Fisrt time post here,
I just happened to stumble into a SOTA Star Sapphire with a ET-2 Tonearm at a yard sale of all places. The seller was not the original owner and didn't know anything about it. I'm sure this table has been sitting unused for quite some time.
I've spent some time getting the table sorted out and now I'm looking for some advise on a ET-2 tonearm. I have leveled the platter and cleaned the spindle. With the needle on a level sheet of glass, The arm tube doesn't glide back and forth as I would expect it to from reading the manual. I think the air bearing pump is working but I don't have a gauge. Looks like it only requires 2.5 PSI and I can feel air pressure out of the filter. My guess is that the pump in not the issue. The manual recommends cleaning the manifold if cleaning the spindle doesn't fix the travel issue.
Should I go out and get a gauge and confirm the PSI before I pull out the spindle and clean the manifold or anything else I might be missing or should do first? If yes I should go ahead and clean the manifold, Do I remove the joint on the front of the spindle? Is the joint
indexed to the spindle or just needs to be 90 degrees from the rear
counterweight clamp? Is there suppose to be any
horizontal play on the counterweight I-beam, mine has some?
-Brad
|
Long I-Beam update.
My new Van den Hul cartridge seems about broken in now. At least I'm not hearing significant changes from session to session. Fine tuning setup was nearly impossible while it was breaking in. I'm using the mag arm wand and the weights were about 1/2 inch from the end of the plank. At this point I started fine tuning and adjusting my diy weights so I could get the weight clamp nearly to the end of the plank. This resulted once again in increased focus and bass definition. I continue to be amazed at how small changes in the weight position result in very significant sonic changes.
Harry
|
Frogman,
A dagger through my heart! 😢
|
Looks like we're both Cluckers at this point!
Experience is a strong influencer, especially catastrophic experience.
Dave |
|
@dlcockrum
Not! After my Clavis experience I'm a devout coward😱
Harry |
Re: removing the body of your VdH, Harry, I tried it on my MC Two and it is no more. No doubt my doing, yet I have never destroyed any audio component before or since in some 30 years with hi-end audio. I recommend that you proceed (or not!) with great consideration and care.
Dave |
@frogman
I'm back on the mag arm with the VDH. My observations are again the same as yours. Finer focus of instruments in space. You described this as smaller in a wider space but I think we are talking about the same thing. I have lightened VTF on the mag wand and am getting more transparency with a more delicate sound. Still not a Lyra in this department but tonality is great on the VDH.
Cheers,
Harry |
@frogman
Pretty remarkable we are hearing the same subtle differences between arm wands with the VDH. Guess my 73 year old ears aren't as bad as I thought. The focus of individual instruments in space (particularly piano) don't seem quite as sharp with aluminum but I was able to sharpen it with VTA. My setup requires me to listen rather near field and the aluminum wand does push things a little further back in the stage.
I wondered if the VDH case was removable but prior experience prevents me from being that brave. If you recall, removing the case was a tweak many performed on the Lyra Clavis with the warning that removal dangerously exposed the cantilever. I removed my Clavis case and enjoyed the improvement for about a year before snagging a shirt sleeve in the cantilever while dusting the table and sheering it off. Hence, my cowardice.
@pegasus
I have been setting up with small changes to VTF and VTA being conscious of the interrelation. I haven't been quite a meticulous as your tiny blue ball method :) but using very small increments. It certainly improves the setup. I'm finding that, so far, in my setup, the VDH seems to like the high end of recommended VTF range and, like the Delos, almost level VTA.
Thanks to all for tips and observations!
Harry |
No worries frogman. I have known a few Dutch and I think they do spell it "Nederlands". ;)
Dave
|
Apologies to the Dutch for misspelling The Netherlands 😔 |
vpi, the VDH MC1 was my first "serious" cartridge purchased more years ago than seems possible. It came back to me upgraded to "Special" status (free of charge) after its third (!) trip back to the Nederlands for retipping. Always liked that cartridge and still do and I agree with your description of its sound relative to Lyra’s. What you describe as "upfront" I hear as simply the fact that it produces individual images which are larger than what I experienced with the two Lyras that I have had and in a generally smaller soundstage. Loved its realistically full midrange tonal balance.
