TONEARM DAMPING : DAMPED OR NOT ? ? USELESS ? ? WELCOMED ? ?

The question is whether boron nitride coated titanium (if that’s what Technics used) is superior to other materials for dissipating energy, not so much whether it can be bent by a human exerting strength to bend it. I doubt many arm wands of any kind except maybe steel ones could resist such an effort. Certainly aluminum, wood, and CF wands could be easily bent.

says that is the best ever tonearm arm wand by its rigidity and low resonant figures but the Technics EPA 100MK2 was and is in reality the best one about by its boron arm wand that has better characteristics than sapphire 

Wrong.

The Technics EPA 100MK2 is predominantly a titanium arm tube with a boron coating. Titanium is not rigid, it flexes, you can bend a titanium tube with your bare hands. How do I know this - I use to work for the largest manufacturer of titanium tubing on the planet.

On the other hand the high mass of the Safir would be a concern to me.

Dear @rsf507  : In theory the sapphire used in the arm wand Kuzma tonearm could helps for the tonearm been " well damped " but those 60grs. in EM goes against the cartridge needs matching resonance frequency inside the ideal frequency range: 8hz-12hz and in the other side that really high inertia moment is nothing good for the cartridge ridding and its suspension in higher ways than in more normal tonearms.

Kuzma says that is the best ever tonearm arm wand by its rigidity and low resonant figures but the Technics EPA 100MK2 was and is in reality the best one about by its boron arm wand that has better characteristics than sapphire and not so weigthy and for that synthetic sapphire arm wand Kuzma ask 20K for its tonearm.

I can say that " on paper " I do not buy even at 2K tag price.

R.

Raul, in alluding to the fact that “some” of the respondents have conflated tonearm to cartridge matching based on the standard resonant frequency calculation with how tonearms control energy put into them by the act of playing an LP, I certainly did not mean to include you. But I do maintain those are two different phenomena. Which might explain why occasionally a tonearm to cartridge mating that seems ill advised based only on the resonant frequency math can actually sound very good, if both elements are isolated from those frequencies below the audio band that might excite the pairing. I hope I’ve made my thought more clear.

I haven't read thru this entire thread.....sorry but been listening to music. Have a question. Why doesn't the new Kuzma Safir 9 arm not use damping fluid like 4POINT? Also have seen on other sites where people that own the 4POINT have actually removed the top dampening trough that they say improves sonics. Curious others thoughts.

Dear @lewm : First I’m not attaking you.

" are mixing together two different phenomena "

In my latest post I was not mixing anything but only said:

" It’s not that the cartridge /tonearm match can achieve that absolute necessary FREE MOVEMENT in the ridding cartridge stylus but that along that match the tonearm ( any ) must be a well damped design. "

both phenomena must exist always, no matters what and there is no conflict.

Btw, I’m talking for me. All those is only about the cartridge/tonearm but we must add that always we need a good damping TT mat and a good damping clamp as the reflex Bais audio and that the TT be well damped at its plynth and the plattform that's supporting it and we need not forget the tonearm arm mount that needs be well damped too.

R.

What did I just write that’s in conflict with what you just wrote? And I know very well how you feel about the FR64S. Nothing I just wrote was in defense of the FR. Try to work on understanding my English before needlessly attacking it.

Dear @lewm  : Certainly you had not experiences with the main subject thread and seems that you did not read carefully may latest posts.

It's not that the cartridge /tonearm match can does achieve that absolute necessary FREE MOVEMENT in the ridding cartridge stylus but that along that match the tonearm ( any ) must be a well damped design.

When we achieve those the rewards are unimaginable specially for audiophiles with out the " very good damped tonearm design ". NO, your love for the FR and the 505 is only " your love " but it's full of distortions/colorations that you love and that's all. It's wrong to use that kind of audio items if we want to stay nearer to the recording and as always that's my target and when any one achieve that target he will has an experience in MUSIC reproduction way better than never before. Of course that that gentleman needs to own a good room/system with high resolution and obviously with very good first hand experiences with live MUSIC events seated at near field position.

I still own your FR and owned the 505, that's why I'm posting about. 

R.

In reading through this thread after so many months of its existence, it seems to me that most commenters are mixing together two different phenomena. The first is the resonant frequency that we calculate from tonearm effective mass and cartridge compliance. This resonance we want to lie in the range 8 to 12Hz, or very close to it. This resonance will not "happen" unless vibrational energy in the range of the resonant frequency is fed into the "system", defining the system as the tonearm/cartridge and anything attached to the tonearm or cartridge. Energy at or near that resonant frequency will excite the unwanted response. The second kind of resonance would be that which results from playing music, where a wide range of audible frequencies (but almost never in the range of 8 to 12Hz) is constantly being fed into the system due to the contact between stylus and groove where the frequencies are encoded and due also to any source of acoustic feedback in the listening room. Seems to me it is this latter source of resonance(s) that we want to control or eliminate, so the conventional matching of tonearm and cartridge based on effective mass and compliance is not so primary in this pursuit.

