i,m thinking of adding the damping trough to my et-2. bruce's literature seems to indicate it should be a big improvement but once it's installed it's there for good. any thoughts?
According to their own instructions its attached by adhesive, which if you apply only light pressure can be repositioned. So you could try it and then if you like it press it more securely. http://www.eminent-tech.com/Manuals/ET2damping.pdf Actually it even says heavy finger pressure will "almost permanently" secure it. So its not there forever after all. Unless they have changed something....
imo - the quick answer is it "depends" on how you have your ET2 setup, with what cartridge you are using.
Some history first The first ET2's came out when MM's were popular. The same year CD's were introduced..... 8^0 Great timing - Still over 2500 out there. Imagine if digital was not around for another 5 years?
Anyway - So all early ET 2.0's had aluminum armwands. Bruce' tests with the damping trough reflect this armwand.
If you are using an aluminum wand, especially with later MC Carts, the damping trough is an improvement in resonances. Years past I found the results very audible, and the amount of oil used directly effects how much damping is done.
The oil trough can be left on - you just turn the paddle screw in or out, so it is either touching or not touching the oil.
Note If someone has a Cat or Dog and or Pet, or other that sheds, the hairs, other floating material will find its way into the trough. The nature of the hobby. static, other, ensures this.
Now, Later advanced ET 2.0 and 2.5 setups use different Armwands (Carbon Fiber and Magnesium), and different Leaf spring setups so they match up well with the Cartridge being used. This is discussed in detail on the ET2 tonearm owners thread.
While the adhesive on the trough is very aggressive, it will (or can) dry out and lose its grip over time. However, this could be decades.
Using the trough with a magnesium arm and a Decca Gold cartridge resulted in no sonic difference here, so unless you have an early aluminum wand, I'm inclined to agree with ct0517 about its usefulness.
Heed ct0517’s advice on all things ET2. I would add that using the trough with the magnesium or carbon fiber warms may actually do more harm than simply negate the need for it by overdamping. In my particular setup it caused the music to sound overly covered and lacking hf air. With the aluminum wand (and my cartridges) it was a definite improvement.
Dear @frogman : I’m not an expert with the ET-2 that I owned many many years ago.
""" need for it by overdamping.... """
overdamping?, why overdamping?. If that " damping " does not affects the normal and " free tonearm/cartridge movements from where could came that overdamping " ?
Feedback of resonances/vibrations in the cartridge ridding the LP surface are the ones that affect/degrades the more the quality of recorded signal. The " ideal " is that those resonances/vibrations and generated distortions can disappear and if the " damping " helps in some " quantity " to that " disappears " that is a good thing.
"" music to sound overly covered and lacking hf air. "
I can’t " see " the existence of overdamping but more that what you are listening is what is in the recording.
What we need is that the cantilever movements ridding the LP recorded modulations stays that way: whit only those modulations with out that " terrible " and always existent feedback that the cartridge takes as " modulations movements ".
Have you a different explanation that that non existent overdamping?
Dear @frogman : " it does ": that could explain that " overdamping " you named but what I can't understand yet because ( again ) I'm not an ET2 expert is:
"""
With the aluminum wand (and my cartridges) it was a definite improvement. """
Could that means that the ET2 with aluminum has a different overall design other than the aluminum build material down there?
because if it's the same overall design but the aluminum wand build material then : why an improvement when the damping affects ( " it does ". ) the normal and free tonearm/cartridge movements? which could your explanation about?
First, let’s establish that “overdamping” is necessarily a subjective term; well, at least the results are. Personally, I am not interested in convincing anyone of what “neutral” is. I know what I consider that to be and my observations and comments reflect that. Someone may prefer a sound that to me is covered and lacking hf air; or, one that, as I often hear, too bright and thin. Moreover, in the context of a system that is thin and bright sounding overall the result of overdamping at the tonearm/cartridge may APPEAR to bring the tonal balance closer to a particular user’s idea of what “neutral” sound is. Of course, overdamping can cause other sonic problems that may or may not be important to that listener.
