I have converted. To an out “e” from and in “e” The attached pic shows my temp setup before/after - along with the lowered lead weights as well. http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1365100316.jpgThe pic is at a bit of angle and not horizontal. It’s a subtle change with the lead weights in the positioning but musically very evident in my room. I increased the VTF by doing this and had to move the weights back. I also had the wiring off the armtube totally and it sounded good but I felt it was an incident waiting to happen with me personally. Especially with those Downunder wines. I did a crude braid on the wiring in the photo only to the end of the armtube. They are then separated. They affect the arm less this way. I knew there were two things for sure in life I was no good at. Tying a tie and making a smooth bed. Now I know there are three. Making a nice braid. Will ask my daughter for help with the braiding when she comes home from university. My wife is just shaking her head. She has learned to stay 6 feet away from the turntable at all times. Fwiw – From my own personal experiences a happy face loop works better than an upside down one for ET2, ET 2.5 as they are designed to be free and IMO it has less effect on the tonearm. The upside down loops I have used all forced me to use more rigid materials for support and affected arm movement. One example of this with me. http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1325532980.jpgThe air tube and wiring are part of other air bearing tonearm designs for damping as we have learned here. Choose your own poison. I also position my preamp higher than the wires right next to them so there is a natural happy face loop going to it. Cheers |
John47
The thread is about the ET2. Your facetious comments demonstrate that you have no respect for the designer of the tonearm and clearly do not understand and are not interested in how it works. Not for one second could anyone consider you to be an audiophile. |
Hi Chris
“Can you guys recommend a good cabernet sauvignon from ‘downunder’ that will not break the bank and is safe?”
After decades of research (not backed by multiple degrees mark you), I can offer an opinion that might help (I won’t say satisfy, as one man’s wine might be another man’s poison, thus safety not guaranteed, but works for me!
We (myself + TSO - The Significant Other), are fond of rich, fruity, gutsy Australian reds. Gutsy, as in full bodied – I can’t bear rough stuff.
What has become a staple is Taylors Shiraz, preferably 3 to 5 yrs old (if you can keep your mitts off it that long) and warm, not cold, temp wise. Don’t sweat over, ‘Oh it’s not Cab Sav,’ we’ve drunk a lot of that also.
Warning: you will enjoy life a lot more.
Whether your arm is lead augmented, or made of balsa wood or unobtanium, or setup according to celestial directives, becomes less important. You will not be very likely to write epistle length diatribes.
BTW, so you aren’t confused in future, I’m thinking of acquiring an alias (false name): BenDover. |
ET1 and ET2 Trivia Question.
How many ET1 and ET2 tonearms had been produced and sold by the mid 80’s ?
Any idea on the ET1 versus ET2 sold ratio ? |
No ghosts involved. Is it possible that whilst sleepwalking, on the night of..... I suffer with this disorder called sleepwalking. I didn’t know it but my wife (bless her soul) did a personal study on me. She made we aware of the results later. I apparently did the most sleepwalking after consuming certain amounts of red wine from downunder. Something about it having to do with certain types of proteins from that region, reacting to type C audiophiles, especially after listening to Pink Floyd - The Wall LP. The proteins kicked in after falling asleep for 2 hours. Just enough to induce motor movement to walk around, without being conscious. It has me worried as I really like the wines from downunder and I really like that LP too. Can you guys recommend a good cabernet sauvignon from downunder that will not break the bank and is safe ? BTW – On another front - I understand that Canadian Ice Wines have become quite popular especially in the far east. It has come to my attention however through the media; that counterfeit Canadian ICE wines are now being made in the far east. Content questionable. Beware and be safe. One of the above two stories is true. http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/44430 |
04-07-13: Richardkrebs
Double posts and thread ghosts of the past. How does that happen? Richardkrebs – Audiogon has advised that it looks like it was double posted by the original author – that’s you Richardkrebs. No ghosts involved. Is it possible that whilst sleepwalking, on the night of 07-04-2013, you reposted your earlier post of 03-30-2013? For the benefit of readers, Richardkrebs original post reads 03-30-13: Richardkrebs
Dover
" self taught engineering school of fabulosity."
You go too far....
I have a tertiary education in engineering. I hold an aircraft avionics qualification and a radio technicians certificate. I teach hydraulics and electronics to paying clients.
My company employs 52 people across two countries.
We specialize in the design and building of complex servo electro hydraulics.
Recent projects have been damper doors for jet engine power stations in Oman and Iraq.
These doors, 7 meters square, are required to swing thru a 90.degree arc and stop precisely in position. Fractions of a mm are possible. The doors need to do this at both high, emergency close speeds and normal slow rates. With the multi mega watt engine buffeting it with an air stream just below supersonic.
Get the Q wrong with something as massive as this and it either fails to reach the go to point in time or it shakes itself to destruction. We usually target just below critically damped to give added safety.
My public liability does not cover destroying a multi billion power station.
I understand resonance, Q, time constants, mass damping et el.
The survival of my company and potentially the power station workers and my staff depends upon it.
You cannot begin to imagine the pre qualification process a company has to go thru to be even considered to quote on projects like this.
Compared to design work like this, a tonearm is relatively mundane. Certainly a whole lot less stressful.
I know how the ET2 works.
Richardkrebs (Answers | This Thread) This was posted again on 07-04-2013 04-07-13: Richardkrebs
Dover
" self taught engineering school of fabulosity."
You go too far....
