Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Dg, I use a continuous run from cartridge clips to phono stage, where it is soldered directly to the circuit board. I don't know the resistance spec for the AN wire. I can tell you that it is by far my favorite in comparison to the VDH silver clad copper, Cardas, and Discovery which I have used in the past. I still have the Cardas and Discovery looms which I have used since getting the AN, simply to confirm the improvements with the AN. The AN is a great wire, IMO.

Dg, I use 1.5 meters of wire with no sign of any issue due to length. I suppose it's possible that a shorter length sounds even better, but the Cardas and Discovery looms are both 1.0 m and the AN is obviously superior to both; according to my tastes, of course.

Hi Slaw, tuneful bass indeed. The Acutex on the ET makes the most realistic bass that I have ever gotten with my setup. Not just powerful (a lot of cartridges do that), the bass moves with the same rhythmic impetus as the rest of the frequency range; essential for music to "make sense". A truism among musicians is that things always start from the bottom up. Again, not the quantity of bass, but the clarity of the musical contribution of the bass "voices". Get that right, and a lot of things fall into place.

The soundstage will open up as the cartridge settles. When you say you have the "body" paralell to the LP, I hope you mean the top mounting plate and not the "nose" of the cartridge. After the cartridge settles in (takes quite a while) try increasing VTF .1-.3 grams, while at the same time raising the back of the ET a bit. Increasing the tracking force will lower VTA.

Also check the amount of torque used on all the ET adjustment bolts. A subtle effect, but I have found that if the bolts are too tight the sound is not as open and opulent as it can be. It's even easy to over tighten the bolt that secures the end cap that holds the leaf spring to the extent that the spindle tube can be squeezed and become misshapen, adversely affecting the sound.

Dover, I would think that the changes in the sound caused by varying the amount of torque are due to ensuing changes in the resonance characteristics of the arm. Regards.

Great tips Chris, and I couldn't agree more. When I started using higher pressure pumps a few years ago my Airtech surge tank literally exploded; in spite of the tank having a safety valve. The safety valve would not kick in until about 21 psi, and since my preferred psi target was 19 psi, things were generally fine. But the tank was apparently getting stressed, until it finally gave out. I constructed a new surge tank using a 6 ft length of 8" diameter PVC pipe with end caps, and used the fittings, valve, and filling from the Airtech. It works great and shows no sign of stress due to the higher pressure. Since I keep the tank/pump and regulator in the basement directly below my listening room, the tank's size is not an issue. The difference in sound with and without the use of the surge tank is very audible.

****When you feel you have it sounding as best as possible if at all possible please remove the shim and try to finesse the wires to get the cartridge on without a shim. To compare. The arm tube is CF but the head of it is not. I just realized this the other day. Its a resonance hobby. Adding materials complicates things. I side on the minimalist approach and trying to get it right that way - fewer layers the better - ****

Ditto!

I look forward to Bruce T's comments!

Glad it worked out, Mark. I second Chris' comments and would also suggest that you check the spring on your I-beam to see if you have a single or double spring. I have found the 420 to perform best with a double spring I-beam; the difference is not subtle.

Keep us posted.

Slaw, working with AN wire is a delicate process, but with patience and care you can do it. Nandric's suggestion of anchoring the clips (one at a time; of course) on an old cartridge is a good one; you don't want solder "creeping" into the clip's sleeve. This can happen even if you hold or secure the clip vertically. A toothpick stuck in a large ball of modeling clay (or similar) also works well. The advantage here is being able to adjust the angle of the tooth pick/clip easily; horizontal is best.

-With the clip secured to the toothpick or cartridge, tin the clip's tab over it's entire length. Don't use too much solder; you don't need much.

-Now comes the hardest part; tinning the wire itself. After a lot of trial and error, I have found that the best technique is to melt a bead of solder unto the the iron's tip and with your other hand run the end of the wire through the bead of melted solder until you can see that the wire is coated with solder. Don't hold the wire in the solder bead too long or the wire itself will melt. Run it through slowly; it may take three or four times. Once the wife's insulation has melted the wire will be coated with solder; not before. If you try touching the wire with the tip of the iron you will probably melt the wire.

-Now, solder the tinned end unto the prepared clip's tab. I like to make sure that a little bit of solder (remember, don't use too much) runs unto the wire beyond the tinned section. This will provide some strain relief, as the insulated portion will be less susceptible to fracturing.

