at least a handful A'goners do prefer the FR-66s to everything else they have and had (and they have/had them all.....). |
Peterayer, no - I have not heard the set-up in Mepearson home. My assistance was by email only and I couldn't verify the results. As for the Mint LP traktor tool - I favor the original aluminum Dennesen Soundtraktor as it gives excellent results with any tonearm not calculated on IEC-based geometry. The original geometry of the FR-64s as given in the manual is NOT optimal. The maximum error can be reduced by another 30% if geometry is optimized. I have written about this is length in the "oldskool tonearm"-thread which was eventually removed from file. I can't really comment on the results of Mepearsons shoot-out between the two tonearms. While I too have owned the ET2 and 2.5 for years and still hold them in high esteem among tonearms in general and linear trackers in particular, I do know that in my set-ups and with all cartridges the FR-64s outperforms the ETs in terms of speed, detail, dimensionality, physical presence, micro-dynamics and especially regarding air, punch and low-level detail in the low and lowest register. I am too puzzled that the FR-64s was such a pain to set-up in this shoot-out, as to me (maybe due to extreme routine - don't know) this is still the most easy of all pivot tonearms to set-up. But then I have set-up the FR-64s about on 2 dozen TTs and have mounted in the various samples about 5 dozen cartridges. |
Folks - it is not linear vs pivot. Why is there always this choose-sides-attitude and mind? I have owned most - not all - linear tonearms of the past 30 years. Most of them were good and a few were among the best. It is as little linear vs pivot as it is tube vs transistors. It is always the design and whether all issues are addressed. The first linear tonearm addressing all the issues of the concept will be the best and I will be among the very first to buy it. |
Ddriveman, the original geometry of the FR-64s is largely due to the misunderstanding of this tonearm in particular among some audiophiles. When mounting the FR-64s at 231.5 mm distance, the geometry results in the following optimized parameters: - overhang 14.5 mm (original: 15 mm) - offset angle is now 21.4°(original: 22°) - effective length is now 246 mm (original: 244 mm)
As far as I know Mr. Yip does not recommend using his MINT tractor for the FR-64s with this altered mounting distance. And I agree.
This altered mounting distance with consequently altered overhang/offset and effective length does result in a MUCH better tangential tracking error curve. Here on Audiogon I have stated several times, that the geometry of the FR-64s in particular is quite different from the IEC-based geometry and I can only encourage everyone interested in really getting the very best from this tonearm to use the original 1st version of the Dennesen Soundtractor (aluminum made - beware, there are several fakes around which altered geometry !!). When optimized, the maximum tracking error curve is pretty impressive and gives a maximum error of only 1.3°. |
Mikelavigne, Mepearson, as the "phase issue" related to stylus polished area deflection is coming up in this thread more and more, let me add a few comments. Yes, phase shifting and its impact on our listening experience is both - huge and little explored. And yes, - I think it is the right phrase. However, phase shift takes place with each and every tonearm and cartridge. If to different degrees. We have lots of cartridges on the market with built-in-phase-shift due to their design. We have a huge percentage of phono stages (tube based and ss based - but mainly tube based, I admit...) and SUTs with considerable phase shift towards the lower frequencies. All these fountains of phase shift do have a higher impact on the sonic result than the tiny deflection of the tracking error. Especially so as this again depends on the size and shape of the respective stylus. And - hands down - every linear tonearm NOT graced by an "zero-time-automatic-progression" does by principle do have a phase shift too,- due to declination needed and happening to stimulate its progression. The answer to the question - when reduced to the arc or line of zero tracking error is within the groove. Lets look at the dimensions of the groove and the corresponding polished area of the stylus and you have the answer. And now - all the other sources of phase shift, within the cartridge, SUT, phone stage AND - last not least - the huge phase shifts in each speaker, crossover and room resonances (ever with Mikelavigne's fine tuned room...) jump into place. Believe me - regarding influence, we are talking about a tiny young tree here while missing the whole forrest....... Phase shift is all around our listening-systems. And the tracking error is the very least and most tiny source of them all. |
Ddriveman, Frogman I am familiar with the Ikeda 9 EMPL, 9R, 9 Musa and 9 Omega. They all have in common a very unhealthy correspondence between low VTF, high mass and a very special compliance (to say the least...). All the Ikeda 9 series cartridges are very special to set-up and to operate. They work best only with 3 or 4 tonearms and the owner must know about all the special aspects of their alignment and their operation needs and features. That so few know how to adjust and operate them is the reason why so very few actually are featured in western high-end systems. Regarding their sonic capabilities, they are hardly matched by any other cartridge. But their operation is a nightmare. Certainly the wrong partner for any linear tracker - due to their high mass and very special set-up requirements. The old DECCAs were far too unstable and indeed did always suffer from what I would call the worst quality control in the history of cartridge manufacturing. The current production DECCA/London are far better - in all respects and especially regarding quality. The ET2/2.5 indeed does perform surprising well with a large range of cartridges and compliances. However - it does not perform well with heavy body cartridges (stone body Koetsu for instance). |
Don_c55 - I am sure that Mepearson did adjust the respective SRA with both tonearms. And then the respective SRA is a matter of the cutting angle of groove under track anyway. So the "SRA" should rather be set groove-compliant to the respective record. Which counts for any cartridge NOT fitted with a spherical shaped stylus. I think Mepearson did conduct a fine experiment with very little variables and did so in a most stringent and straight-forward way. Most other audiophiles would had a hard time equal the very straight and non-egomatic way he handled this. |
Logenn, Hiho, Ken Sugano always favored the Fidelity Research FR-64/66s tonearms for his own cartridges when asked back in the early 1980ies. The FR-64s is rather a 10" pivot tonearm. This is just for the books. |
Mepearson wanted to test the FR-64s against the ET2 with as many parameters stable as possible. Thus his test was a valid one. Furthermore - in the most complete test the FR-64s ever got by any audio magazine (09/1980 German HiFi-Exklusiv), the FR-64s was tested for the books with a Shure V15 III to illustrate its low bearing friction. Despite the fact that this was far away from an ideal match in terms of resonance frequency, the Shure was able to show its maximum trackability with the lowest VTF ever in the FR-64s. A very good test by the way to illustrate bearing friction in a pivot tonearm. So the FR-64s should be working with a Benz Glider too. Today we have very few cartridges which actually do have a compliance lower than 10xdyne. All top-flight cartridges on the market today do feature a compliance of 10xdyne +. Same for all Koetsu - except for the older Matsushita made original Koetsu Black of the late 1980ies. Resonance frequency is one thing - but not all important. Energy transfer (if little noticed by the majority of writers ) and inner balance (which the FR-64s has, thanks to his lateral balance option which almost eliminates the skating-force where it initiates ) too are - in my humble opinion - key features of a pivot tonearm addressing most of the design's issues.