**** Could that means that the ET2 with aluminum has a different overall design other than the aluminum build material down there? ****
I don’t know what you mean by “down there”, but if you are suggesting that the different materials would not, by themselves, have different sonic signatures then I would have to disagree. There are three different arm wand materials available each also having a different weight and necessarily different resonance characteristics. The magnesium arm wand is the heaviest and recommended for low compliance MC cartridges. All this is very analogous 😉 to what is being discussed currently in the “Diamond cantilever” thread and I think that a lot of the same principles apply. Re my comment:
**** With the aluminum wand (and my cartridges) it was a definite improvement. ****
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Please note that I wrote “was”. That suggests that I no longer use the damping trough since I have been using high compliance MM cartridges of late and the use of the trough robs too much hf air from the sound. This is what I referred to as “overdamping”. When I used the aluminum wand with MC’s the trough was beneficial; it helped control the high frequencies. When I acquired the heavier magnesium wand (not recommended for MM’s) the result with low compliance MC’s was much better than when used with MM’s, but when using the trough the result was also the reduction of hf air and detail. It all seems obvious to me.
I hope that clarifies things for you. Perhaps Chris can chime in; I’m sure he can do a better job than I explaining all this.
Hi Frogman/Raul - hope this helps a little. I needed the rehash. Let’s try to understand this better and hopefully in words that anyone reading this can understand.
So we know it’s a resonance, vibration hobby - playing records. As far as the tonearm/cartridge combination mechanics on their own - it’s a spring system, with a natural occurring frequency -Resonant Frequency. Thinking about a tuning fork helps. A stiff tuning fork resonates high. Like a stiff MC cart with its low compliance cantilever. A "less" stiff tuning fork resonates lower - like a less stiff MM high compliance cart.
This shiny piece of black vinyl record is not perfect as we know. Non-centered center holes that cause speed and other issues, warps, scratches..... but if we look closely when the record spins, surface irregularities exist. Bruce discusses this in the damping trough manual. These irregularities are not part of the cutting process, but the molding process in making the record. You can see the small ripples on the surface as the record turns. These ripples excite the "natural resonant frequency" of the tonearm/cart. combination being used. We want these resonances (which are not in the recorded music) to remain well below 20 hz where we can’t hear them. When a tonearm and cart are badly matched - resonances will rise and could and do cause problems. if the system is resolving enough it will be heard. Bruce did measurements and found most tonearm/cart combinations give rise to the frequency some as high as 8db with high Q. Ok this is technical. Applies to speakers also, and this number would not be tolerated there. Yet no one has ever discussed it with vinyl play. 8^0... Anyway, the result of this resonant rise, he called the "Effects" - and they can be subtle and sometimes not so subtle - reproduced on our systems. The Effects can cause a phase shift. Put simply the time the low frequency signals come from the tonearm/cart, are slightly shifted from the mid-range frequencies within the audible range, and substantially shifted up to several periods of resonance. Bruce measured near perfect low frequency phase response when the original ET 2.0 was used with the damping trough.
************************************************
The first ET 2.0 with "aluminum" armwand came out when MM’s were popular. So.....1) aluminum armwand with 2) MM cartridge, and 3) single leaf spring. The three are a good match in resonant natural frequency. Then stiffer lower compliance higher resonant MC’s arrived, and the damping trough was introduced.
*************************************************
TAKEN FROM THE DAMPING TROUGH MANUAL .
Please note that the tonearm now responds much more slowly due to fluid damping.
A low frequency sweep was performed twice on the tonearm, once without the damping trough and once with the damping trough. The cartridge used was of very low compliance and the tonearm was set up so that a high amplitude high Q resonance existed. The results of the test show a reduction in the amplitude of the resonance of about 8 dB (horizontal). Not shown is the vertical resonance which was 15Hz with this cartridge and was reduced about 2 dB.
**************************************** In due course Bruce introduced the larger bored out ET 2.5 (lower resonant frequency air bearing manifold) with Carbon Fiber and Magnesium armwands were introduced, along with the double and triple leaf (stiffer leaf) springs to deal with stiffer higher resonant MC. So - Likewise the ET 2.5 with Magnesium wand mated with double or triple leaf spring, mated to a high compliance MM is a bad match.
*************************************** The first ET 2, the 2.0 version. with "aluminum armwand", and low compliance MC cart produces higher resonances - and is a bad match. Frogman confirmed this with his findings here.
****************************************
There are folks on the ET2 thread that are using an ET 2.0 with aluminum wand and MC and single leaf spring, and do not have a damping trough. Most have made other mods - either to the headshell or armwand to compensate. So anything is possible but we really do need details on gear setup here, when people give their opinions. For it to be helpful to other people. This is not plug and play. Vinyl never was in the higher end.