I have a tertiary education in engineering. I hold an aircraft avionics qualification and a radio technicians certificate. I teach hydraulics and electronics to paying clients…. ) If this is the case, what possessed you to repeat your qualifications and work experience yet again? Nevertheless, thank you, you have reminded me - I do have a few observations and suggestions. You seem to object to my observation regarding your self taught engineering. I note from your post and from your website that you encourage us to read that you have some electrical trade certificates. From your website you joined the company as a storeman, after attaining these electrical trade certificates. There is nothing on the website that suggests you have had any formal tertiary education in the fields of “engineering” applicable to the design of the ET2, specifically the physics and mathematics of this arm. This being the case, I understand more clearly now why you have difficulty comprehending the complexity of Bruce Thigpens design. I draw your attention to Bruce Thigpens background. After completing a business degree, Bruce commenced working for W.H.Coloney, an engineering company specializing in mechanical and civil engineering. Bruce project managed the development of the Coloney air bearing TT & tonearm ( now the Walker ). He was taught air bearing technology by qualified civil & mechanical engineers. Bruce returned to university as a post graduate student, to study Physics, Maths & Audiology to ensure that he had a comprehensive understanding of the physics and mathematics involved in developing air bearing TT’s and tangential air bearing tonearms and the outcomes. Bruce holds many patents pertaining to air bearing tonearms and others such as patents on vacuum hold-down on records. I studied Structural & Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Maths & Inorganic Chemistry at university in the late 70’s, before switching to Finance. Now to the issue at hand. For some months now you have argued that users of the ET2 tonearm should add lead mass and remove the decoupling from the I beam/counterweight assembly. This advice on your part is in direct conflict with the set up procedures in the manual. I quote from Bruce Thigpen: If the weight is coupled the system resonant frequency would be extremely low, a resonant frequency at 3Hz with a significant rise in response (6-12dB) results, which would affect tracking slightly because of the asymmetric position of the cantilever, we opt for splitting the horizontal resonance frequency into two points and lowering the "Q" which improves tracking.
More important than tracking, the intent was to reduce the modulation effects of low frequency energy (FM and AM) that increase distortion in the cartridge, Bruce Thigpen’s contribution affirms my statements over the past 2 months that your fixation with adding lead mass to the arm and coupling the I-beam will increase distortion, affect tracking and produce an unnatural bass lift in response. My own analysis has long been based on a thorough understanding of the design principles and physics involved. If you go to the Eminent Technology website and read the ET1 manual ( that’s the arm that precedes the ET2 ) you will discover that the ET2 was a design decision to move away from the high mass/fixed counterweight model utilized in the design of the ET1 to the low mass decoupled counterweight model utilized in the ET2. These new design considerations embodied in the ET2 resulted in substantive improvements in the quality of sound reproduction. The decoupled I-beam methodology employed by Bruce Thigpen in the ET2 is designed to minimize horizontal inertia and ensure the resonance of the I-beam and counterweight remains below the horizontal resonance of the arm so that the 2 resonances ( arm and beam ) do not couple together to produce a large peak at the arms resonant frequency in the bass. All tonearms will have a lift or peak in response at their natural frequency. The tuning with the I-beam (decoupled) is designed to reduce this natural bass peak at the resonant frequency of the arm to produce a flat bass response. This is illustrated in the graphs on Bruce Thigpen's website where he has published test results. The addition of lead mass that you continue to advocate goes directly against the design of this tonearm. The rigid coupling of the I-beam and counterweight that you advocate is contrary to these stated design principles. Furthermore you acknowledged in your posts dated 03-19-13 and 03-20-13 that you have only just worked out how the decoupled I-beam works after some 25+ years of ownership. 03-19-13: Richardkrebs
It could be that tuning here with springs and weights (and their position) is at least partly to do with sorting this possible frequency interaction rather than just the weight or stiffness employed.
03-20-13: Richardkrebs
The thought that there may be more going on with the decoupled counterweight was triggered by your post where you quoted BT where he said that the ibeam had a natural frequency of 2-5 hz. , In light of this newfound knowledge and your assertion that you now understand how the arm works, including the I-beam, I made a polite inquiry in my post dated 04-02-13 if you had had time over the Easter break to set up your ET2 correctly as per the manual.
Hi Richardkrebs
Was wondering, now that you know how the ET2 works, whether you had found time over the long Easter break to remove the lead from your arm, put the decoupling spring back in, dial in the vertical effective mass ( less lead further out for your cartridge ) and set the I Beam resonance below the arm resonance as prescribed in the manuals.
Frogman, Chris & Slaw have all found significant gains with the correct decoupling strategy employed. Frogman has reported significantly more bass information loosening off the end cap as per my suggestion some weeks ago.
I would be very interested to hear what sort of improvements you get when you get the arm back to standard configuration. ,
You have not responded. Can I assume that you have no interest in setting your ET2 tonearm up correctly? It is clear from your continued denial of fundamental physics and mathematics and your statements disagreeing with Bruce Thigpen and myself in the design and implementation (set up) of the ET2, your continued fixation with adding lead mass and removing the decoupling from the I beam/counterweight assembly, that you do not have sufficient understanding of the principles involved in the design of this arm. These are fundamental principles of physics, for which you would be better placed to debate if you had some formal education that is wider than what one would infer from your posts. Anyone who understands physics would not for one minute contemplate the homebrew mods you advocate. I quote direct from the ET2 Manual p29 ET2 Manual p29
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. , Readers should be aware that this is the exact opposite of what Richardkrebs continues to advocate. Richardkrebs is advocating increasing the horizontal inertia for low compliance cartridges – the opposite of what Bruce Thigpen recommends. Richardkrebs, my recommendation for you, if you are serious about owning and operating an ET2, would be to enrol in some Physics and Mathematics papers at university. That may help you to comprehend the principles that make this an excellent arm when set up correctly. I would advise readers and ET2 owners to ignore Richardkrebs erroneous recommendations and follow the set up procedures outlined in the ET2 manuals that can be found here. http://www.eminent-tech.com/main.htmlFrogman, Chris(Ct0517), Slaw and myself have all found significant gains with the correct decoupling strategy employed. Furthermore Frogman has reported significantly more bass information loosening off the end cap as per my suggestion some weeks ago. My own experience with tuning the decoupled counterweight correctly and using a lower weight counterweight further out on the I-beam for low compliance cartridges as recommended in the manual yielded significant improvements in speed and articulation, transparency of soundstage and lower distortion, exactly as predicted by Bruce Thigpen’s substantive testing and published results. |
Double posts and thread ghosts of the past. How does that happen? My theory - Its all about those damn 0’s and 1’s. Problems arise when you try to merge an old system of 0’s and 1’s, with a newer system of 0’s and 1’s. A few 0’s and 1’s get misplaced, duplicated sometimes. Richard - thats nice to hear about your sons and their friends wanting to spin records. I have been waiting patiently with my 2. I have hoarded enough gear to make systems for both plus my wife if she wants to spin Motown nonstop in another room somewhere. I have almost lost all hope and am considering a large 2013 Spring Sale to cash in and spend the money on myself and pay for recent purchases. |
Double posts and thread ghosts of the past. How does that happen?