I have done a lot of back and forth with my aluminum and magnesium wands and have come to the conclusion that, theoretical or technical "best" considerations aside, which wand is best is very system and taste dependent. I much preferred the magnesium wand with that cartridge as I found that the aluminum wand tended to take the sound still more in the direction of larger individual images in a smaller soundstage than the magnesium which offered better defined and slightly smaller individual images in a broader soundstage. The magnesium also tended to give a better tonal balance. The aluminum, to my ears, had an overall darker midrange but with more prominent upper frequencies and a slight sense of discontinuity between the two. Again... in my system. Just some possible food for thought. Btw, not as precarious as it may seem if one is careful, but try removing the shell off of the cartridge. Easy to do and the improvement in sound is not subtle. Regards.
|
Last time I did an extended cartridge optimization session for a customer (SME arm), we extensively tweaked the tracking force and bias (.. ;-) by ear.
Start at the lower end of the tracking force, and prepare small balls of Blue-Tak at 0.1 gram, measuring them with a precision scale 0f 0.01 gram resolution.
By adding them (side by side and not pushing them flat) you’ll find a spot where the sound starts to feel slightly compressed, slower and too creamy (= too high tracking force / too low VTA), instead of dynamic, fast and a bit dry.
Go back to one mini-blob less and do the same with mini-blobs of ca. 0.01 gram.
It’s surprising how audible this is. It’s worthwile to start with finding the best VTA, do the weight optimization, go back to VTA and do the weight thing again. The weight adjustment and VTA interrelate *somewhat*, but they are not the same.
*Check the lateral balance=calm free floating in the middle, when adjusting VTA with the ET adjustment!*
Otherwise you introduce a major variable, while tuning a subtle, important factor.
It’s not a real hassle. But it’s ear opening.
|
Excellent post VPI. Keep spinnin' :)
Dave |
@pegasus
Swaped arms from mag to aluminum. Difference is subtle but audible Soundstage is deeper and cymbals are more extended with little or no grit. The VDH is rather more up front than the Lyras I'm used to and the aluminum arm seems to push it back just a little.
@dover
Ive had noting but Lyra for years ( Clavis, now Delos). In comparison the VDH is not as extended or as transparent, however, the VDH has a richer (in a good way) midrange and even without the extension it seems to have plenty of detail. Somehow I think it is just more musical. If I were going to show off my system I'd use the Delos. If I were going to listen to music I think I'd go with the VDH. It is superb on acoustic guitar.
|
@vpi
I have found with the original aluminium arm that removing the internal foam and heat shrink improved transparency. I did this ins stages to verify each step. Ypou might want to try it.
I also opened up the cartridge end of the arm tube removed the spongy teflon insert and replaced it with a piece of carbon fibre - fixed with araldite and compression.This is relatively easy to do and again provided a good improvement.
Fyi years ago I had a Van den jul MC One -preferred it to the more expensive Grasshopper at the time. Verynice cartridge. It was more balanced and not as lean as some of the early Grasshoppers. |
Thanks Pegasus,
I started college (1961) majoring in engineering. At the end of my sophomore year intermediate calculus drove me to change major to political science.
I have an ET 2 that has not been upgraded to the high pressure manifold but I'm am running it with a pump that gives me @ 8 psi. I've been running the VDH with an extra magnesium arm I picked up. I'll try the original al arm. Thanks for the info.
Harry |
I don't know your degree, so I don't tell you mine... ;-)Except that you will find the formulas if you feel the need.It's a rather elevated compliance in these days, not Shure-high but probably, relating to ct517 experiences, it better fits a ET 2 and not a ET 2.5, as the mass of the ET 2 is lower. However, I think it's mainly a question of the arm wand, ie. using the original alu wand.
With this cartridge it's more about experimenting with vertical inertia, starting at the lower side, starting with more counterweights close to the bearing.
You always can increase vertical inertia by trying less counterweights in the middle and then a low count at the outer end.