-Slip the heat shrink tubing over the wire unto the clip, making sure that it slips on past the tab and unto at least part of the sleeve for additional integrity and strain relief. Don't try to slip it on over the clip first.

-Unless the heat shrink tube fits very loosely (unlikely) I prefer to not heat-shrink it. This makes repairs much easier, by allowing you to carefully slip it off of the clip and reusing it.

Good luck, and let us know how you like the AN wire; it transformed the sound of my analog setup.

****Once the wife's insulation has melted...."****

Cracked myself up. Once my wife's insulation has melted, my iron.... Well, I better stop there :-)

Slaw, I braided (twisted) the wires in pairs; red/green, white/blue. I would not braid all four.

Slaw, I must say that I a surprised a your strong reaction to the sound of the Fagen "Nightfly" LP. Yes, obviously a digital recording as I poined out from the beginning, but a good one with fine detail, separation and a surprising lack of digital graininess. I have never had such a negative reaction to it like I have had to many other digital recordings. At the same time, while I like Aja very much I have never considered it to be a particularly great sounding analog recording. Certainly a good one, but with some obvious flaws like a somewhat congested sound which is a bit dark overall. Musically, there are times that the slick aesthetic of it drives me nuts, and other times that I think it is a masterpiece of urban-hip studio production with a very deliberate choice of players for each individual song that is very astute. Anyway, that's the beauty of music, it can strike different chords in different listeners. If you like female vocals with a folksy vibe, check out Phoebe Snow's self-titled first LP. Fantastic analog recording and equally fantastic Phil Ramone production; one of my favorites. Keep us posted re your impressions of the Audionote wire.

Regards.

Further comments from BT:

(-why did you prefer the Acutex on the 2 vs. the 2.5? Does it have to do with the different resonance frequency points of each version?

-why would the aluminum or carbon fiber wands be preferable? I am currently using the magnesium wand and intended to try the aluminum)

****  In both cases, (the ET-2 and the aluminum or CF wands) I was looking for low horizontal inertia to match the slightly higher than average compliance of the cartridge. This component combination worked well for me with other cartridges with similar mechanical characteristics.
  With respect to the magnesium wand, if it is the light version it would be a good choice, if it is the heavier version, while it will work it is not ideal. I hope this helps, thank you very much.

    brucet****

Ketchup, from BT:

****The heavy version has a step at the back to a larger diameter, the light version is tapered with no step. The photo on the web page for the magnesium wand shows the version with the step. Thank you very much.

    brucet****

Ketchup, thanks for sharing the data. The question then becomes: how do the different flow rates affect the sound when PSI remains the same? Did you notice differences in the sound with different pumps with the regulator allowing the same PSI? Of course, flow rate would not be the only variable. While I don't have any data on this, I am very aware of the beneficial effects of using a surge tank to smooth out the pulses of air; which, presumably, have different characteristics from pump to pump. What were your findings re the sound when using the compressor and higher PSI (and smooth, pulse-less air stream)?

BTW, I have the lighter magnesium wand which may partly account for the positive results that I have gotten with the Acutex 420. I plan on trying the aluminum wand and will report back.

Slaw, thanks for your comments. Likewise, my comments are not intended to be a criticism of anyone's preferences or tastes in either music or sound; which, at the end of the day, need to be respected. IMO, commentary and discussion, even (especially?) if it may get precariously close to instigating arguments, is what makes a forum such as this one worthwhile. So, in keeping with that spirit, I would like to offer some followup comments which may help explain our different reactions to this record.

I very seldom buy a recording based solely on it's sound quality. If I like the music and performance, that is good enough for me to want to buy it, and I do seek out recordings of music/performances that interest me that are known to have excellent sound quality. Also, for me, it is rare the recording (LP or CD) of music that I like that I simply cannot listen to in it's entirety because of it's recording quality. But, I do own many recordings that are recorded poorly or are inferior or damaged pressings that make the listening experience less enjoyable than it could be otherwise. Lastly, I do own some recordings with almost intolerable sound quality; but, "The Nightfly" is certainly not one of them.