As a result, you could have a tonearm/cartridge that are well matched based on the equation that predicts "resonant frequency", but the combination may sound bad due to the excitation of undamped or inadequately damped resonances caused by higher audio frequencies. You could also have a tonearm/cartridge that are a bad match based on the standard equation based on tonearm effective mass and cartridge compliance but sounds wonderful (so long as it is isolated from the sub-audio frequencies that excite the inherent resonance), because the tonearm is well damped or otherwise built to avoid resonances excited at audio frequencies.

Dear @lohanimal  :  You are rigth that perhaps I need to experience in my system the Townshend one but  my point is what said the tonearm patent that whith other words I understand like this:

" different damping levels at frequency ranges with the trough at the cartridge position and at the same time allowing for " free movement " at the cartridge stylus  "

Both actions can't live together or is dampened or exist that critical and extremely important FREE MVEMENT but not both together.

As everything in audio exist trade offs that I'm not discovery yet in my well damped tonearms with out the trough. Till today in all frequency ranges with the " free movement " Ithe system achieved a not tiny improvement and the better of those improvement started with the low bass that's the one range that puts/colored all what in any room/system we are listening.

Now, I gone from 500Kc silicon density to zero silicon damping. I know that I need try something from 10K and from there make more tests and this will take some weeks or months to have a conclusion because is not to easy to clean up the tray to change new density silicon along that my test proccess is a little with long time.

R.

The original Excalibur arm was plagued with bearing issues. I know this because I used to sell the Elite Rock's. I still somewhere have a hand written 2 page letter from Max Townsend on how to fix them. The fix was not permanent though - there was a design flaw in the arm bearing.

Funnily enough for a few months I ran my Eminent Technology air bearing arm on the Rock with no damping and it was excellent - far better than with the Excalibur/trough.

@rauliruegas 

You say you have very good damped arms and have read the Bugge thesis i sent to you. That being said have you heard the townshend in action?

The original excaliber arm and the current one (which is custom made to order) could also be factored into the equation - I understand thee original arm doesn't have a fully fixed pivot point so to speak and floats in silicone - I might be wrong.

When you say you damp the arm - for most it is:

a. a silicone trough near the base like you get for Moerchs and SME's. Arguably pointless because the spurious resonance does not get killed at source. Liken it to a long car wishbone - the damper and springs are mounted closer to the wheel due to the better control it provides to the forces

b. you damp with tape or a head-shell attachment - the spurious energy remains and gets transferred down the arm. It is mechanically brilliant and effective.

Enough of the theory - buy a Townshend ROCK of any iteration then use your ears.  

@rauliruegas , It's got about 50 hours on it. The signal to noise ration is more a function of the phono stage. If I had a Seta L20 it would be dead quiet. Now with the system set above 90 dB I can just hear a hiss. With the MSL the system is dead quiet to max volume. It has probably 10 dB more gain in current mode than the MC. 1.5 ohms vs 6 ohms. Because the bass is better in current mode with everything I have used so far I think you would really like it. 

The damping trays might be useful in a situation were the arm is too heavy for the cartridge but it is much better to match the cartridge to the arm. I try to get as close to 8 Hz as I can. As far as bearing go they have to be ultimately smooth and as low in friction as possible. You can tell how good and arm is by setting it to neutral balance so that it floats horizontally and just blow very lightly on it and it should respond instantly and come to a very gradual halt. The abruptness at the end should be ever so slight.  If you blow on the head shell from the top thearm will do one of two things. It will either gradually stop at a new position (neutral balance) or it will oscillate up and down and slowly come to a stop (stable balance)  

If you have not gotten them yet you should get the WallySkater and Reference. They really are great tools and make set up much easier. 

I forgot that's more important than what we could think that exist a good match between cartridge/tonearm in the way that can achieve a resonance frequency number inside the " ideal " resonance range : 8hz to 12hz  or really near it.

Many of us are accustom to like the reproduction sound in our room/system witrh a total cartridge/tonearm mistmatch and we like it but we have to think all what we are losting with out all those additional developed distortions that we are accustom to and that impedes that the cartridges can shows at its best.

R.

Dear @mijostyn : That " free movement " that unfortunatelly the Townshend tonearm can’t achieve is the real key to stay nearer to the recording if and only if the tonearm in use is a good damped design.

All what heppened in my room/system using that " key " was nothing " tiny " but higher improvement that I was not expecting and prepared too and that I had to increment the SPL in my subwoofers says a lot about because is not only that distortions goes lower but the clear definition of the low bass that’s not an easy task to achive. Overall I’m really happy .