Chris.
It is good to see that analogue gear is holding its price. Maybe the current trend of interest will continue. My sons and their friends are keen to spin records. A welcome change away from the broken washing machine music one usually hears leaking out of their ear buds. |
|
Dover
" self taught engineering school of fabulosity."
You go too far....
I have a tertiary education in engineering. I hold an aircraft avionics qualification and a radio technicians certificate. I teach hydraulics and electronics to paying clients.
My company employs 52 people across two countries.
We specialize in the design and building of complex servo electro hydraulics.
Recent projects have been damper doors for jet engine power stations in Oman and Iraq.
These doors, 7 meters square, are required to swing thru a 90.degree arc and stop precisely in position. Fractions of a mm are possible. The doors need to do this at both high, emergency close speeds and normal slow rates. With the multi mega watt engine buffeting it with an air stream just below supersonic.
Get the Q wrong with something as massive as this and it either fails to reach the go to point in time or it shakes itself to destruction. We usually target just below critically damped to give added safety.
My public liability does not cover destroying a multi billion power station.
I understand resonance, Q, time constants, mass damping et el.
The survival of my company and potentially the power station workers and my staff depends upon it.
You cannot begin to imagine the pre qualification process a company has to go thru to be even considered to quote on projects like this.
Compared to design work like this, a tonearm is relatively mundane. Certainly a whole lot less stressful.
I know how the ET2 works. |
Richardkrebs
I don't have any first hand experience with arm pods. They tend to go against the grain so to speak, in the quest for absolute dimensional stability between platter and arm. That said it seems that there are many admirers of this approach and, other than to quote others, it would not be prudent for me to comment on the sound of something I have not personally heard. The best statement I have read yet from someone that has not tried them. A refreshingly honest answer. Thanks Richard. Anyone the least bit curious about them can check out the Copernican thread. Some "robust debate" there. Cheers |
ET2 ET2.5 - Aluminum Gooseneck Update
Just a reminder on this initiative. I will post a reminder once more in a couple of months.
I have received some replies and we have four people so far who are interested in aluminum goosenecks. One size fits the ET2 and ET 2.5. This would replace the current carbon fibre part that joins the armtube to the spindle with an aluminum one.
If enough people are interested we can get Bruce to do a special run of them. The price would be based on the number of people interested.
If interested please contact me at bcpguy(at)bell(dot)net for details
I am not affiliated with this other than wanting one myself. I am one of the four people so far.
Cheers |
Hi Richardkrebs
Had a very good Easter beak, very relaxing. Thank you for asking.
Was wondering, now that you know how the ET2 works, whether you had found time over the long Easter break to remove the lead from your arm, put the decoupling spring back in, dial in the vertical effective mass ( less lead further out for your cartridge ) and set the I Beam resonance below the arm resonance as prescribed in the manuals.
Frogman, Chris & Slaw have all found significant gains with the correct decoupling strategy employed. Frogman has reported significantly more bass information loosening off the end cap as per my suggestion some weeks ago.
I would be very interested to hear what sort of improvements you get when you get the arm back to standard configuration.
Looking forward to hearing how it goes. |
Richard, it does get scary! I have not tried that, but I will. Thanks for the tip; I will report back. |
Frogman.
20 years! It gets scary when you start thinking back doesn't it?
I also have a continuous run to the pre but put it inside purely for cosmetic reasons. My thoughts would be to route it such that it stands off from the wand a little. In theory there would still be some interaction between wand and wire, due to proximity. That said, the level of this may be just too tiny to notice. Have you per chance tried this? |
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. |
Ketchup and Frogman.
Thanks for the pics.
Can either of you describe the changes with the wire outside. I would expect a more lively, detailed, precise presentation.
Seeing the manifold like that reminded me of the shim/grub screw set up. Has any one made any progress on this? |
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 |
Richard,
My tonearm wiring also runs outside of the wand. There is a photo of it in my system page. |
Frogman.
Excellent! You have inspired me to do this with mine.
Thanks for the feedback. |
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. |
Hi, I hope that you all had a great Easter break with Family and Friends.
Chris. I don't have any first hand experience with arm pods. They tend to go against the grain so to speak, in the quest for absolute dimensional stability between platter and arm. That said it seems that there are many admirers of this approach and, other than to quote others, it would not be prudent for me to comment on the sound of something I have not personally heard.
Re arm wiring and earthing.
For anyone looking to earth the aluminium wand. Anodised al is an insulator so you would need to scratch thru this to bare metal. Something I would be reluctant to do.
Earthing the air stream should be done as close as possible to the arm. I have a pressure gauge close by and have grounded the metal part of this that protrudes into the air line. Simply cutting the hose and rejoining with an appropriately sized metal tube would do. Solder an earth wire to this. You can expect a quieter backdround and a good jump in transients.
I have been waiting for someone to run the arm wiring completely outside the wand and spindle. The results would be interesting, assuming that there are no RF issues.
Wouldn't look to pretty however. |
Chris/Slaw - At the time I tried the van den hul the arm was mounted on a Roksan Xerxes. I was using a Shure V15Vmr so that could have been a contributing factor for picking up RF due to the higher impedance than a MC. Having said that, with litz wire there was no RF in the same situation. This suggests that even if you cant hear RF a litz wire will provide a lower noise floor. |
A note.... the level of information and experience here is remarkable! I'm glad to be a recepient. Keep it coming.... |
Dover-Chris, Thanks... I'm using a carbon fiber arm wand. My main concern in my upcoming tt design is the tonearm wire construction, and implementation. Some of you may remember, I have the AN wire in the wings, I'm not very confident on my skills as a small guage tonearm wire constructor. "Huh?" I've had several carts, throughout the years, mm & mc's, there is more noise associated with MM's. Should/could I try to run a ground from the armwand separately? My belief is that the CF armwand is a cf skin, on a magnesium or aluminum core??? The headshell is the same for all armwands??? |
Hi Slaw – are you running an in room ET2 filter or pressure regulator ? I added a ground to the in room regulator at the suggestion of Richard. It seems to have helped. Recommend you give it a try. Hum Story and maybe a lesson. I am finishing the space in the adjacent basement area next to my main room. I noticed a hum coming from a certain area in the room near the ceiling by a light. Looking over I noticed a little transformer attached to the light base from the time the house was built. It was humming away – could be heard from a few feet away. I disconnected it and peace prevailed. The room is quiet now. My wife is not too happy because I have not yet reinstalled the wire to the back of the house like I said I would. I have discovered that I like not having a doorbell, and I told her there is a “door knocker” on the door. My kids are on my side on this one. But they are also the ones too lazy to get up and see who is at the door whenever anyone shows up. Now here is something I find interesting. Of the people that come to the door. No one appears to know what the obvious “in your face” door knocker is for anymore. They knock with their knuckles instead when they discover the push button doorbell doesn’t work. We have become a pushbutton society. My Lesson Learned. What if you have a system on a raised main floor, and the gear is sitting in a rack, or near the ground (amp/s) a foot or two from this humming transformer just below. Only a wood floor separates them. Dover was the noise from the silver wiring noticeable on your Final Audio or another TT ? 03-31-13: Dover
Richardkrebs re your last post.