I suspect that still the long i-beam with counterweights out and starting with a single spring might be best, as the high compliance / low resonance frequency of the cartridge might be better controlled by an I-beam that is set to the lowest most resonance. |
Gentlemen,
I recently picked up a Van den Hul MC One Special. Specs say static compliance is 28 micron/mN. I don't have a clue what this means in terms of high, low or medium compliance. Can some of you with a better engineering/physics background than I tell me which of Bruce's arm wands would be best suited to this cartridge.
Thanks,
Harry |
Bruce's second run, long I-Beam delivered yesterday. Much better fit for the weight clamp. Sounding good.
Cheers
|
@pegasus
I agree, there is likely to be a small reduction in air pressure entering the capillaries due deltaP across the wool and filter paper. Easily sorted by increasing the input pressure slightly. The arm can be operated with and without the wool/paper to test its efficacy.
Much has been written in this thread about the need for a stable air supply. It seems that the ET is very sensitive to any perturbations in the air stream. This design is simply taking this trait and seeking to ameliorate it further. Look inside the manifold at the small hole which connects the air supply to the manifold cavity. Air entering thru this hole jets across the small gap and hits the sleeve then circulates around the boundary between the manifold ID and the sleeve OD. This design change is an effort to deliver smooth air to all of the capillaries. It may not be of benefit, but I intend to find out.
Cheers
|
Pegasus
My techno-intuitive thought on this is:
- The lower the resonance of the i-beam, the wider the frequency range over which the bearing/cartridge resonance can be controlled by it.
- the higher the resonance, the closer together both resonances and the more resonant interaction instead of control.
Does Bruce have the model? Or should I ask my more MATLAB-experienced son? Pegasus The model for the original I Beam was in part influenced by business priorities. We know this. This limitation is no longer there. Why don't you send your theory and questions to Bruce direct and let us know what he says ? brucet (at) eminent-tech (dot) com I am interested in your, John and others impressions of Bruce' Long I Beam. Harry and I seem to be in sync. Also, still am interested in seeing pictures of your dual path wiring setup. Cheers Chris |
Thanks for the captivating infos!
- Although I agree on the idea of eliminating turbulence - isn't damping it not also introducing an additional flow resistance which will upset the "balance" of implicite air flow resistances from air feed via calibrated air beaing openings to bearings air film? Personally I'd be very (self-) critical when changing this, I like to be double on the safe side about changing such crucial areas (at least with my limited understanding of air bearings).
In fact I'd contact Bruce about his thoughts regarding keeping the correct pressure on the distributed points/air openings when introducing additional flow resistance.
- raising the arm bearing: I meant lifting the back of the arm, and correcting with a 20 degree wood wedge between arm and cartridge (the wedge pointing to the front of the arm),
|
@pegasus.
The bearing tower/manifold is in the concept phase at present.
Some features are almost locked in.....
> The air feed into the manifold will be like a flattened funnel to slow the airs velocity before it gets to the bearing sleeve. The original jet of air has to cause turbulence where it first contacts the sleeve. This funnel will probably be lightly packed with wool. The manifold will be undercut to allow for a multi wrap of filter paper around the sleeve to further smooth/ equalise air delivery to the capillaries. The manifold will also have, as per my current version, the cap screw and shim metal locking arrangement between the manifold and sleeve to lock the two o'rings.
> The manifold and tower will be a male/female VEE slider arrangement with a single capscrew locking them in place. This will ensure that the manifold stays exactly horizontal at all VTA positions. It also gives a very solid join between the two parts. A vertical capscrew between the two providing for VTA adjustment. The slider will be straight.
> The tower will have one fixed, parent material, foot and two PVC adjustable feet. The PVC feet provide for alignment of the tower to the platter surface. The single, parent material, foot provides a "virtual" single point of contact with the arm board.
> Parent material will be either zinc or aluminium and will have machined galleries containing damping material.
This is a long term project. I will keep you posted.