Remember we have no idea what lies downstream of the turntable in peoples homes and how the rest of the audio chain matches up to what is before. This helps to explain the infinite opinions on this forum. This link in the ET2 Tonearm Owners thread, shows the setup to be followed for MM and MC carts - endorsed by BruceThigpen. We called it one of the yellow sticky guidelines
Dear @ct0517@frogman : I understand the issue of tonearm/cartridge resonace frequency.
"""
Please note that the tonearm now responds much more slowly due to fluid damping.... """
That could affects in some way the freely cartridge stylus ridding the recorded LP surface but for forgman " overdamps " with the other wands but aluminum where is an improvement.
That does not makes " click " for me with foundation in my premise in my first post here.
I don't know you but I need to find out a different explanation/reasons for that " behavior " because resonat frequency can't explain it at least for me. Why in the same scenario where only changed the wand something has an " improvement " and something " an " overdampiong "? this is the subject of what I need an explanation because I'm ignorant about with that tonearm/cartridges combinations.
Raul - firstly - what I like to keep in mind for myself. It helps me is this. All around us are materials that have their own resonant frequency. Now when something is made - with multiple materials, like a tonearm or a cartridge, the resonant frequency becomes that of all the materials, and it depends on what percentages of each material that went into making that tonearm or cartridge. We then join those two - tonearm and cartridge - we get another resonant frequency, and then they interface with something - in this case the vinyl record.
When they are put against a moving vinyl record which is not perfect, and has imperfections I discussed previously - like the ripples; these imperfections, since this is a vibration resonance activity - EXCITE - the resonances. You can see how much in the graph.
That could affects in some way the freely cartridge stylus ridding the recorded LP surface but for forgman " overdamps " with the other wands but aluminum where is an improvement
Look at the graph in my previous post. It describes this scenario. That was a low compliance cartridge set up to produce a lot of resonance with the aluminum armwand. The oil trough smoothed out the resonances. It helped. Now if the carbon fiber or magnesium wand was used instead with the trough, because of these armwands lower frequencies the damping trough would probably have been too much. The results would not have been good and I believe this is what Frogman experienced. Maybe Frogman can elaborate here if what I am saying is off.
Dear @ct0517 : Through my audio years I learned that well damped tonearms designs always performs and sounds better that non-damped ones.
I remember at least the experiences with 3-4 of my tonearms: Micro Seiki MAX, SME V and Audiocraft where all gives you the posibility to handle damping through silicone oil.
MAX 282: I started to listen it with out the external silicon damping and was just great using any of its 3 diferent arm wands.
One day I put silicon in the tray to look what happens with and what I listened did not like me: suddenly the sound losted " life ", gone in the dark side near severe dull response. I was disapointed and return to listen with out silicone oil.
In those times I owned too the Audiocraft unit and made the same with similar results, I did not like it with more damping.
Latter on and with more attended events of live music and with experiences seated at near field position I came back to my MAX unit and try again the silicon oil and left that way for 2-3 weeks because after the first week I started to appreciated the true advantages of the damping silicon oil.
Where I listened the first advantage was precisely in the bass range that came tighter, precise, not bloated and with no overhang and this makes that the overall frequency ranges stays truer to what I listened in a live event. The Audiocraft experiences were similar.
Through the time the tonearm damping is a must for me. I own/owned non-damped tonearm as the FR/SAEC and differences for the bad/wrong are truly high vs damped tonearms.
But guess what? several/many audiophiles prefer non-damped tonearms or not very well damped ones.
It's almost imposible to overdamp a tonearm because is extremely dificult to stop/inert the horizontal movements due to LP off-centered, the friction forces generated at the stylus tip and the inner oriented vector generated for th LP spin velocity. Overdamping could means problems with cartridge ridding that we can listen it as a mistracking often events and with my very good damped tonearms the good tracking cartridges even are better trackers and I tested with several LPs like the Telarc 1812 where you can listen with more clarity and precision the cannon shots so the harmonics developed are more open/cleAnsed and this helps A lot to the whole frequency range: bettter overall quality level performance.
The SME uses magnesium build material that's very well self damped material and even that the optional silicon oil external damping always sounds better than with out silicon oil.
The Townshed TT is the more radical example of tonearm damping becuse it happens at the nearest position to the cartridge you can do it and you can hear its very high advantage in the damping regards.
Yes, the damping works diferent with diferent tonearm build materials. Aluminum is more resonant than magnesium so we can hear higher improvements in aluminum than with magnesium but even with magnesium or other less resonant materials always we can listen the damping advantages and its whole benefits.
That we can like the more with out than with is something that I experienced and truly convinced I was way wrong.
