Question on FR 66s

Dear friends: How could you improve your analog experiences?. IMHO improving the audio system resolution and this means lowering its distortions.

So to improve analog first you have to improve your system resolution: not a new cartridge or a new tonearm or a new TT or all these.

If we take Suteetat system he already has those great Q5 that certainly will tell him about improvements/degradations through any single system link changes and has a very good digital tool too ( that maybe even can improve it to 32/384 status. ) so what left down there, mainly electronics, room and cables and there we have alternatives to improve as go for tweaks through electronics: better fuses or caps or signal resistors or even tubes ( leave tubes for the last. ). All those changes helps to improve his system resolution even that he does not touch or touches the analog rig and IMHO he does not have to do it till the system achieve higher resolution.
Changes through tweaked electronics always are worth to do it and always gives huge rewards. We need the best electronics system quality performance: ¡ if for no other thing because through those electronics the cartridge signal must pass¡¡¡¡, so it's obvious that as better are those system links as better the analog experience. Of course that we can go to other electronic extreme and this is to change the unit but IMHO if we have the possibility to up-grade/tweak what we own this has to be the path to go that even if we want to change in the future we will know which kind of electronics quality performance we could need: certainly that can surpass/beats my upgraded/tweaked ones.

Then, we have room and cables where we have several paths to take to improve that system overall resolution.

In all those up-grade system steps the tool to use is the digital one because ( believe it or not ) has lower distortions and higher accuracy with lower colorations. Lower distortions means more MUSIC information.

When can we start to improve the analog rig?, when we can support/" enjoy " the digital alternative. When this happen then our system is ready first to enjoy the analog rig we own and then start to improve with the certainty that due to the " new " higher resolution system our analog changes/tweaks will be the right ones.

Right now in several of our systems the analog real experience is a lot better that what we are listening and we are satisfied with because we don't know that with the same system with small changes " here and there " we can have a huge improvements over what we enjoy today.

My message is to make a hard work to improve system resolution more than buy new analog toys.

Money is important to improve the system resolution but is more important your knowledge level because you have to decide what to do to achieve that system higher resolution and I can tell you that the answer is not on buy " new analog toys ".
You already have those toys and when you achieve that higher resolution your today analog rig will sounds as " new analog toys ".

You don't believe me?, well that's your prerogative/privilege but if I was you: why not try it. What can you lose ? even you can have a lot of fun!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Hi Raul,

First, I have to admit that I have a FR64S and I do like it very much. If that means I like high distortion, so be it! But that is not the main point of my post!

You have mentioned all this distortion caused by the design of the FR, so I am interested to know how you measure this distortion as compared to those of the other tonearms. Maybe I have missed it, but I don’t recall you offered any scientific measurement on these distortions and resonance. If that is indeed the case, then how can you concluded that the FR has excessive resonance (just by the fact that it is undamped?), and these resonance caused the sound character of the FR?

I have no doubt you spent a lot of time comparing tonearms and headshelves, but if there is no scientific measurements (now I am not claiming these measurements can tell exactly how a tonenarm sounds), then you are no difference from anyone else here, in the sense that you also judge by what you hear. But then your conclusion would no doubt be affected by your own hearing / preferences.

Unless you claim your hearing is superior, or better trained, to others posting here, I don't see how you can insist that your viewpoint is right, while others ‘ are wrong or they just prefer the distortions!

Yes, nearly every audiophile, and nearly every audio designer, always claim they want to get as close to the actual performance as possible. However, judging by the variety of character of sound from the equipment and systems, I suppose we just hear differently!

Dear Thekong: Very fair post.

Measurements?, I love it in the same way I love MUSIC but for different reasons.

I don't know where to start my answers to you but here I go:

Five-six years ago I started with my friend Guillermo another splendid and learning audio item " adventure ", this was and is a self tonearm design ( that today is finished. ) where the amin target is that be a Universal one ( this means ): " that any single cartrridge and I repeat any single cartridge mounted there must shows it at its best like in no other tonearm before ".

How any one could design and build a tonearm that can fulfil that target and to be sure the target was achieved?

forgeret about the design knowledge level/skills to do it and we ( you and me . ) concentrate in: " to be sure the target was achieved ".

Another important question: why any one could want to self design a tonearm with that target other than make money?

Well ( sorry that all these is a long history ), several years ago when we designed the Essential 3160 " second to none " active high gain Phonolinepreamp my inquetiude was to own the Phonolinepreamp that could honored the cartridge signal degrading the less: adding and loosing the less because what were in the market does not fulfil that cartridge signal needs and the marketed products trade-offs were non-aceptable by my priorities..
In those times , like today, I owned/own " hundred of cartridges ( mainly LOMC ones. ) that I was enjoying through different TTs and through several tonearms.