I believe we have something in common. In the contract work I specialise in I too am totally indispensable. Dover/Richard, in my line of work (business continuity planning) one of the key objectives of every project for the consultants is to identify and eliminate as many SPF’s as possible. Single Points of Failure. By eliminate I mean an "action plan" for management to follow in a powerpoint or similar presentation. Richard, as an admirer of the Kuzma Airline tonearm; do you have any thoughts on Kuzma’s Top of the Line Version which comes with a Brass ArmpodHave you ever used, experimented with a armpod ? Cheers |
Richardkrebs re your last post.
I believe we have something in common. In the contract work I specialise in I too am totally indispensable. Not only dozens but hundreds of employees world wide depend on my expertise. One mistake and a company could be bankrupted. Worse still, the New Zealand economy could collapse. Like you I also understand Q, and P that comes before it and R that comes after, and the other 22 letters of the alphabet too. Part time I moonlight as a neurosurgeon. My expertise in soldering gives me the manual dexterity to perform such delicate operations. It provides a diversion from responding to lunatics who post garbage on audio blogs. With your background in avionics, you would have become accomplished in soldering too. Perhaps you could apply one of your many talents to a part time career in neurosurgery. Just a thought. |
Hi Slaw,
The arm wand and bearing tube are ungrounded. I tried grounding the aluminium arm wand but couldn't hear any difference. I had a major problem with RF when using van den hul monocrystal silver wire, and went back to a stranded copper litz ( same as used in the old Sumiko PBT tonearm interface ) and had no RF problems whatsoever after that. My arm cable went from the wand straight into the phono on the side of the TT rather than through the bearing tube. If you are using the aluminium arm tube, running an electrical signal along a piece of aluminium can induce hysteresis distortion in the signal and maintaining a litz configuration would be desirable. |
Question regarding how the whole 'arm' structure/material and how it 'mates' with grounding, regarding tonearm wire?
Some arms are prewired with a 5 wire loom/ one lead specifically for ground. Why is this not needed/offered with the ET? How does magnesium serve as an electrical conduit? |
Richardkrebs Further to the above, you conceded that after 25 years of owning and modifying your ET2, you did not understand how the I beam decoupling system worked until recently: 03-19-13: Richardkrebs
It could be that tuning here with springs and weights (and their position) is at least partly to do with sorting this possible frequency interaction rather than just the weight or stiffness employed.
03-20-13: Richardkrebs
The thought that there may be more going on with the decoupled counterweight was triggered by your post where you quoted BT where he said that the ibeam had a natural frequency of 2-5 hz.
This is close to the resonant frequency of the arm itself. This could have performance implications. That means you added your lead mass and removed the decoupling of the the I beam without any understanding of how they were designed to work by your own admission. Clearly you have never heard your ET2 set up correctly as per the manual because you never understood how to tune the I beam and counterweights. This means that your comments on the merits or otherwise of your modifications are irrelevant to this discussion as you have never heard a standard arm set up correctly. It is a great pity you never heard my Sota/ET2/Denon set up correctly all those years ago as I believe you would have a different view today. |
Richardkrebs - So predictable. Yes there may be other brilliant designs, but the discussion is about the ET2, in case you've forgotten.
Yet again you just dont understand the physics.
You are trying to turn the ET2 into a home brew Kuzma, Rockport, or other design which have started with a different set of design parameters and operating assumptions completely - different masses involved, different bearings required, different air pressures required, forces will be seen by the arms differently and completely different set of resonances involved, all of which are fundamental to the performance of any of these arms.
You are tinkering around trying to convert a low mass tangential arm into a high mass tangential arm but have failed to address most of the queries I raised. You have provided some home grown theories and analogies that bear no resemblance to engineering science. You have provided no measurements of your system to support your assertions.
Bruce Thigpens documented design brief and extensive testing show that your approach is wrong in the context of the ET2 ( this thread is about the ET2 ).
I remind you that if you go back to my very first post after you described your lead footed home modified ET2 that my comments on increased distortion, increased cantilever flex, possible record damage from mis-tracking were all preceded with the words "on eccentric records" and I stand by that statement.
In your self taught engineering school of fabulosity do you understand what an eccentric record is?
Do I need to remind you of the laborious weeks of denial on your part that the cantilever does not see the side loads generated from an eccentric record, accompanied by much junk science subsequently refuted by Bruce Thigpen.
Do I need to remind you of the incorrect advice you gave to Thekong and then retracted when I pointed out your own self conflicting arguments, which you then retracted.
In a nutshell Richard you are telling Porsche drivers they can improve their car by converting it to a Hummer. If you prefer the Hummer, I have no issue with that. If you try to tell me that there are no consequences arising from this conversion then you are wrong - yet again. |
Dover.
To address the points raised.
Scaremongering.
This comment was posted in response to your claim that the weight of my arm was sufficient to cause damage to cartridges. You actively warned others against adding mass because of this belief. During the course of this discussion it emerged that the Kuzma is actually heavier than my arm.
While it is self evident that the forces seen by the cartridge will be higher with the Kuzma, you have posted zero evidence that these forces are sufficient to cause damage. The Kuzma has been around for long enough now for any problems of this nature to have surfaced.