I originally suggested this recording for possible use as a "reference" for several reasons:

- The first reason was that it is a recording of music that I felt would appeal to a lot of different musical tastes. It covers a lot of ground, and not being intimately familiar with the musical tastes of possible participants in this thread's "quest for a reference", it seemed like a safe bet.
- It is in a rock vein with strong contemporary jazz elements.
- Compositionally, in typical SD fashion, it is very strong (for a pop
recording), and there are many "layers" to the sound.
- It is very strong rhythmically, with a diverse range of time feels.
- Fagen hired a very diverse group of players, each very well suited for the feel of each individual composition, and with very individual musical personalities.

All of these considerations, I felt, would provide a lot of material for
discussion as they related to the abilities (or not) of the equipment to extract it.

Lastly, and not least(ly?), this recording has been almost universally praised by audiophiles for it's sound quality; to the extent that it was "beaten to death" at audio show demos for years after it's release.

So, what could account for our different reactions to it? I suspect that part of it is system balance. I find it telling that you find Aja to be wonderful sounding while I find it to be dark and somewhat thick sounding. Don't get me wrong, I think Aja is a terrific record with fine sound quality that in no way gets in the way of the music, but if judge it's sound quality we must, it is far from one of my favorites.

What I also find really interesting is that our systems have much in common. You use a VPI HW19 MK4, and I a TNT6 with the same platter as your MK4. Our arms are, obviously, the same. We also use the same phono stage; although mine has been heavily modified, and the changes to the sound (more resolution and clarity, less forgiving) would seem to favor your assessment of the sound of Nightlfy, not mine. I am not familiar with the sound of your speakers nor amp. But I use tube mono blocks (Manley 200/100) which are definitely very full and lush sounding. My speakers (either Paragon Regents or Stax F81's electrostats) are very both open sounding in the highs, but definitely not what many would consider "accurate", being not the least bit exaggerated in that range. So, what might all this say about the reasons for our different and strong opinions of the sound of Nightfly:

- the differences in the sound of our amps and speakers are so strong that they, in the case of your system, exaggerate the admitted digititis of the recording; or, in the case of my system, mask it.
- you are much more sensitive to digital distortions than I am.

Thoughts?

BTW, I continue to feel that in spite of system differences, use of a reference recording to judge a piece of gear (cartridge) can be very useful. I think that the key is to focus more on the musical aspects of the recordings ("bass player A plays a little more on top of the beat than bass player B") and not so much on the "sound"; whatever that means.

Regards.

Well, per Bruce T's recommendation, I installed one of my two original (lower mass) aluminum arm wands in place of the magnesium wand (lighter version) that I have been using since purchasing it about twenty (!) years ago. I had been meaning to try the original wand again since returning to MM cartridges about two years ago, but because of the somewhat difficult arrangement that I have of a continuous run of tonearm wire from cartridge clips to preamplifier, I had not gotten around to it. Also keep in mind that I had wrapped the magnesium wand with cloth tape for extra damping, but also adding extra mass.

These are very preliminary observations/reactions, but I must say that I am surprised at the magnitude of change in the sound; with the Acutex 420. It is far from being a slam-dunk in favor of the aluminum wand; in spite of BT's assertion that the aluminum wand would work better with the high-compliance Acutex. The reduction in bass weight with the aluminum wand is striking, with an apparent increase in clarity that I am not yet convinced is not simply a psychoacoustic effect due to the reduction in bass weight and overall fullness. Somewhat paradoxically, the overall sound is leaner while seeming to have less grain in the highs. I need to spend more time with this wand to really understand what is going on, but after only a few sides it has become even more clear that this cartridge, aside from the already and often discussed sensitivity to VTA, VTF, azimuth, etc., may also be unusually sensitive to arm (headshell?) mass in unexpected ways; which may explain, at least in part, the different reactions to this cartridge.

More to follow.

Dear Dover, great stuff! Thank you.

I will definitely try removing the heat shrink and the Teflon insert. When I first got the magnesium wand, if memory serves, I was using a Spectral MCR which benefited from the extra mass and dampening of the magnesium wand; with the aluminum wand it was lean and white to the point of being unpleasant sounding in spite of it's tremendous detail retrieval and speed (Raul?). I did not try your magnet dampening tweak as I use the damping trough with my ET2 and lateral movement is already well controlled; I am intrigued however and will try it.