When we finished the Essential 3160 unit we were and still are very satisfied with but the main subject here was that born a new " way " to listen LOMC cartridges not only because the Essential sounds different but because that " different " came/comes from the lowest distortions ever for that kind of product, its accuracy level is even today not even or beat it for no other unit I know ( the owners of that unit can testify about as the ones that heard it ( some of them tube lovers ) ).

This audio item gave me and serve me as an incredible tool to started judging analog playback from a different " stage/scenario " never experienced before ( well our first attepm was battery powered phonolinepream two years before it. ) and to follow refinning my own test/comparison audio item whole process. I begun to understand in better way what was wrong and what was right down there and not because that wrong or right were subjects that were the ones I prefered or dislike it but because were more accurate, neutral with lower colorations: near to the recording and then near to the live event.

In those very first moments I took in count that for improve my analog experiences I did not had to do it buying the latest cartridge or the latest TT but through improving my system: electronics, cables, room, speakers and the like other than my analog rig and that's what I did it and still do.

In the mean time my test/comparison whole process was improving " day by day " and in those improving experiences I took note about distortions ( coming from everywhere and every kind of distortions: IMD, THD, resonances, vibrations, damping, noises, colorations ( subtles ones. ), etc, etc. ) that I was totally unaware existed down there. I learned ( for example. ) to distinguish between a tiny deviation overhang set up against a tiny VTA/SRA set up: how both distortions sounds!!!!

I started to think in different way and improving in different way. Normally I try it to improveall what I'm aware of, those things that like me more those things where I was aware of those " obvious " " things ".
Suddenly I start to heard/listened for the non-obvious " factors/things " the unaware ones. I started to look not for the good things but for the wrong/bad things on quality performance and morte important in the " undisclosed " things. This learning process took me months/years till I have the " hairs in my hand ". Not an easy process when you don't know what to look for but that you have to discover it, here helps me to think " out of the box " and try to forget some " things " that I learnend through the AHEE and that were totally wrong try to forget about myths, example: BD or tubes is the way and only path to take: and something like that.

Step by step I learned the non-obvious factors that helps to improve or to degrade the system quality performance. As higher resolution I was achieving not only everything were more easy to heard to discovery but to to confirm it to confirm your findings ones and again. With out high system resolution you can't do it. Yes, I know that almost all of us think that our system owns a high resolution and accuracy but normally that it is not happening because we are trying to improve and improved the obvious but there is not where belongs not only that high resolution but that higher quality performance.

Now that my system performed in the way I need it was time to follow the learning process but now at the analog rig level and here I took in count that the cartridge signal will be as better as better are its tonearm companion and where the LP is resting/in touch. I took in count way before any one else in this site even mentioned in a diffrent way than about the cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency ( btw, same happened when I started to post of the phonolinepreamp and the RIAA process. ).

Was in that " old " time when the idea to a self design tonearm flowed and I remember that because I owned so many tonearms/cartridges ( including the FR66/64 ) that I was testing in deep to learn more about that cartridge/tonearm relationship we took an action to make measurements on the tonearm behavior on resonances. Things are that at the main University in México we have close friends that accept to make some tests with some tonearms but faster that I'm writing this we took in count that normal measurements through acelerometer and the like were not critical because what we need it was something really complex: we need to measure different " parameters " that could shows us the influence grade in the performance of what we heard with the cartridges/tonearms in action this is during playback and the real problem is that in action are invloved to many factors/parameters additional to that each single cartridge is a different design with different kind of suspension, build material cantilever and shape of cantilever, different stylus shape, different cartridge build material body, different, different,.... and in the tonearm side things were " similar ". So we had to reject those measurements other than the traditional ones that serve almost for nothing.

What gave me the key were all what I learned about those non-obvious system quality performance behavior those non-obvious distortions that when " disappeared " improved the system quality performance.

All that work permit us to have fenomenal tools to voice with a very low error any audio item through my system, I think that my test process has a 95%+ of success talking of voicing.

Not only my friends can attest that but some people in USA already " testing " me about. My process is simple and the best of all is that not only is already tested and full proved but that I know it better than my hands. Example: in no more than half hour listening to an unknow home system I can tell you what is wrong, where, why and how to fix it. I do this through my ears.