Scaremongering....Absolutely.
My comment about being the only person who could speak with authority on the subject was referenced to the sound of my modified ET in its current form. That is a true statement.
It must have been 5 years since we heard each other's systems.
I have not commented on my impressions of yours because I assume that your system has improved since then and any comments I made would be out of date.
I would expect the same courtesy from you.
For the record. While the room is small, it is larger than you recall.
Re the acoustats, they may still look like 2+2s but that is where the similarity ends. Further someone once said something like. .. many a fine tune played on an old fiddle.
BTs letter is clear and well understood.
My position has always been that there are valid alternatives
Rockport, Walker, Kuzma. Just like Bruce, these arms are designed by people who are obsessive in their quest for ultra quality accurate record reproduction. The sales and reviews of these products would suggest that they have indeed achieved superlative results. With a design approach that you claim is fundamentally flawed.
Their designs are valid and I would say that it is l disingenuous on your part to suggest that the owners of these arms possess equipment that needs to be "looked at" , that they are all listening in comprised rooms and that they all prefer one note, excessive bass, along with the sound of miss tracking cartridges.
Yes the ET2 is a brilliant design. There are other brilliant designs |
Chris - thanks - no war down here.
My motivation is to help people set their systems up correctly and learn more. We all learn from shared experiences. The debate over the past 7-8 weeks could have been much shorter had it not been inundated with junk science.
Richardkrebs, claims to be an authority, yet all the way through been belligerently dismissive of Bruce's recommended set up procedures and of the design principles that underpin this arm. Many of his arguments put forward were simply nonsense.
Everything I have said has since been verified by Bruce Thigpen's recent communications. The addition of lead mass and removal of the decoupling of the I beam will load the cantilever, increase distortion, and deliver a bloated bass response.
Would you have rather everyone who read this thread ignore Bruce's advice - add lead mass and bolt up their I beams as was suggested ad infinitum?
That, along with much uninformed comment, is an affront to the time and dedication that Bruce has put into this product. It is impossible not to have robust debate when basic scientific principles continue to be denied.
|
Dover...your diligent follow up with Bruce Thigpen is much appreciated Dover you’re welcome. I like to publish information for thought especially when it comes from a Subject Matter Expert (SME). Someone who by the way takes an interest in our activities and findings, and continues to experiment on his own. The info was not meant however to trigger any type of civil unrest with the NZ audio club. Fwiw - I have heard many stories of civil unrest from my Grandma and parents. In Canada I have seen civil unrest twice when Quebec decided to separate. Democracy prevailed. If democratic polls were held today I am not sure but I think the vote would be 2 – 2 or 3 – 1 against you. Good thing this is a hobby ? |
Frogman/theKong, others – regarding lowering the position of the lead weights.
Based on my own experiences, positioning the lead to be lower is not something imo, that any ET2, ET 2.5 owner is going to do naturally or instinctively. The reason being it is not as ergonomic. When you try it you will see it is easy to touch/scrap the plinth/armboard with the end of the I Beam, when you lift the arm at the end of a record. That is, if you have developed a habit like I have, of lifting the arm tube higher than required in protection of the stylus. This was an easy habit to break.
I talked to Bruce about it and he said multiple parameters get changed when doing this and that in general he's for an adjustment that results in an increase in VTF requiring the lead being moved further out on the I Beam. But we need to try it out in our rooms/gear. Look forward to both of your impressions when you get a chance to try it. I’ve had two positive listening sessions with now.
Cheers |
Chris, your diligent follow up with Bruce Thigpen is much appreciated: If the weight is coupled the system resonant frequency would be extremely low, a resonant frequency at 3Hz with a significant rise in response (6-12dB) results, which would affect tracking slightly because of the asymmetric position of the cantilever, we opt for splitting the horizontal resonance frequency into two points and lowering the "Q" which improves tracking.
More important than tracking, the intent was to reduce the modulation effects of low frequency energy (FM and AM) that increase distortion in the cartridge, Bruce Thigpen’s contribution affirm my statements over the past 7-8 weeks that Richardkrebs fixation with adding lead mass to the arm and coupling the I beam will increase distortion, affect tracking and produce an unnatural bass lift in response. My own analysis has long been based on a thorough understanding of the design principles and physics involved. It is disappointing that those who disagree, and clearly do not grasp the principles involved in this arm, have resorted to denial and personal attacks 03-04-13: Richardkrebs
Dover
Your scaremongering
03-17-13: Richardkrebs
Dover.
Hasn't this discussion run its course.
03-18-13: John47
Mr Dover’s bombastic contentions.
03-21-13: John47
Put on your knitwear cardy so don't catch a cold, your thick lensed glasses so you don't fall, then pop out and replenish your Prozac.
03-23-13: Gnnett
As a New Zealander I would like to apologies for the behavior of Dover. It is a narrow country and this breeds narrow mindedness. All too often denial and personal abuse is the last refuge of the desperate. Sadly those posters who are fixated with the idea of adding lead mass and removing the decoupling will continue to deny the science and exhaustive testing and measurements that underpin Bruce Thigpen’s design. If they prefer the sound of the arm set up incorrectly, there are clearly fundamental flaws in their system and they should look at the rest of their components and set up. This includes the environment in which they are listening. 03-04-13: Richardkrebs
Dover
I am the only person here who can speak with any authority on the subject. Richardkrebs, the ET2 is a brilliant design and deserves to be treated with respect. |
Hi theKong – answer to your question from Bruce. Thanks for that info as well Dover. Acoustats ? won't go there.
03-27-13: Thekong
As we have been discussing the pros and cons of the decoupled counterweight on the ET,
I have this question on my mind (admittedly a non-technical one) for a long time!
The ET uses leaf springs to decouple the counterweight so the arm doesn’t “see” the additional weight!
To my thinking, this can only be possible if the counterweight actually doesn’t move during the initial movement (milliseconds?) of the arm,
due to the compliance of the leaf spring.
Then, after the arm has moved for a certain range, the counterweight would need to start “rebounding” to follow the arm.
If that is true, then would it create some delayed effect that could be detrimental to the tracking?
Or is my reasoning totally false?
