New aftermarket plinth for Technics SP 10 MK2/MK3/R from Acoustand

@rauliruegas 

Well Highphonic started before 1985 and was founded by ex-Denon workers and one of its first cartridge was the MC3 at begin of 1982. I owned the MC-A6 and the MC D-15 where this one is even to today top quality standards an outstanding cartridge.

A few times I found out a few differences with other " bibles/sources " in specific of the start market date. So my reference is this Stereo Guide. Could be wrong? yes

Yes the Highphonic carts were available in early 80's. I've heard them all on my TT, they were reviewed in TAS in 1983 in a review of the Japanese high end using my TT - the most popular tonearms in Japan at that time were Audiocraft and SAEC - quite different sounding arms.

The Highphonic tonearm was launched in 1985 in Japan. As I said Morch had the 1st prototype displayed in Denmark in 1981.

At the end of the day it takes design cues from earlier arms such as the Mayware, JH and Transcriptors unipivots. I had a Mayware back in the late 70's for a short period, it was an exception tracker on a wide variety of cartridges.

I have to disagree with Atmasphere about marrying dissimilar materials in turntable plinths.  If the dissimilar materials are squeezed together, this is called Constrained Layer Damping.  The fact that the two materials will have different resonant frequencies is the strength of the whole idea.

Yes, but a better description of what Ralph is repudiating is the term "bimetallic dampening" which is slightly different from constrained layer. This is where two unconstrained materials with similar but slightly different resonant characteristics are combined to dampen.

Johnathan Carr uses this technique in his top cartridge designs - in his own words in some cartridges he uses bimetallic dampening and asymmetric layout to deal with unwanted energy.

Another common example is copper mats placed on top of an aluminium platter that rings - net result dead platter.

The negative side to this practise is that when you pass energy through the junction of 2 materials some energy passes through and some energy gets reflected back - to the stylus at worst.

So to get true bimetallic dampening with minimal backward reflection you need to use 2 materials that are very similar in their properties.

Example - using aluminium and acrylic/plastic, because the 2 materials are significantly different you would potentially get high dampening, but terrible reflections backward.

Dear @rich121  : Looks that you don't care but even that I  have to tell you that the FR 64/66 are undamped dynamic balance tonearms and througth that and to set the VTF that tonearm use a spring mechanism that per se rings as a " bell " developing additional distortions. Many audiophiles love those heavy overall tonearm/cartridge developed distortions not me that always I'm trying to achieve at minimum every kinf of distortions in my room/system to achieve the best quality performance I can..

In the other side and due that you will have a plinth for 2-3 tonearms I already gave you an excellent alternative through those Technics  EPA 100 and MK2 tonearms.

Now I want toshare with you another great additional alternative with one of the best pivot tonearm ever amde it by Micro Seiki with its models MAX 282 and Max 237 / same vut different arm wand length.).

This MS comes with a unique and wonderful tonearm bearing mechanism due that's is giroscopic bearing, comes with slected damping and it's a dynamic balance  design with no spring to set the VTF but a mechanism that just does not adds distortions and you can own or choose its 3 arm wands ofered:a J shaped headshell removable and 2 straight arm wands ( one for high compliance and the other forlower compliance a heavy cartridges. A beauty for say the least because its quality build precicion is second to none. I owned too as the FR too.

 https://hifi-wiki.com/index.php/Micro_Seiki_MAX-282

R.

This is an old difference of opinion between me and Raul.  I like my F64S.  It is by far the best tonearm for my Koetsu Urushi.  I don't hear any of the phenomena that Raul describes, and I think I am using it in a very low distortion system, as vinyl goes. However, I like and respect Raul in every way.  We have more in common than in controversy.  I am not at all saying that the FR64S is superior to or even equal to the MAX282 or the EPA100, in part because I have never owned or heard either tonearm. I am only saying that the FR64S coupled with a non-FR headshell is excellent for low compliance cartridges.

Dear @lewm  : Yes a diffrent opinion due that as you said:

"  in part because I have never owned or heard either tonearm. "

To have an overall opinion on tonearms and how good are those tonearms we need first hand experiences with several tonearms and several cartridges at all levels.

I was lucky enough in that critical issue and as you can see in my Agon virtual room/system in that time I had mounted 10 different top tonearms with 10 different cartridges, yes something " crazy " but all those gave me the opportunity to make " thousands of comparisons about and learn with. Btw, in that time too other that those 10 tonearms I owned other 11 ones and over 100+ every type of cartridges.

I remember that I sold my SAEc 506/30 and the 8000 because were way resonant and sold too my Audiocraft for not been totally stables and found out at least 2 really good Audio Technica tonearms.

Yes, a lot of fun with and learning lessons.

R.