Re radically raising the arm to 20 degrees. I get the stiffness issue. Would the wedge idea work as desired? Do we not want the vertical pivot point to be in line with the cantilever. Maybe I missed something in your initial or your latest discussion on the topic.
cheers.
|
Chris,
When you get a chance, I sent an off topic question to you by pm a few days ago.
Harry
|
thoughts on two or three open questions & i-beam
@richardkrebs:
- I'm looking forward seeing pictures of your bearing tower!
- I did not yet try the elevated bearing position with the original ET bearing tower, as there will be drawbacks stiffness-wise because of the (practical but) rel. narrow tripod feet of the design.
- I think a 20 degree angled piece of good wood (with a slit / hole for the cartridge nuts) would do the major part of adaptation.
- arm lift adaptation could be tricky.
- magnetic damping: "My" magnets are kitchen magnets. They are round and have a simple collar-shaped pole piece which focusses and intensifies the flux around it. This will make a considerable difference in efficiency regarding damping compared to a normal "open" magnetic structure.
The magnets need to be placed really close, not more than 1mm on the closest place. The flat magnet shape vs round bearing tube is obviously not ideal. My feeling is that it kind of cuts the peak of the resonance. It sounds and feels a step more stable - i don't like the sound of too much damping anyway.
It's difficult to extrapolate Bruces experiences & comment to different implementations without exact descriptions.
- i-beam: I checked the rotation pendulum formulas to be correct about this: If one doubles the length of the i-beam one halfs the needed weight, because of double the leverage. But the inertia grows with a square factor: 0.5 of the mass x 2^2.This results in double the inertia and 0.7 of the resonance frequency.
The whole double mass double spring system of the ET is very ingenious but also quite complex. It is a 4th order resonant system instead of the usual 2nd order one. With one short attempt :-) i did not yet successfully find the correct CLCL model for simulation.In the most simple view there is an i-beam resonance and a bearing tube/cartridge resonance, with a zone where the i-beams spring and the cartridges compliance work in series (the i-beam springs damping can control the cartridge/bearing resonance, if the i-beam resonance is well chosen... ;-).Problem is seeing / knowing what each one does. Simulation? Empirism?... :-)
My techno-intuitive thought on this is:
- The lower the resonance of the i-beam, the wider the frequency range over which the bearing/cartridge resonance can be controlled by it.
- the higher the resonance, the closer together both resonances and the more resonant interaction instead of control.
Does Bruce have the model? Or should I ask my more MATLAB-experienced son?
|
Am I missing something?
What Harry said. +1 You are not using Bruce’ Long I Beam designed for the tonearm. Getting one would allow us to do an apples to apples comparison. Remember, I did try to get a hobby shop I Beam. The ones I found were not fit - too flexible, cheap, mass produced. Bruce’ long I Beam is 3d printed. V2 should be ready in a few weeks. Also If your end cap is the original one, take it apart, and make sure it is still fit to take the extra stress the longer beam brings. imo - This is a cheap upgrade that affects the heart of the arms performance. The I Beam/weights. The most misunderstood aspect of this tonearm’s setup. Bruce has built the Long I Beam for the ideal length based on his testing. All ET2 owners should be contacting Bruce and getting one. |
John,
While my longer beam with weight almost at end does seem to flex a little more than the shorter one, it is not excessive on my rig. Two thoughts. Are you using a double or triple spring on your beam? If not, that may solve the problem. Secondly, perhaps your hobby shop beam is just more flexible than Bruce's.
Chris,
Interesting observations. My first setup with new plank was the same as yours. With only the molded weight I could only get out to an inch from the end. With only my diy smaller weight I got out to within 1/4 inch from the end with further improvement.
Harry
|
It's funny how that little styrene I-beam I bought at the hobby shop 10 years ago works pretty well. I tried using less weight on the I-beam further out, but when I moved the arm in or out, the I-beam waved back and forth like a dog wagging its tail! I can't place the weight out the same length as the arm wand for sure.
Am I missing something?
-John |
Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.