|
Dear Lewm, correct applied lateral balance means the tonearm will stand "still" at any point of the arc over the record. This of course in the state of zero balance (= O VTF and O antiskating) only millimeters above the record surface and horizontal full balanced (= parallel to surface). Full balanced with mounted cartridge. If so - and if the tonearm indeed won't move neither inward nor outward from any set position, it is in optimal lateral balance now. Which in turn mean that the skating force initialized by the offset angle in a pivot design (save for those 2 or 3 designs following the Thales-principle) in now nullified at the bearing. Consequently the needed antiskating is now very little (ideal it now will be almost zero - which it is with the FR-66s for instance). So in any pivot tonearm offering the option of lateral balance, the task is to bring the tonearm into a state of true balance unaffected any more by any off-set angle in the cartridge-mounting/headshell. By doing so you minimize any needed antiskating force.
Yes, you are right, lateral balance was standard with the most of the top-flight Japanese tonearms of the 1970ies and 1980ies. But this is only one of a few well proven design features of pivot tonearm design which got somehow forgotten along the way of high-end evolution during the past 2 decades. It has some advantages if a mechanical design has some graduated engineers among its parents. |
Lewm, Ddriveman, while I too have bought some items from Tommy of TCA, this advise lifting the turntable is not a great one. The cueing cylinder of the FR-tonearms can be height-adjusted in a few seconds. The FR-60-series manual - BTW - contains some mistakes. This is not the only one. Lifting the turntable to ease the procedure is plain... - well, you guess what I want to say. A J- or S- shaped pivot tonearm is designed to accommodate a straight headshell. It is still the off-set angle - being a larger one or a smaller one.. (J- or S- shapeand 9", 10" or 12") - we are talking about. |
Ddriveman, I can not see any negative point in adjusting zero full balance while the TT is dead level. If one tries to adjust any static or dynamic balanced mode for a tonearm on any given TT, I would always recommend to do this with all other parameters stable. If the lateral balance adjustment is performed with the TT in place and level, you can be sure that the result of the adjustment is not a by-product of some other static mode which took place only for a brief moment while adjusting (i.e. lifting the TT). BTW - I can't see any advantage of the "lift the TT"-method. Besides that, it would be a though act to follow with a handful of serious TTs out there (Continuum, MS 3000/5000/8000, Rockport, Apolyt (BTW - there is a 13 year old used Apolyt for sale on ebay-Germany right now - 2 days left and over EURO 12k already (no - it is not me selling it..) Verdier etc. The adjustment of lateral balance is easy to do as described earlier. The cueing cylinder on the FR-60-series tonearms can be adjusted in heights so the arm rest/cueing rest won't interfere with horizontal balance. The antiskating device can be either dismounted for a few minutes or disengaged while adjusting lateral balance. So there really isn't any point to alter the level of the TT while bringing the tonearm in full lateral balance. |
Lewm, of course, but that is not the problem - as long as I have the option to nullify this off-set by setting a lateral balance. Whereas on a many of todays "straight" pivot tonearms with "small mass displacement" at the cartridge mounting headshell-part only, a lateral balance option is missing and one has to mess around with antiskating compensation. If we can tame the beast at the source - why missing the chance ? |
Ddriveman, the FR-60-series manual has a lot of mistakes. There are geometrical mistakes as well - not just this hilarious advise with the lifting of the turntable. If there is a skating force due to offset from pivot/stylus line, then this will show on horizontal level as good.
Genesis168, you can either dismount the whole antiskating device by removing the central screw which bolts it to the armshaft (this is the smart way) while performing the lateral balance adjustment, or you just support the device till it is without contact to the arm (w/a matchbox or similar) - this is the fast and simple approach. Both work just fine and allow lateral adjustment without any unwanted "by-force". |
Lewm, honestly, I believe that the lateral balance was kind of "forgotten" in most of today's designs. Or "disposed"/"omitted" for "lack of importance" and "increase of complexity and cost". It is a smart and elegant option to eliminate a design inherent issue of pivot design right at the source. In the these areas we are talking about minor improvements in high-end audio reproduction. To ignore a design feature which unquestionable has only positive effects to the performance of a pivot tonearm and thus to the sonic performance of the cart/arm combination is hard to understand. But maybe I am just missing the inherent sonic benefits of skating force. |