Thanks again, and I will report back after I live with the aluminum wand a little longer.

****No idea how Dover and I got involved in this 'wrong thread'****

Perhaps because somewhere in the subconscious there is a pequena voice saying that no one person(a) has all the answers in this wild hobby. And, that in spite of hero worship, the subconscious usually knows where the truth lies :-)

Viva la verdad!

Hi Chris, a follow-up on a project that I mentioned a few months ago I would be attempting. I have procured a small piece of cocobolo from a musical instrument (clarinet) maker friend, from which I plan on constructing (with his help) a "mount" for my 420 to replace the flimsy plastic one that is stock. Actually, I will be using the "corpus" (in Nandric-speak) from a recently purchased 412, which I have every reason to believe is identical to the 420's; the two differing only in their stylus assemblies. My hope is that a far more rigid platform, with better resonance characteristics, will improve the performance of the 420. Will give updates as time allows.

Thanks for the update, Mark. Keep us up to date.

Chris is exactly right, the 412 is not a as linear as the 420; a perfect description. As far as I know, the body ("corpus", thank you Nandric) of the two are identical. The difference between the two is in the stylus assembly. If you don't plan on doing a lot of cartridge swapping, and given how easy it is to swap stylus assemblies, it might be of value to you to have a 412 stylus assembly for casual listening and thus save the stylus life of your 420 stylus assembly.

Chris, after looking at your picture (thanks) and after thinking about it further, would placing multiple magnets in a straight line not cause the damping to vary as the spindle "sees" additional magnets as it moves toward the rear? What I plan on trying is one single magnet on either side of the manifold, as close as possible to the manifold.

Regards.

Gentlemen, fantastic and very interesting reading over the last few days; thank you.

Dover, I want to try magnetic dampening. Could you please provide some more details about the positioning of the magnet for your magnetic dampening tweak? Did you place it between the manifold housing and the front edge of the tt, or between the manifold and the rear of the tt? Also, how did you orient the magnet's polarity? Does it matter?

Ketchup, I am intrigued by your idea of shims replacing the O rings in order to increase the rigidity of the bearing. I am confused however. Don't the O rings need to remain in place in order to keep air from leaking out of the manifold? What type of shim are you referring to, that is both very rigid and will seal the outer diameter of the manifold to the housing? Are you suggesting to place shims inside the manifold housing, between the OD of the manifold and the ID of the housing?

Chris, thanks again for starting what is currently, and without a doubt, the most interesting thread on the subject of LP playback on the 'Gon; IMHO.

Slaw, if you're still out there: what happened?

Regards to all

Thanks Dover, Ketchup and Richard for addressing my concerns.

Well, I must admit I was somewhat skeptical about magnetic damping, but I am now convinced of the benefits. Some preliminary observations:

So far, I have used a single refrigerator magnet that conveniently detached itself from the back of a cooking timer. I glued this inch-squared flat magnet to a small block of glued layers of cork about the same size as the magnet. I situated it on the wand side of then arm pillar; frankly, only because I still have the damping trough attached to the pillar (with paddle disengaged). I plan on trying it on the other side, as well as trying other, more powerful magnets. The magnet is as close as possible to the spindle without touching it.

I listened to the same musical selections several times, with and without the magnet. The results are relatively subtle but unmistakable. There is a general "cleansing" of the sonic picture; as if a fine mist is removed. Bass definition is improved with an increase in one's ability to hear pitches in the bass; as opposed to simply low frequency energy. The highs gain a bit of refinement and sound slightly less ragged. On "The New Breed" from Donald Fagen's new release Sunken Condos, Walt Weiskopf plays both alto and tenor saxophones. Without the magnet, it is very difficult to hear when he plays alto vs tenor. With the magnet, more of each horn's individual character can be heard. Also, for an LP with otherwise very good sound, the bass, while being powerful and very well extended, has a strange "drummy" quality with less than good definition. The magnetic dampening brings a welcomed slight improvement in pitch definition. Curiously, the soundstage seems slightly smaller with the magnet; perhaps a result of the increase in control and definition. The differences are not earth-shaking by any means, but definitely worthwhile. I have not experienced increased volume; perhaps with the more powerful magnets.

Biggest surprise of all: record surface noise seems reduced. LP surfaces are quieter, and the loudest clicks and pops sound less obtrusive with a more subdued character.