Archimedes
These are the thoughts that come to me with this sample I Beam that arrived by Australian Camel. The physics involved with playing vinyl and having it outdo the Studer (on some tapes) and my Digital just fascinates me. Significant leverage happening here. I am balanced with only the one molded weight on there. An inch from the end. I had to remove my larger horizontal bolt and go back to the original smaller one, along with the threaded weight holder. They are no longer needed with just the one molded weight on there. Just too much weight. The package of weights Bruce provides with the tonearm is now serious over kill. This is with my freedom fighter cartridge. I suspect my lone weight will go all the way out with the XV1 and maybe one skinny weight - maybe not. Initial impressions from a quick session. Nothing negative and all perceived positives. I am being punched in the stomach with the bass; like sitting 12 feet from the stage and Bdp24 (Eric) is playing his drums like he just got some really great news. 8^) The I beam is now the same length as the armtube; to me, it just looks right, balanced, the way it was meant to be. As Harry mentioned these first samples will be improved. I got word from Bruce that he was making updates to the printer. |
Another long I-Beam update:
If you missed my earlier post Bruce's new long plank is a little too thin for the weight clamp. It won't clamp down tightly. Bruce just updated me to say he is working on a second run that will correct this problem. Should be available in a couple weeks.
In the interim, if you already received the long plank there is an easy work around. Just reverse the clamping screw so it can be applied directly to the plank like a set screw.
Harry
|
Bruce's long I Beam update (yes, Chris, the plank :)
Went by my mechanic this morning and picked up a couple of wheel weights. I was able to fashion one to fit in the slot where the first weight goes. I am now out to about 1/8 - 1/4 inch from the end of the plank and the music keeps getting better and better. My Delos now has a mid range bloom and richness I did not previously think was possible from a Lyra.
Lyras have that wonderful upper extension that we detail nuts crave. However, I have often thought that my Delos (and previously my Clavis) had a slight gap between the midrange and the upper frequencies. This seemed to contribute to a lack of bloom in the midrange. Just not so rich in the middle like, say, a Koetsu.. This has all changed with less weight further out. Still not a Koetsu in the mids but a Koetsu can't retrieve the detail my Delos does. (Oops, I don't want to start a cartridge war).
The second thing I noticed was a slight taming of horns and certain voices. No detail lost but just a little smoother. For example, I love the three standard albums Linda Ronstadt did with Nelson Riddle. Linda's voice has a slight edge on it that I some times found a little fatiguing. With the long plank that edge is tamed. Once again, no loss of extension just a little smoother.
This is arm is truly amazing. It seems there is no limit to the improvements one can accomplish with a little effort and great input from the audiophiles on this forum.
Cheers,
Harry
|
Chris/Harry Interesting Bruces comments. What was not imagined from using magnets for eddy current damping in my system was increased volume, I had to turn the volume down. I used cupboard door magnets - 2 in parallel underneath. Bear in mind the eddy currents are only induced when the arm moves - i.e. it only comes into effect with eccentric records. If the record is not eccentric then there would be no difference. Dynavector uses the same principle with their biaxial arms http://www.dynavector.com/products/tonearm/e_507mk2.html |
Harry the previous post was from Dover. I do not use magnets on my 2.5. FYI and FWIW Some years ago, Bruce was intrigued about our experiments when I asked him about this. So much so that he did try it himself. Feb 2013
Chris,
I tried this with neodymium magnets and the resistive force is extremely low, almost nothing, the velocity of the spindle would need to be much higher to induce back emf. It is a neat concept and I would like for this to work because it is very simple and easy to implement, but the measured force applied to the spindle is so low that nothing happens to the frequency response of the cartridge at resonance. I hope this helps.
brucet
When I asked him about how it was possible that people were hearing differences ......audiophiles believe quite a bit that is unexplainable from a science point of view, so yes it can be so.
brucet
IMO - This topic goes "Into the Dark" category as far as Audiophilia is concerned. You will find supporters on each side. Now the magnetic damping happening with my turntable is indeed real. Two large magnets bottom one stationary, top one moving fast enough to produce by design - a braking effect - to deal with the records behavior. See the gold rings in picture number 5 of my virtual system. Should be back home mid week will check the mail. |
Chris,
Got it. I'll be off to Lowe's for a cabinet magnet. I'm really enjoying Bruce's long plank.