I have experiences with other tonearms and results are similar when are well damped and when are non-damped.
For the people, normally, the non-damped are more alive with more detail and better HF but all these alive and the like are only additional generated distortions/resonances/vibrations.
The ET2 designer knows very well what I'm talking about as Townshed too.
In the analog rig our enemy are: resonances/vibrations/generated distortions, so we need the best damping we can in the TT it self, arm board, tonearm, cartridge and the LP surface contact.
I don't know if you remember that Sumiko had on sale a very flexible and low weigth belt-like that was used in helicoidal way around any tonearm wand to function as an additional damping and guess what: it works wonderful !!!!
My advice to the OP is: go a head with the ET2 damping trough.
At the headshell is the most effective location to apply a damping system to a tonearm/cartridge, for reasons explained in the writings on the design of the Townshend Audio Rock turntables, currently out-of-production. But the Rock is not usable with linear tracking arms, only pivoted ones.
Raul - while acknowledging your experience using damping troughs with pivot arms, you need to recognize that the ET 2.0 and ET 2.5 are unlike any pivot arm, especially when discussing resonances, damping troughs and their effect on Q. They are unique among air bearing linear trackers as well. Bruce Thigpen has done extensive measurements not just on the ET 2.0 and 2.5 but including many pivot tonearms.
*****************************************
Mass from different wands changes the resonance frequency, but has very little effect on Q, (the sharpness of a rise in response). A pivoted arm sums the vertical and horizontal resonance frequencies (because of the pivot, they are the same value). The typical rise at the resonant frequency of a pivoted arm will be 12-18dB. Audio Magazine published these figures when they tested tonearms from around 1965 until they ceased publication in 2000.
The ET-2 or 2.5 by comparison splits the resonance into two different frequencies, one for vertical and one for horizontal, (the math and discussion are in the tonearm manual) so they do not sum and the rise is usually about 6-8dB which is much better. This results in a lower wow and flutter figure (about half) when you compare an ET-2 with any pivoted tonearm on the same turntable.
-brucet
*******************************************
So Audio Magazine published these figures when they tested tonearms from around 1965 until they ceased publication in 2000. Would you or anyone else reading this - have magazines from that period that show results ?
Anyway Raul, if interested to come up to speed on the ET 2 and 2.5, a good start is with the technical section of the manual. Then I would recommend doing a search on yellow stickies in the ET 2 thread.
The decision for an ET2 owner on whether to use the trough is like having your cake and eating it to. It’s not a this or that scenario, but both. As discussed in this thread already, the oil trough paddle - is a screw design and can be raised to dis-engage and lowered to engage the oil.
It does add 18 gms so putting it on a lightly sprung table like a Linn needs to be considered.
Great explanations from Chris as always. The only thing that I would add re the issue of “overdamping” is that the best results for me were achieved with the “paddle” just skimming the surface of the fluid. The paddle can be adjusted up and down and if adjusted so that it sinks too far into the fluid it literally killed transient response. Not only were high frequencies dulled, but dynamics suffered and the music became lifeless.
Dear @ct0517 : """
When they are put against a moving vinyl record which is not perfect, and has imperfections I discussed previously - like the ripples; these imperfections, since this is a vibration resonance activity - EXCITE - the resonances. """
It does not matters almost all what you posted because linear tracking or pivoted tonearm designs those resonances exist and here we are not discussing if in the pivoted ones are higher or not what we are discussing is the existence of those resonances/distortions that exist in the ET tonearm and that damping helps a lot for a better overall quality performance levels.
As I said in normal use we can't overdamp a tonearm and what frogman like it or not is just what he like it or not but in some way deny the damping function and like me frogman is only an opinion and nothing more.
Btw, you do not yet post/share your experiences with your system regarding the use of that ET damping that Bruce promotes.
Raul, I realize that your audio system is perfection exemplified to the degree that only components which are themselves perfect and absolutely neutral in the truest sense of the word and completely free of distortions of any kind merit their inclusion. Additionally, on a perfect system such as this adjustments of any kind, including resonance control, are unnecessary since perfection obviously cannot be improved upon. I have sadly resigned myself to the reality that an audio peon such as myself has to attempt to maximize the performance of the lowly components in my audio system by nudging their aggregate sound in the direction of what more than fifty years around the sound of live acoustic instruments (for probably an average of four hours each and every day) tells my ears what neutrality (musicality) truly is. Affirmation and the silver lining for me is that in the case of my chosen tone arm the designer of this piece of audio genius agrees with what those ears are telling me. Saludos.