More to follow.

Good work, Chris. I look forward to trying the magnetic clamp arrangement, and will post my impressions. So far, we are hearing similar effects with the two different arrangements that we have used. I do get the strong feeling that my current arrangement does not fully exploit the potential of this tweak. Well, I guess that loose floor molding is going to have to wait; darn! ;-)

Richard, it does get scary! I have not tried that, but I will. Thanks for the tip; I will report back.

Thekong, Richard, I sometimes use brass weights (supplied by Thigpen) instead of, or in combination with, the usual lead weights. IMO, the concern is not so much the possibly inherently-different sound of something like brass as compared to lead, but the fact that using a material with a different density may necessitate placing it on a different spot along the I-beam, since as Dover points out:

****It is desirable in most cases ( low to medium compliance cartridges 5x10 dynes/cm – 20x10 dynes/cm ) to use the minimum number of weights, far out on the cantilever stem. This decreases the horizontal inertia of the tonearm while increasing its vertical inertia.****

In my case, the use of the supplied brass weights usually results in having to place the weights further in along the I-beam. In my set-up, this is usually not ideal, with inferior overall bass performance. I suppose that it would be possible to have the exact size of brass weight machined to match the weight, and hence placement, of the lead. But, that is not the case with the weights that Bruce sent me.

The discussions (arguments?) between Dover and Richard have been extremely thought-provoking; and very interesting to say the least. I think that the well-intended participants who look for complete harmony, agreement, and absence of confrontation run the risk of they, themselves, doing more to derail what has been one of the best threads on Agon than either of those two gentlemen. Personally, I don't feel Richard is owed an apology at all; certainly, not one instigated by someone on the periphery of these discussions. We all have different styles of communication, and when the issue is something that one feels passionate about, we throw the gloves off (well, we at least loosen the laces) and expect everyone to be a big boy. I have seen no profanity used; no personal attacks, certainly nothing that, at the very least, could not be up for interpretation.

I have found value in both participants' contributions, even if I don't agree (yet?) with all the pecifics about each of their respective stances re set-up of this arm. For instance, I am not yet convinced entirely that IN MY SYSTEM, going for the lightest weight/mass possible is the way to go. Yet, and speaking of loosening the laces, I decoupled (loosened) the I-beam yesterday, and lo-and-behold, on Donald Fagen's new release "Sunken Condos", what had previously been little more than amorphous low frequency energy suddenly became notes that I could discern the pitch of; completely the opposite of what I expected given my experience (extensive) experimenting with springs of different compliances (single, double, etc.), and the reason I had not tried it yet. Point is, let's all be big boys, try things and have a little more confidence in what we hear as being the right way to go. Dover and Richard please continue contributing to this thread.

Regards.

Dover, thanks. It appears to me that re coupling/decoupling of the I-beam/weight we are dealing with two issues that, on the surface, may seem to be one and the same, but are actually two separate considerations. We have 1. the degree of coupling due to the stiffness of the spring, and 2. the degree of coupling due to how tightly the I-beam is secured to the arm. I make this distinction because, although I would have thought that the two are effectively the same, I am experiencing different and unexpected results from each approach. I suspect that each has different ramifications as concerns resonance, hence the very different results. As I mentioned above, I have almost always preferred (after much going back and forth) the double spring with most of the cartridges that I have used over the years; these, of every persuasion and compliance. The less compliant double spring usually yielding a more controlled, defined sound with tauter and faster bass. More compliant springs have produced sound that is generally fuller, but less-well defined; fuller mids and lows, but less-well integrated highs.

I usually approach system tuning with the idea that there is always a theoretical ideal, but a necessary practical compromise. I prefer fuller sounding tube amplification, so the perceived leaner sound of the double spring has suited my system well.

This leads me to the issue of perceived bass speed. This relates to (in my fairly non-technical mind, anyway) to the above issues and to the issue you brought up re energy storage of soft dampening. In my experience, perceived speed cannot be completely separated from perceived tonal balance. To be clear, for me speed refers to the ability of a component to let music (or, for the sake of this discussion, the bass range) move as it should; to allow it to swing, rock, crescendo, whatever, with the swagger that it does live. I have always found this aspect of reproduced sound to be THE most elusive of all. I have heard components that were unacceptably dark and excessively full sounding that let the music move as it should with great dynamic nuance; and others that were tight, defined, and sometimes too bright overall that sounded dead, as if the musicians were half-asleep. At the same time, since how a component handles the leading edge of transients has a profound influence on the perceived speed, a system tuned to the darker/fuller side of things can benefit (speed-wise) from a little help by way of what the double spring brings to the table.