Harry
|
Harry,
You place the magnet under the bearing spindle, right next to the manifold. You want the magnet close to and parallel to the arm tube ( if you are using say a cupboard door magnet ). If you place it on the side opposite to the cartridge end then it won't affect the cartridge signal at the end of play.
Cheers
|
Hi Chris,
Did customs figure out your $15.00 piece of plastic is not a danger to society yet?
Been reviewing prior posts and ran across those dealing with magnetic damping for the ET. I'd like to try it but, dunce that I am, I can't figure out where the platform to the left of the manifold where you put your magnet is located.
Harry
|
Hi Harry
Still has not arrived. a border customs thing ?
I have used a combination of different length I Beam bolt, the one the threaded hollow piece screws into that holds the weights, and different size cart bolts, to help get to the end of the I beam in the past.
Richard
I won't water ski for fear of throwing out, or twinging one of my knees. I consider my daily run as far as my health (physical and mind) goes - No. 1. Listening to music is a solid second.
|
@Chris
In my younger days, I did a lot of slalom waterskiing. The sensation is indeed addictive!
And your analogy fits the Trans Fi well.
I have a revised ET tower on the drawing board. It will probably be made out of Zinc and correct some of the minor issues I found with my last version.
Will keep you posted.
Itchy design fingers.
|
Richard did you not like my sled and boat analogies ? Pegasus
Or one needs an open bearing with less bearing stiffness, like the (very good) Adanalog MG 1 arm, or the many Ladegaard variations incl. the Trans-fi arm. I tell you snowmobile and boat racing on a slalom type course can be alot of fun .... the sliding and drifting around on turns is very addictive. 8^0 |
@pegasus
What I didn't say, racing to catch a plane.
Would need to mount the goose neck upside down and likely drill and tap a new wand clamp thread in the adapter on the other side.
My guess is that this would sort the VTA adjustment.
cheers
|
@pegasus
As always your posts are insightful.
re the vertical bearing axis, as set up on the ET. Do you see any reason why this could not be lifted to 20-30 degrees? (Warp issues aside.)
This assuming there is enough travel in the vertical slide. I guess that the platter would need to be very low relative to the armboard.
Have you tried this?
Results?
cheers
|
A few thoughts regarding longer i-beam and leverage:
- While the captive air-bearing has advantages in stiffness, the ET design with stationary bearing has only one point with centered forces within the bearing along the arm travel. This "allows" some maximal leverage at the beginning and end of the travel.
- Having a short i-beam compensated with more weight on the i-beam side increases (lateral) leverage.
Eliminating the leverage on the air bearing by using a moving air bearing has some advantages, but a drawback too:
Either one needs an additional flexible air-tube, which increases vibration coupling between arm and tt chassis, and also vibrations within the air feed.
Or one needs an open bearing with less bearing stiffness, like the (very good) Adanalog MG 1 arm, or the many Ladegaard variations incl. the Trans-fi arm. (see below)
- It is desirable to keep varying leverage at a minimum, a) on the air bearing as well as b) on a sprung subchassis. The latter will lead to varying lateral desiquilibrium, visible as increased "slipping" from a balanced middle position to outwards gliding at the start and end positions of arm travel.
- So a longer i-beam reduces the leverage on the bearing, and on sprung subchassis. It improves balance of the center of gravity along the bearing travel. And it increases vertical mass, which often improves the sound too.
- Regarding "optimal" vertical resonance I did put up the idea, that (maybe) there is not much useful out of phase bass information below 100Hz - this might not be the case... as increasing the (out of phase) bass bandwith below eg. 15Hz, by lowering vertical resonance seemingly still is audible.
- However, there is an end to that, probably below 10Hz because of subsonic vertical garbage information with a maxiumum around 5Hz. This contrary to lateral resonance where the main problem frequency (correctable) is not higher than 0.75Hz.
- Trans-fi arm:
I trust several keen and independent ears, that this is a superb design, technically by design and subjectively by constant tweaking and improvimg.