My ears are not better than yours even I can think that are average but the difference is that my ears are trained long training time on porpose with very specific targets trained to know what to look for. I can tell you that ( belive me or not. ) with out be conceited that I almost never fails in what I'm hearing against what you heard and more important against what is wrong because I'm aware of it when you are unaware on it.
I repeat, my ears are not better than yours but heavy in deep in porpose trained and still today on that learning long process.

That's what makes the difference not that we could hear different NO all of us hear in similar way but are trained in different way.

Like you I like it the 66/64 and that's why I bought it and I enjoyed for years till I learned and on deep tests again not our finished tonearm design but against other vintage and today tonearm the FRs showed all its faults that you can't heard because you are unaware of it unaware of those distortions not only that all of you take those distortions as FR virtues.

++++ " your conclusion would no doubt be affected by your own hearing / preferences. " ++++

not really, my conclusions are headed because I can distinguish between: accurate and non-accurate, distorted and non-distorted, neutral and colored, in all these cases and several others I'm talking of the non-obvious the unaware performance factors Y learned and still doing.

My training gave me a free subjectivity way of think in audio because what I like it in the past likes me and has foundation on wrong information learned through several years through the AHEE where all of us belongs.

Today I know for sure that as more accurate as better neutrality as lower distortions our each one audio system has as better our system music enjoyment. I remember you and other people that accuracy, neutrality, low distortions is not in any way sinonimous of: lean, cold, analitical and the like far away from there. Music is and posses accuracy, neutrality, low distortions and natural agresiveness and natural colorotaions and all these is IMHO what we must to look for in each audio system.

The kong, is very dificyult to explain and to understand facts that you never experienced, better yet that you experienced and experience it right now but was/are unaware of it.

We need to live it after we learned. Sooner or latter you will understand because you will learn as I'm still doing. There are no secrets and certainly not " golden ears " only developed knowledge and developed skills and tools.

Btw, a condition to improve resolution in any audio system that has passive speaker designs is integrate to that audio system a pair of active subwoofers in true stereo fashion way. No matter which passive speakers we own or design or price or even room size. Remember that I mentioned " Bass Management ", well it is perhaps the more critical factor to improve overall system resolution: with out it you can't learn all you need and will be " short " of that.

Thekong, one thing I'm sure: that when you will have in your hands/system our tonearm design you could understand in more easy way what I posted here.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul, I wonder what is your impression of say Soulution electronics with Magico speakers, Boulder amp or Burmester.
To my ears, Soulution/Magico has just about the cleanest, hyperdetail sound that you can get which to my ears would mean the least distortion. Boulder and Burmester (heard them with different speakers), also gave me similar impression although the actual sound are quite different.
Nevertheless, for my taste, I found Soulution/Magico rather unmusical. Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally.
Acoustic music, vocal (especially when singing with vibrato) contains all kind of harmonics and the note is not a single frequency which in electronic terms, I guess could be construe as distortion.
I understand that one may say that all those natural distortion/harmonics are captured in the recording therefore stereo playback equipments should not add any more distortion beside whatever is presented on the recording itself.
In practice though, I find that electronics with a bit more distortion (say tubes vs solid state, very gross generalization here or digital vs analogue), the one with more distortion actually sounds more pleasing and actually give a bit more illusion of being there (but not neccessarily more accurate in absolute term).
One possible explaination could be that when mixing multitracks, multi mike recording or even those Mercury minimal 3 mikes mixing down to 2 tracks, may be we are losing some of those details and distortion that is created in our playback chain may give back some of that missing link.
This is all just a guess though as I have nothing concrete to back this up but wondering what is your take on this.

I used to use Esoteric D-05 and switched to Playback Design PD-5. PD measured far worse (according to Stereophile measurement, I did not see D-05 number but I assume it would be like other Esoteric products) than D-05 but sounds a lot more musical to my ear than Esoteric.

Back to FR topic a bit, I also notice that for example, Air Tight really sounds significant different from Koetsu when using Reed, Graham or JMW 10.5. It is very easy to hear Air Tight's characteristic sound with those arms. Mounting it on FR 64s, I think that the contrast between Koetsu and Air Tight is not as obvious. They are still different but less than what I remember with other arms, still sound great however. I don't know if anyone else has similar finding. However, I still have not really fine tune or optimize the setting very much so this is kind of preliminary finding. May be I still need to dial in the set up more though.
One the other hand, may be Koetsu really did not match well with other arms so the difference in sound could be from better matched Air Tight vs poorly matched Koetsu but FR really lifted the performance of Koetsu up to Air Tight level, perhaps.

Well, distortions can be also those which are created in the area above the eyes. When brain is clipping.