Raul - what are you trying to gain from this thread ? I thought it was to learn about ET2 damping, which means to me, learning about how resonances affect the tonearm, and how it deals with them. Apparently not from your response. The OP of the thread got his answer a long time ago. So whats your objective here ?
Dear @ct0517 : I appreciated your posts, now you ask for my objective here but you did not answer my question about your own experiences with that ET damping that the designer promotes for good reasons.
I'm talking that in normal conditions we can't overdamp a cartridge/tonearm combination and that's why I made my question to you that till now there is no answer.
I know that the OP already has answers to his thread subject.
Seems to me that for any unknow reason for me you don't want to give the critical damping importance in any analog rig and especially at the cartridge/tonearm scenario.
Again, which are you experienced with the Bruce damping addition to the ET tonearm and different cartridges you own?
As I posted the true enemy that we have ( is a must to. ) to " figth against it and try to win in any analog rig are: generated resonace/vibration/developed distortion, named as you like or want it.
My question to you is still there. Thank's in advance.
@frogman my system is far away to be perfect and that's why for me the damping issue is so important as for the same reason try to let at minimum on it every kind of resonance/vibration/distortion in and at each single link in my room/system.
"""
tells my ears what neutrality """, well in my understanding in room/audio systems just does not exist a true " neutrality ", I think that as me some other music lovers/audiophiles are in the quest/look for that neutrality that can puts me nearer to the recording and then nearer to the lievent where the recording microphones pick-up the recorded signal in the LP grooves.
I think that all we know that in any room/system and no matters what we can't mimic the characteristics that only the live MUSIC has. Not in your system and certainly not in mine.
raulireugas Dear @frogman : I’m not an expert with the ET-2 that I owned many many years ago.
frogman On that point, we agree.
raulireugas **** If that " damping " does not affects the normal and " free tonearm/cartridge movements ****
Frogman It does.
From the damping trough manual
Please note that the tonearm now responds much more slowly due to fluid damping.
The ET2 maker designer and Frogman are telling you Raul that the tonearm movement is affected.
**************************** Getting philosophical now One can only assume at this point that you hold such strong biases, that you refuse to believe the movement of the tonearm can be affected by the damping. This is not a pivot point in a tray that holds some oil.
Picture two people going across a lake on a canoe. Only the front person is paddling. Then the back person who has been enjoying the scenery chooses to just stick his paddle in the water and keep it still - will it affect the course of the canoe. Of course it will. The back paddle is the paddle in the trough of oil and it moves along with the air bearing spindle.
***************************** You ask me about my experiences. I say dont be lazy. go to - forum.audiogon.com on your computer/phone/tablet
place "Et2 damping" in the search field and you will find "114" responses.
Many are mine. Some are Frogmans, some are R Krebs, some Dover, etc....
God only knows what I have posted in the past. I do not give my family my name here. 8^0....lol
My virtual system shows pictures and details of my cartridges you request. Pic 31 shows the damping trough. Good ? good....now
******************************************
raulireugas I posted the true enemy that we have ( is a must to. ) to " figth against it and try to win in any analog rig are: generated resonace/vibration/developed distortion, named as you like or want it.
if this is really something you mean, then you owe it to yourself to set up an ET 2.o or 2.5 on one of your multiple tables with multiple tonearms showing in your virtual system, that house not ONE proper linear tracker. This shows to me a BIASED person. Now you can name your favorite cartridge and we can help - will instruct you on how to assemble it - ET 2 or 2.5, which armwand, which leaf spring. 3 things to consider. You see Raul - set up is three dimensional...... eh....8^0 ,,,think about it. Maybe you are not looking for new adventures ?
These days my priority is to get through as much of my music collection as I can through the winter months. In the Audiophile days and today still anyway - I am in the camp for the cleanest signal output from my turntable; then ....and this is the very important part.... the remaining chain components are selected and positioned to support THIS. You see Raul, when your system kit has been set up in this fashion - the Q Resonance Bumps discussed here of my pivot arms owned became very obvious to anyone listening. Now, IMO if anyone’s gear - speakers/amp/ preamp have a harder time pressurizing their space - sometimes this Q resonance bump can be welcome; But it is not part of the music - it is equipment resonance - distortion. It wasn’t on the tape for one thing. I remember to this day when running with the Quad 57’s and two subs - that the subs for the FR64 tonearm needed a different subs setting than the ET 2.0 and R2R that was running in that room concurrently. The bass resonance with the FR64 was emphasized - Q resonance. I did not need it in that space. The VPI JMW 12 had similar characteristics.