Thekong (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
********************************************************** Answer from Bruce. Chris,
The counterweight is decoupled in the horizontal plane so it only affects lateral motion of the tonearm. The counterweight always moves if the spindle is moving, it does not move at the same rate, the time constant is about 300 milliseconds. If the weight is coupled the system resonant frequency would be extremely low, a resonant frequency at 3Hz with a significant rise in response (6-12dB) results, which would affect tracking slightly because of the asymmetric position of the cantilever, we opt for splitting the horizontal resonance frequency into two points and lowering the "Q" which improves tracking. The motion of the weight is damped so that it has a low "Q" resonance with a rise in response of about 3-4dB at 3hz and 2dB at 10-11Hz, these frequencies do not coincide with the vertical resonance.
More important than tracking, the intent was to reduce the modulation effects of low frequency energy (FM and AM) that increase distortion in the cartridge, amplification chain, and especially in the speakers woofer at a few Hz. I hope this helps.
brucet
Boy I wish I had someone like Bruce for when I go into these board meetings trying to sell services to CEO’s and CFO’s. You know the ones where they bring their own in house techies to the meetings to ask questions. Cheers |
Hi Dover,
Thanks for the explanation, will certainly try all different set ups and see the difference myself! |
Thekong - yes you are correct. That "rebound" as you call it has a resonance. The idea behind the variable spring rate and shifting the position of the lead counterweight is to place that resonance below the horizontal resonance of the arm so that the 2 resonances ( arm and beam ) do not couple together to produce a large peak at the arms resonant frequency.
All tonearms will have a lift or peak in response at their natural frequency. The tuning with the I beam ( decoupled ) is designed to reduce this natural bass peak at the resonant frequency of the arm to produce a flat bass response. This is illustrated in the graphs on Bruce Thigpen's website where he has published some of his test results.
The idea behind loosening the I beam that I outlined in my earlier posts is to lower this "rebound" resonance, by allowing the I beam to swing freely and also keep the horizontal arm mass low. Some wag above says you get no response below 30hz but that is not correct. You get a low fall off in bass below 30hz.
Rigidly coupling the I beam will increase the bass, adding more bass lift at the resonant frequency and beyond. If you run 30 year old Acoustat 2+2's in a room barely 10ft x12ft, listening position 5 feet from the panels and you like humpa humpa one note bass, then that is your ideal solution. |
As we have been discussing the pros and cons of the decoupled counterweight on the ET, I have this question on my mind (admittedly a non-technical one) for a long time!
The ET uses leaf springs to decouple the counterweight so the arm doesn’t “see” the additional weight! To my thinking, this can only be possible if the counterweight actually doesn’t move during the initial movement (milliseconds?) of the arm, due to the compliance of the leaf spring. Then, after the arm has moved for a certain range, the counterweight would need to start “rebounding” to follow the arm.
If that is true, then would it create some delayed effect that could be detrimental to the tracking?
Or is my reasoning totally false? |
Chris, thanks for the tip. I will try it and report back. |
Loosen the end cap bolt (not the leaf spring bolt we have been discussing) just enough to lower the lead weights, so that they are positioned at the bottom half of the spindle; when looking at the arm from the gooseneck side. Hi Ct, In all the photos I have seen on the Walker turntable, the counterweight set-up was below horizontal. So, I suppose that is intentional and offers some advantages, at least in that design. I must apologize that due to my schedule, it will take me a while to have the time to do a thorough comparison on the counterweight set-ups in my system. I will report it here at once when I can complete the test! |
ET 2.0 spindle versus ET 2.5 spindle I am focusing on the spindle /counterweight. I have some info to share. It can be difficult from pictures telling the differences between the ET 2.0 and 2.5. This makes it easier. Pictured is the ET 2.5 spindle Significant differences in weight and diameter. 19 gms ET 2.5 versus 11 gms ET 2.0. Chris,
About 19 grams with the aluminum inserts which are machined from bar stock. The 2.5 tubing has about the same wall thickness as the 2.0.
brucet Richard/Dover/theKong/Frogman others. I find this significant based on the recent damping conversations. I will have more information coming from Bruce when he has time to discuss. I feel this info will enlighten us. The only clue I have been given. "horizontal resonance to be above 2-3Hz but at least 4 to 5Hz below the vertical resonance" TWEAK I have also come up with something that I believe is significant as far as sonics are concerned and requires only a one minute adjustment. This is based on only one listening session but is so easy to try I had to share it. Loosen the end cap bolt (not the leaf spring bolt we have been discussing) just enough to lower the lead weights, so that they are positioned at the bottom half of the spindle; when looking at the arm from the gooseneck side. Once done tighten end cap again. This increases the VTF significantly. You will need to adjust by moving the lead farther out on the I Beam. A good thing. Cheers |
Dover.
:Yes the outcomes are entirely different if the counterweight is fixed....so.
:We have established that it will not be the end of the world for the cartridge if the horizontal mass is increased, this by reference to other arms that are heavy.
:Countary to stated design goals yes.....so.
:While BT designed the cw arm to swing at frequencies below the core arm frequency, it does not neccesariy prove that using 2 springs will result in that criteria being met. It is almost certain that the use of three springs, as Chris did will push the frequency above core.
:I know that BT designed the arm to have the two spring systems, Cart and Counterweight. I just don't think that it is a good idea because they talk to eachother. Has anyone thought about why the CW spring(s) and their damping are so fussy to set up?
:Yes I pulled the resonance graph and math from the net. This because it explains the effects more clearly than the literature we regularly refer to here at my work. Those readers that understand the math will know why I chose a 6 times multiplier.
:My prime reason for fixing the counterweight is to restore the full bass drive. You have in an earlier post talked about not needing response below 30hz and that response in this region can be problematic, or words to that effect. I do want response in that range and yes it can be difficult to sort this area but with effort it can be done and the results are most rewarding.
:We are all biased, it is astonishingly arrogant to suggest that you are not.
Chris.