- the stability/stiffness of it's "open" bearing is still very good by it's v-shape which forces centering of the air bearing by help of gravity.
- the vertical knife edge bearing is a very good and elegant design with no bearing chatter, and with selfcentering by gravity too.
- "optimal geometric design practice" followed by ET keeps the vertical bearing axis on the same height as the tracing / platter level, This reduces FM wow induced by vinyl warp,
- However, this is not without a price: Lifting this tracing level has it's advantages too, leading to improved bass: Trans-fi and RS labs ar examples. This is, because putting the vertical axis in line with the cartridge cantilever ((ca. 20-30 vertical degrees)) eliminates vertical pull on the cantilever bearing, reducing vertical resonance of the arm activated by dynamic friction changes by tracking vinyl, and by variable friction...
No free lunch therefore for ET... and the above mechanism is rarely looked at.
|
John - yes, yes I was remiss in not giving you a nod for this wonderful tweak.
Chris - Wish I could come off as a pro and tell you balancing was a snap. Alas it was not. It took a good deal of time and patience to acquire a neutral balance for leveling before adding the weight.
Interesting you used the word "heft" in describing balancing. Heft is a good deal of what this upgrade added to my listening. The sound is fuller without any bloat or loss of detail. Indeed, detail was improved. Not the kind of detail that is clinical but the kind that lets you hear fingers on strings and spit in the reed. All in all very nice.
Let me know what you hear with the long plank when you get back home.
Re yellow jackets, I've been stung 3 or 4 times since retiring here to "deep rural" and had no problem except the pain. This time I had an anafalactic reaction and ended up at the emergency room. I am now carrying an epi pen. Ahh, the price we pay for shunning civilization.
|
Hi Harry got an email from Bruce that my I Beam is in the mail with some leaf springs. This is coming a little too early for me and is making me a little anxious as I am not home except for maybe 5 or so days, over the next 8 weeks. :^( Have always been amazed when pulling off the I Beam/weights; by the amount of HEFT, there is in the armtube/cart without the I Beam/weights attached . Very heavy. Pulling off the balancing act with just one single weight and an MC cart. Very impressive. Significant vertical inertia happening here. The best bass. For readers not aware the ET2 was built to go on many different types of turntables. The I Beam was made shorter to accommodate the different tables some of which came with dust covers. Bruce' new I Beam represents the Ideal length based on his testing. Look forward to trying it. Harry - last year I got multiple yellow jacket bites - won't say where - it hurts just thinking about it - when I tried to put some bolts into exposed holes in a steel roof only to disturb a nest. Felt like jumping at one point. *********************************** Hi Eric (Bdp24) what are ya'lls opinion of the Trans-Fi Audio Terminator in comparison? Just curious. IMO. There are more design and build differences between air bearing tonearms, than between pivot tonearms. This is because each air bearing tonearm is very unique in how the air bearing is executed, and its air requirements. Re; Transfi Bruce' tonearm uses a captured air bearing. The film of air inside the manifold fully surrounds, encloses the air bearing spindle. 360. My understanding is Transfi is designed more like a sled on snow, a boat on water, as it rides on a film of air and is not enclosed. A very different design. Someone correct me if I am wrong. |
Hey Harry,
I'm glad you appreciate the tweak, and glad I could contribute something to this thread.
John |
Not to be disrespectful to ET owners (and I consider Bruce Thigpen the most interesting living h-fi designer), what are ya'lls opinion of the Trans-Fi Audio Terminator in comparison? Just curious. |
Chris,
Be happy with your black flies. Yellow jackets got me twice in the last two weeks. Hope you are having a great summer.
Harry
|
Hello all,
Bruce's long I-beam with double spring arrived today. 6 inches long not including spring(s). Very nice improvement. I'm down to the single weight about 5" out. I noticed deeper and tighter bass which extends to lower mids giving a richer sound along with increased inner detail. Has anyone else tried this new beam?
Harry
|
-Just a remnant of my undergrad and HS years. -Not much else is left in this old cerebrum. |