Raul you have inspired me to post another Yellow Sticky on the ET2 thread.
Raul, this is possibly not the place for this ancillary discussion, so apology to the OP for the diversion.
I could not disagree more with your premise, as you often state, concerning “faithfulness to the recording”. First, of course it is true that complete neutrality is not possible from an audio system; but, it most certainly can be mimicked. Mimicking the characteristics of live music is, after all, the goal of our hobby, is it not? We try and get as close to it as possible. The reason that I believe your premise is mistaken is simple. The damage that the recording process does to the sound of music and the resulting deviations from “neutrality” are FAR greater than differences in sound from one performance/recording venue to another. One can become intimately familiar with the sound of live music and be able to make a fairly good assessment of how far from neutrality the sound coming out of our speakers strays from neutrality. However, when one considers the number of variables that impact the sound of the original event during the recording process due to everything from the particular mics used, cables, board, sound processing equipment, recording device, mastering, pressing and on and on, not to mention the choices made by the recording engineer, the important question remains: HOW DO YOU KNOW? How do you know what the actual sound is on the recording after being subjected to all those unknowns; and, just as importantly, is now going to be subject to the imperfections of your audio system and listening room?
By your own admission your system is “far away to be perfect”. They all are. In my experience the problem is usually that most audiophiles don’t appreciate the extent to which sound systems deviate from the sound of live. The deviation is huge. The best we can do is, in fact, to try and mimic that sound. The best and really the only way to accomplish that is to use the sound of live as a reference and accept the fact that, as much as we would like to think otherwise, it is all a sonic soup to which one adds or subtracts a little of this and a little of that in order to achieve a balance that mimics the real as closely as possible.
Dear @frogman : """
HOW DO YOU KNOW? How do you know what the actual sound is on the recording after being subjected to all those unknowns;..."""
I did not. My common sense tells me that if at each link in my room/system I try/put all kind of distortions generated, by the room/system, at minimum then I can be nearer to the recording. That's all.
"""
that mimics the real as closely as possible. """
Dear @ct0517 : I know that the ET designer is not even close ( it's far away ) to be a " stupid " gentleman that designed and promotes a damping way in his tonearm where he took the time in the design, manufacture it and the time to make the measurements to confirm that it works and he is not alone in the damping issue because almost all tonearm designers take in count with seriously and almost always the damping ( one way or the other ) appears in their designs.
So, what's all about your last post?
Here is not about linear tracking vs pivoted tonearm designs and it's not about which kind of those different tonearm designs needs higher or lower damping.
The subject is that both needs some kind of damping to reduce resonance/vibration or distortions: this is the damping target and this is what I try to say through my posts.
Why almost all the time when taliking of tonearms you have to develop a " tale " around the ET. I don't care about ET or linear tracking tonearms any more. I don't know in the future if I can change my interest about.
I posted a question to you: which are your experiences with the damping in your room system with the ET and you decided not to give a direct answer?
Frogman did it and you just can't write: I don't like it or bad experiences or I like it. Simple as that. At the end and with all respect I don't care if you like it or not because that does not change the damping necessity in any tonearm design no matters what.
no one is at fault Raul when we are in learn mode. the forum mode here makes discussion challenging sometimes. Especially when I am not able to link pictures from my virtual system into a forum thread. I am forced to add a picture to my external google account and link it.
I mentioned that this is a 3 dimensional setup - meaning 3 aspects need to be considered.
1) armwand which you reference.
2) leafs springs on the I beam that hold the weights. these are small flat leaf springs that we attach to the I beam that holds the weights. We match the spring compliance to the cantilever compliance SO - 1 leaf is the most springy / compliant- for MM carts. 2 or 3 leafs joined together become firmer and match well to MC carts with stiffer cantilevers. . 3) ET 2.0 and 2.5 - the air bearing manifold in the 2.5 holds a larger diameter air bearing spindle. It resonates lower. think of hitting two hollow pipes - one is 1/2 inch the other one inch. The one inch pipe will resonate lower and it matches better to MC carts as they are stiffer than MM and resonate higher. We need to bring their resonances down.
I will be posting an ET2 Damping Yellow Sticky on the ET2 thread soon and leave open discussion questions there as well.
I am hoping that you liked my Tale of the Canoe ride going across the lake. It was trying to show what the trough paddle is doing. See picture 31 of my virtual system for a visual of this picture.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
