Fidelity Research FR-64 vs. FR-54

@lewm 

 The Kenwood, nevertheless sounds fine, but could it be better with "better" wire?  This is what keeps us awake at night (for 5 minutes).

Haha, exactly.
It took at least 2-3 hrs to disassemble my Lustre 801 in parts for the first time, we did it. Internal tube damping doesn't looks like in the manual, but there is something inside for damping (Raul love it) in this armtube. I'm looking forward to try the arm with new wires. The magnetic tracking force works, but incorrect. I hope the magnetic (?) antiskating works, i have no idea how it works in this Lustre tonearm.     

Dear @dcbingaman : I still own the great DP-75 in a 50kg beautiful green marble plynth that on specs is over the DP-80 that I owned.

The best from Denon was and is the DP-100 even over the SP 10 MK3.

I own too The Mechanic that is very good tonearm, was the only regular tonearm where the cantilever-less Ikeda REX 9 performed good.

In the other side the Fx tonearm is way different to the 64S. Stainless steel is the worst metal to use in a non-damped tonearm against the aluminum from the Fx.

Now and this is something that almost no one take care when talking of the FR 66/64 and is that that touted ( @lewm ) high mass is the other serious problem of those arms other than the main non-damped design.

In those old years tonearm designers and TTs ones were in favor of high mass to damps its products. On tonearms was SAEC whom publicited " papers " explaining the tonearm high mass designs as their models but were totally wrong because they don't took in count how it really works the cartridge/tonearm combination along the spining LPs.

Exist no single LP that comes with precise/perfect concentric hole for the TT spindle to avoid the normal " excursions " during playback. Those " excursions " ( lateral movements. ) along the other characteristics for the cartridge very hard work ridding the LP grooves  means that  as higher the effective tonearm mass as higher p´roblems to " stop " the inside/forward to the spindle natural path of the tonearm becausrtia of those movements. 
Lower mass tonearm has lot lower problems to stop that natura inside inertia to follow in better way the LP grooves.

That dynamic mass goes against a precise and clear sound and per se produces distortions and additional to this always is that undamped tonearm design. SAEC has the same problem and in this issue the 66 is worst than the 64 and no the FR bearings are not something especial but more of the same.

@thekong 66/64 S are non-damped and the VTF mechanism always is ringing and degrading the cartridge signal integrity.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @lewm : """  I'm not a customer for anything to damp my FR64S, as I have no reason to believe it's a problem in my system. """

You are rigth, not a problem in your system because you have a system ( with all respect. ) where you just can't be aware of those problems: that system has non-adequated resolution or to high on everykind distortions to be aware of it.
The other situation with you ( with all respect. ) is that you do not know what to look for because you can't detect those kind of tonearm distortions because you still are not trained to do it and that's all.

I can be wrong in that FR subject but it does not matters what you think or say: J.Carr is rigth he knows a lot of audio things that you even can't imagine and because of his ignorance level knows what he was and is talking about when you just have no idea and your answers confirm it.

You are not open mind when @dcbingaman gave you the advise to try that after market damping.
Your attitude always is the same, you never say: " ok, I will try ". What do you have to lose if test it?  Tests of everykind is part of each one of us audio learning to really grow up ! ! ! ! ! 

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC,
R.

Dear Raul, Apparently, you would benefit from looking up the English definition of the word "respect".  After that, try looking up "regards".  You may be surprised to learn that you display neither quality.  After that, please re-read any of my previous posts, because it seems to me that you don't read them with any sort of comprehension.  In particular, please re-read my post of 01/27/17, posted at 4:03 PM.  Or, try this, from 01/25/17: 
"Raul, For the Nth time, I am only saying that MY FR64S sounds very good in my second system, which is very low in distortion and includes mostly solid state components in the chain from cartridge to speakers. Not that I agree in any way with your other diatribes, against vacuum tubes. But let's stick to the FR64S: My saying that I like my FR64S in this particular set-up does not mean that I think you are categorically "wrong" in your critique. Got that? I do recognize the theoretical importance of "damping". Until I put the stylus in the groove for the first time, I had no idea whether I would like or dislike the FR64S. I only knew that if I disliked it, I would have no problem re-selling it. But... I like it.

There are many cases in this hobby where components go against this or that widely held belief and nevertheless work well, and it is not always the case that they are perceived to work well only because they produce euphonic distortion. I understand that you hate the FR64S/66S. You are entitled to your feelings. Peace. Out."

Do you really think your system has lower distortion than a pair of Beveridge 2SW speakers directly driven by tweaked Beveridge amplifiers?  I don't.