Agree the room is critical, same for the air feed.
|
Richardkrebs
My view on a stereo system is that it is just a machine. Actually lots of machines chained together to give an output based on inputs. As such it is logical and the output is predictable provided we have sufficient understanding of the machine. ( none of us have sufficient understanding ) Richard - from what I have learned about you, IMO you are one of the few in this hobby that can build and repair your own amps, preamps and TT’s, etc... Fair statement? As an amateur hobbyist I have my ears and memories of trial and error experiences. I agree with you that the actions and reactions that are happening are more predictable to a degree with some knowledge gained. I also agree that none of us have sufficient understanding. If anyone really did word would get around, and there would be a long audiophile line up at the persons door asking for help. Now consider this perspective. I refer to the Quad 57 speaker again just as an example. I have tried multiple amps with them (SS and Tube) out of curiosity; then one day after more research I discovered that Roger Modjeski designed his RM 10 amplifier around their specific needs. I already had his larger RM9 amp which I tried with them briefly, but was concerned about damaging them. Anyway cutting to the result - I now power them with an RM10 and could not be happier. So what I think I have based on what I hear is an amp whose outputs meet the specific needs of this unique speaker. There is a harmony and effortless sound that can be heard. Now consider this. I have placed these 57’s in 4 different rooms with identical gear in front of the Rm10 amp and the 57’s. One room had hardwood floors, one was tiled, 2 were carpeted. Some rooms had drapes, other s only drywall and some pictures. One had wood panelling on one side. Their dimensions all varied and two of them opened up into other rooms. Four different music perspectives resulted in the sounds as far as the music presentation goes. This was all with the same CD player. Now add in vinyl with all its variables to the mix...... The stereo system is a slave to the space/room -imo. Just to be clear here to the readers regarding my impressions I have given. We have been discussing refinements and tweaking for the ET2. In the last 10 years I have owned an ET2 and then added a ET 2.5. In stock form as designed – out of the box this tonearm remains my reference. And fwiw - The greatest sonic bump with the ET2 came for me, when I introduced air delivery with no (very little) resonance (at the pump) and 19 psi was achieved. The ET2 tonearm setup so far for me has been 40% actual tonearm setup fine tuning, and 60% air delivery tweaking. I am sure with the continued info from this thread it will become 50 – 50 soon. Cheers |
Richardkrebs: Yet again I have to address your gross assumptions and misunderstanding of the principles of the ET. Richardkrebs
Frogman and Dover say that they prefer a loose connenction and one leaf spring. Chris says that triple springs produce a sound that is too lean.
Rockport, Walker, Kuzma and I say that there should be no spring at all.
I believe ALL of the above statements as I think that they are actually saying the same thing along a continuum.
It all depends upon the voicing of your system and our biases, and we all have biases. This is absolute rubbish. You are implying that the decoupling and non-decoupling are both valid, when they are not. With the ET2, the outcomes are entirely different and Bruce Thigpen has tested and measured these. The decoupled methodology employed by Bruce Thigpen is designed to minimize horizontal inertia and ensure the resonance of the I beam and counterweight remains below the horizontal resonance of the arm. The rigid coupling of the I beam and counterweight that you advocate is contrary to these stated design goals. Your comment about voicing the system to biases is as presumptuous as it is incorrect. An experienced listener can hear changes in transient speed and accuracy of timbre and timing irrespective of the system. That is how a system should be tuned. Richardkrebs
Double or triple springs push the resonant frequency above the core resonance which is also good. Your statement contradicts research and testing by Bruce Thigpen, and I quote the following email from Bruce Thigpen published above: Bruce Thigpen
Chris,
You always want the horizontal natural frequency of the counterweight to be less than the cartridge/arm resonance, this is the case 98% of the time.
The natural frequency of the I-beam/leaf spring depends on the thickness of the spring, the amount of weight, and where the weight is on the beam. The natural frequency goes down as the weight moves further out on the beam which is where we want it to be.
brucet Richard, clearly you have not done any testing to support your guesswork, otherwise you would have found that 98% of the time you are wrong. If you bothered to read the manual you would see that the double spring is for low compliance cartridges and should be used with the minimum counterweight pushed further out on the I beam to position the resonance of the I beam and counterweight BELOW the horizontal resonance of the arm. Richardkrebs
I have said that I don't think that it is a good idea to have a mass attached to two dissimilar springs who's resonances are in the same neighbourhood. Again, if you bothered to read the manual and Bruce Thigpen’s website, the decoupled counterweight is designed precisely to achieve this. Furthermore on Bruce’s website he has provided extensive test results proving this. Richardkrebs
The transmissibility graph I posted shows the potential nasty consequences of this. I have already explained to you in great length that the mathematical model you refer to, "harmonic oscillators", which you pulled out of wikipedia, does not apply. Let me help you. Read my post of 03-14-13, the first sentence begins Dover
Richardkrebs
OK now I understand where you are going wrong in your thinking. Richardkrebs
At least a 6 x seperation of the two resonant frequencies would a target. Where did you pluck this number from? Why 6 times? Please don't use an incorrect mathematical model again when you attempt to explain. Richardkrebs
We also have to be carefull that we do not go to low with lite springs since we get close to eccentricity frequencies again with possible nasty consequences. Bruce has completed extensive testing and provided clear guidelines on the use of the light spring. He has calculated the resonances and provided extensive guidance. What testing have you done, or is this purely speculative guesswork on your part yet again. Richardkrebs
My early fixed counterweight designs resonated somewhere in the midrange.
Increasing its rigidity more, pushed the resonance above the frequency of audibility. Have you tested this? What resonant frequency did you measure? More guesswork? Richardkrebs
This is desirable and is the final logical progression to the tests that have been listed in this thread. You persist in arguing your unfounded case for fixing the counterweight. Arrant nonsense. To remind readers I repeat: The decoupled methodology employed by Bruce Thigpen is designed to minimize horizontal inertia and ensure the resonance of the I beam and counterweight remains below the horizontal resonance of the arm. The rigid coupling of the I beam and counterweight that you advocate is contrary to these stated design goals. Once again, we go round the block for the umpteenth time. Bruce Thigpen has calculated, tested and measured precisely the resonances of the decoupled I beam and counterweight with a wide variety of cartridges from low to medium to high compliance to determine the level of decoupling required to optimize the cartridges performance. How many times before you get that decoupling is an integral part of the ET2 design and how the arm is engineered to optimize performance. You are clearly out of your depth. You persist in misapplying physics and just don’t seem to be able to comprehend the design. Do you run your car on 3 wheels? You have resorted to implying that readers who have tried removing the decoupling and found it to be detrimental are either fixing up defects in their system or have biases. That is an arrogant assumption, and reflects poorly of your estimation of the contributors to this thread. |
My view on a stereo system is that it is just a machine. Actually lots of machines chained together to give an output based on inputs. As such it is logical and the output is predictable provided we have sufficient understanding of the machine. ( none of us have sufficient understanding )
What we are talking about here is a small part of the machine. The coupling, decoupling of a counterweight on a linear arm.