A long-winded way of saying that I am a little mystified as to why the loosening the I-beam yields a superior result than simply using a more compliant spring. BTW, I am speaking strictly about bass performance; I need to spend more time, and experiment more in the ways that you suggest, to get a better handle on things.

Thanks again.

Chris, thanks for the tip. I will try it and report back.

Richard, the only time that I have not had the wiring on the outside was during the first two years or so that I had the arm (about twenty years ago!) when it was wired internally with VDH silver. I changed the wiring (Cardas) to reap the benefits of using a continuous run from cartridge to preamp. At the time, I did not consider the possibility of benefits due to the sheer fact that the wiring would be external. The improvement in sound was very significant, but I attributed it to the elimination of several solder joints and connectors along the signal's path. I have since changed the wiring two more times; Discovery, and currently AN which is my favorite by far.

Richard, that exactly what I have done. I run AudioNote wire from cartridge clips, underneath the arm wand (secured at two points along the span), then forming a loop from the back of the arm wand to the pillar, all the way to my phono pre, where it is hardwired to the circuit board. Not particularly unatractive and works very well.

Courtesy of Chris, here is a composite pic of my ET showing the wiring arrangement. The current arrangement is the same, except that I am now using the original/lighter aluminum arm wand instead of the magnesium with wrap shown in the pic. Also, the damping trough is now disengaged, and I have added a fridge magnet for damping.

http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1364852043.jpg

ET1 was introduced in 1983, ET2 in 1985. I would guess that by the end of the second year after the 2 was introduced, the ratio of ET2/ET1 sold was already 20/1 simce the 2 was much more popular. I would guess that by the end of 1987 (1988+ would no longer be mid-eighties?) 400 ET2's had been sold. Just a wild guess.

Slaw, welcome back to the thread. What you see on the arm wand (magnesium) is a very exotic rubberized cloth material used as a wrap, and sourced from a local supplier, called Lowe's rubberized cloth gaffer's tape :-)

In an attempt to tame my Vandenhul and Shelter MCs' aggressive top end, I wrapped the arm for extra dampening; it worked well. When I began using MM's again, I went back to the original lighter wand which works better with them.

Chris, eliminate the competition, I always say :-) Man, I wasn't even close! Over 2000 ET2's sold; I would never have guessed the number to be that high. I figured 1200 or so by the time the arm was discontinued (before being brought back). When was that article written?

Been away for a while, hope everyone is well. Chris, the Forsell is still packed in it's boxes. I hope to be able do a shootout between it and my TNT6/ET2 before too long; will keep you posted.

Re your most recent post: just wanted to remind all about the importance of not overtightening the bolt that secures the elbow to the bearing tube (any and all bolts, for that matter). Doing so will certainly misshape the bearing tube and affect tracking the inside of a record.

I may just do that; would be the only fair comparison of the two arms. Interesting comments re thrust bearings; makes complete sense. Re thread drive: I have no doubt its the way to go; just one of the many
unfinished projects and will definitely try it. BTW, spending most of the summer at our upstate place while I play at a couple of summer music festivals and finally had a chance to get the system up here up and running. Vintage Luxman DD has been showing the advantages of DD's pitch stability. But, boy do I miss the tonal qualities of my TNT/ET setup. Also, speed stability yes, but also a strange lack of rhythmic impetus; almost as if the music doesn't move forward the way it should. More tweaking is in order. Regards.

Great topic! VTA adjustment on the fly is, for me, THE most important feature of the ET2. I find it invaluable and use it all the time. The benefits for me have to do with fine tuning tonality, timbre, and the integration of the uppermost frequencies with the lower highs (sibilance, among other things) and the transition-range between the midrange and upper bass. I have not found (maybe simply don't care as much) dramatic changes in soundstaging due to different VTA settings as some have reported. Azimuth adjustment (also relatively easy with the ET) does make significant changes to soundstaging in my set-up.

Re the locking down of the screws that tighten the VTA feature: I feel that too much torque at ANY of the ET2's screws is a bad thing. I think the arm simply sounds better with moderate and similar torque at all the screws. I adjust the VTA adjustment screws so that the adjustment can still be made without loosening the screws; but with some effort. So, to make sure I am not stripping anything, I simply loosen the screws about a 1/4 (or less) turn, adjust, and re-tighten; just a couple of extra seconds for the procedure.

I have no direct experience with the 2.5, but my understanding is that the larger diameter spindle also has a tighter gap between it and the manifold's interior creating a stiffer bearing. Chris can give you a much better description.

As Chris says, it's difficult to tell the 2 spindle from the 2.5; but not impossible. I can usually tell when it's a 2.5. Look at the diameter of the spindle in relation to the diameter of the arm wand. In photos, the 2 spindle usually looks to be about the same or slightly larger in diameter as the original aluminum arm wand or smaller than the magnesium. The 2.5 spindle clearly looks wider than the original wand and about the same or slightly larger than the mag. Based on the pic in the ebay link, I believe Manitunc has a 2.

BTW, there seem to be two different magnesium wands. Mine (I bought it years ago right after Bruce started making them) does not have the "step" in it's diameter toward the rear of the arm.

$1100 for that table with ET2 and cartridge is a fantastic buy; can't believe no one has snatched it up yet.

You raise a good point, Chris. It's those little details amd oversights on the part of a seller that are deal breakers for me when considering a used item. IOW, if the seller was so careless as to not even make sure the points of the cones are in the cups, what other things was he careless about that might have even more important ramifications re the condition of a fairly delicate piece of equipment?

****As we all know there are two parts to optimization of the ET 2.0, 2.5.

1) Arm setup
2) Air delivery

When the thread started I ranked the importance of the two as far as sonic upgrades went
1) 40%, 2) 60% based on my private experience.****

Completely agree. In fact, I am convinced, given the dramatic effects of varying pressure, surge tanks, cleanliness of the bearing, etc., that the Holy Grail is a gas-powered compressor with large storage tank, so that the pulses of the pump's action can be eliminated completely; akin to battery-run power supplies in electronics. Alas, I have to draw the line somewhere.

I have not used the low pressure bearing with anything other than the stock pump and then the Wisa, which Bruce considers "high-pressure". I know that he feels that the arm with regular bearing performs best with lower pressure, but like you, I experienced considerably better sound with the Wisa's higher pressure with regular bearing. When I later upgraded to the HP bearing it worked well with the Wisa, but nothing like the large jump in performance that I experienced with the move to the Medo compressor (+\- 30 PSI). Welcome to the thread.

****Doubtless the effect can be mitigated by reducing air gap tolerance****

That is precisely what the HP bearing/manifold does. Point well taken, however. I will say that after using the regular non-HP bearing with the "higher" pressure Wisa for a few years (before getting the HP) I experienced no damage traceable to this issue.

Re the "different approach":

The Forsell (which still sits in its boxes waiting) uses the low pressure/non-captured bearing approach. Will report when I get around to setting it up.

Been thinking about the "air escaping" issue. Seems to me that what has not been made clear enough is that there will be air escaping no matter what the pressure is. While it is obviously true that an air bearing will be optimized for a specific pressure range beyond which some of the mentioned issues concerning resonance may occur, we also know that dealing with resonance is a tricky issue and a bit of a black art which involves the rest of the system (specific cartridge and its resonance characteristics, and even things like how much torque one uses to tighten the adjustment bolts on the arm). Clearly, there will be a point when too much, or too little pressure, will be simply too much/little, but I believe that there is a fairly wide range beyond the "design ideal" which is "system" dependent and which, as always, is determined by what simply sounds best.

Someone explain to me how in a "captured air" bearing design air will NOT escape regardless of the pressure delivered to it. I think that when we talk about being able to hear it, it is simply that, the point at which it becomes audible; not that there is no air escaping prior to that point.

Oh, wait! You said non–ET users. Sorry.

Chris, this pertains to an earlier discussion about identifying a 2 vs a 2.5. Look closely at the pictures of the ET. I would bet one of my extra arm wands :-) that its a 2 not a 2.5. The HP 2 is sometimes mistakenly referred to as a 2.5. Regards.