Frogman and Dover say that they prefer a loose connenction and one leaf spring.
Chris says that triple springs produce a sound that is too lean.
Rockport, Walker, Kuzma and I say that there should be no spring at all.
I believe ALL of the above statements as I think that they are actually saying the same thing along a continuum.
It all depends upon the voicing of your system and our biases, and we all have biases.
Also an improvement can actually sound worse as it can expose more clearly problems elsewhere in the machine chain. Sometimes when we open the window wider, we do not like what we see. We then need to work on the new "view" to correct a previously unseen problem. It does not mean that the original change was wrong
I have said that I don't think that it is a good idea to have a mass attached to two dissimilar springs who's resonances are in the same neighbourhood. The transmissibility graph I posted shows the potential nasty consequences of this. At least a 6 x seperation of the two resonant frequencies would a target.
Using one spring lightly coupled to the spindle pushes the resonant frequency down below the arms core resonance. This is good. (As Frogman points out, there may be other factors at play here with the loose screws.) Double or triple springs push the resonant frequency above the core resonance which is also good.
We have to be carefull when using stiffer springs that we don't move too close to the audio spectrum, since the same transmissibility graph data will bite us. We also have to be carefull that we do not go to low with lite springs since we get close to eccentricity frequencies again with possible nasty consequences. So what if we pushed the resonant frequency up above the audio spectrum. We have no risk of any of the issues I raise here.
My early fixed counterweight designs resonated somewhere in the midrange. It was easy to hear adding a nice, but not accurate bloom to voice and midrange instrumemts. If my system was not already "full" in this range I may have stopped experimenting, thinking that the arm was acurate. Increasing its rigidity more, pushed the resonance above the frequency of audibility. This is desirable and is the final logical progression to the tests that have been listed in this thread.
Gnnett. Do you live in AKL? It would be nice to meet. You can contact me directly via my web page if you wish. |
For me the room/space dictate our preferences above everything else. Just to be clear - my statement is very "biased" and it is based on my personal audio hobby experiences over the years. cheers |
03-23-13: Gnnett
When I look at the pictures of RK's arm I do not see an ET2. It is something specifically crafted and tuned to his system. It is not a universal tonearm. A little bit like the highly modified ET1 that Lloyd Walker uses actually. Grantn – I thought your observation was a really interesting one. You mentioned the ET1. It has a very interesting history. As a reference point here I feel it is important to understand the transition from the ET1 to the ET2. Especially since we have been debating Rigid versus Sprung I Beams/Counterweights. ET1 - is Heavier and Rigid ET2 - Lighter and Sprung I skipped through the ET1 manual from Bruces’ site. Anyone interested in Tonearm Resonances and Testing of Resonances should see pages 49 and onward. It is much more detailed than the ET2 manual in this respect and the tests apply to all tonearms in general. So why did Bruce to go from an ET1 to an ET2. Do the design and specs themselves tell enough story? There are big differences between the ET1 and ET2. Actual tonearm tube/headshell weight is more on the ET1. The small counterweights on the ET1 are actually the large size on the ET2. The spindle weights are the same. ************************************************************ ET1 specs. Spindle Weight 14 grams Tonearm Tube Weight 14 grams / Headshell weight 5 grams Counterbalance Weight 15 grams small 30 grams large. ************************************************************ ET2 specs Spindle Weight 14 grams Tonearm Tube Weight 11 grams Counterbalance weights 5 grams small and 15 grams large. ************************************************************ Has anyone heard an ET1 versus ET2 ? Cheers Chris |
Frogman
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. Frogman your observations mirror mine. Here are some personal impressions in my specific 2 rooms. BTW - Bruce has confirmed to me that adding a double spring raises the resonant frequency of the I Beam Counterweight. Two rooms set up with an ET2 and ET 2.5. First room The ET 2.5 is in a room with gear that I am able to pressurize easily and hear the bass nodes by walking around all on fours. I can locate where the bass is fullest and over powering. I can also find the spot where the nulls are. By experimenting over 19 years with multiple speakers I have found for this room only; the spots that give me minimal resonances at my listening chair, based on where I position the speakers. A key to my own audio madness 1) a dedicated room and 2) a listening chair that can be moved forward and backward multiple feet to adjust for soundstage/sweetspot differences between differently engineered music sources (whether they be on lp, cd, or tape) and different cartridges. Anyone that has ever heard a 420 str for the first time is aware of the stark differences in soundstage presentation it provides. I had to move my nearfield listening chair back a few feet from the first listen to the 420 str. What if your chair is up against wall..... I prefer the double spring in general in this first room. The bass is tighter as you say – mids and highs are clear, the bass nodes don’t last as long with the double spring. The triple spring was even more extreme in this regard. It became too lean however as I posted a couple of posts back. Second Room – much larger (adjacent to room one) An ET 2.0 setup with gear that provides for full sound through the mids and highs, but needs help with two subs for the lowest octave with certain music. They are Quad 57 speakers. I cannot pressurize this room no matter what I do – reason is - firstly the space is too big and open and 2) my wifes TV room is close to it above and adjacent to it a ways. :^( I prefer the single leaf spring in this second room. The bass is fuller as Frogman said, but in my case as the space is larger it allows IMO for bass waves to dissipate, not bounce around causing problems. This also means harder surfaces can be used in the room to allow for clearer highs. For me the room/space dictate our preferences above everything else. TORQUING OF THE ET2 LEAF SPRING USING DOVERS METHOD I untorqued the single leaf spring in room 2 last night per Dovers recent post and the sound seemed to get even more fuller. The change was noticeable. I will experiment more with this. Dover thanks for this detail it is really appreciated. Heath Robinson Belt Drive I really like Grantn's sense of humor :^) Welcome to the thread Grantn. I have learned alot from Richard and Dover in the last few weeks. Cheers Chris |