Btw, of the really good vintage tonearms that I remember and owned only the MS MAX 237/282 came with a silicon tray that the owner can use using two different silicon density depending of the cartridge in use and MS gaves a list for the cartridges for one and the other silicon density.

Today those vintagey or new tonearm not well or undamped designs always could be benefiated by a not to wide riboon around the arm wand in an helicoidal way. Iyt does not affects the tonearm EM and improves the cartridge resolution during listening sessions.

About your MC Diamond maybe needs more playing hours.

R.

@rauliruegas , Damn you have a long memory! In that statement I was referring to added damping like silicone wells and such. Items to try and dampen the cartridge's resonance point. Nothing in a tonearm can resonate. It is why Schroder does not put a rest or finger lift on his tonearms. All the materials and shapes of each individual part have to be used and designed to be critically damped at all frequencies in the audio band including at least 2 octaves above. You know all this already. I am preaching to the choir. 

The MC Diamond is a fine cartridge. I wish it's impedance was lower otherwise it is top notch. The signal to noise ratio is better in voltage mode but prefer the sound better in current mode. It has more punch. The MSL is comparably polite. Just as detailed but less of an edge and not quite as punchy. 

Technics knew very well and that's why used Boron blend in its tonearm arm wand and headshell along a resonance operation " Dynamic damping  balance weigth " through the tonearm counterweigth but Technics did not use the silicon tray as SME several years ago and today in its series V model and Triplanar and others.

The other Technics critical design characteristic is that the friction level in the bearing is as or lower than 5mg.

R.

Dear @mijostyn  : "" With proper tonearm matching damping is not needed and indeed is a negative. It is like adding friction to your bearing and forces the cartridge to work harder pulling the tonearm back and forth particularly on an eccentric record. Vertical damping might cause difficulty negotiating warps. 

Don't use crutches. Fix the problem.  ""

Well it takes me 2 full years to stay very near your statement meaning due that over those 2 years my room system fine tunning proccess arrives to an incredible top position in the quality level of sound reproduction.

There is no single tonearm that totally " Fix the problem ", however tonearm designers work hard to do it and they try to do it using different alternatives but today tonearms in one way or the other were designed taking in count seriously the damping issue. Some made it choosing the tonearm build material or blend materials or other solutions as the SAT that not only choosed a material but how they use it for the arm wand.

Please read here something interesting about and that's not easy to avoid it even today:

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1979-03.pdf     (page 42 ).

and from the radical damped Townshend tonearm patent we can read:

" for damping a range of frequencies of vertical and horizontal vibrations of the carrying means, so as to provide relatively low damping for frequencies below 5 Hz, moderate damping between 5 Hz and 20 Hz, and relatively high damping for frequencies above 20 Hz.

It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a phonograph having damping means which is effective over a wider range of frequencies than hitherto known.

It is a further object of the invention to provide a phonograph having a vicous damper which has direct effect at the position of the pick-up cartridge.

It is yet a further object of the invention to provide a phonograph having damping means which can substantially avoid unwanted high frequency complex modes of vibration caused by the arm vibrating, and damp out other unwanted audio frequency vibrations of the cartridge and of the arm, whilst allowing free movement over warps and eccentricities. "

But in the last statement about " free movement " this can't be acomplished through silicon damping tray and certainly can't even in the Townshend and I said this because through my latest tests and due that I own very well damped tonearms ( that I was using the silicon tray ) with out the silicon tray sound reproduction I mean quality sound level reproduction is way better with out the tray specially from the midrange up range and all the high frequency range.

That clearly improvement is because now exist that " free movement " but we have to be really carefully that the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency stays in the 8hz-12hz range.

Obviously that with out using the tray some cartridges that runned very well the canon shoots in the 1812 now have problems especially with the last 2 shoots however with the 1812 and other recordings  the bass range performance is extremely good. Even and talking of the bass range with out tray I had to increment the SPL in my subwoofers that means that with the tray probably existed higher developed bass distortions with lower definition due that was not ridding with " free movements ".

Seems to me that the free movement is the key here if the tonearm design is a good damped design.

R.

For the highly-motivated: In the 90’s Townshend Audio offered for sale separately their Damping Trough, for installation and use on non-Rock tables. The DT Kit included the Trough, mounting plates (two, of differing dimensions) and hardware, a small bottle of damping fluid, and the requisite headshell-mounted plate and "paddle" (the little hollow aluminum tube that is mounted onto the headhsell plate and descends into the fluid).

I’ve never seen one for sale on the second-hand market, but ya never know. Mine will be, but not until after I die. My ancestors (on both sides) lived relatively-long lives (into their 90’s), so don’t hold yer breathe ;-) .

While I’m here, let me make something clear (if it isn’t already): The Townshend Audio Rock Turntable Damping system is not a "tonearm damper"; it addresses the issue of the tonearm/cartridge resonance that is inherent in the LP phono system, REGARDLESS of the specific arm and cartridge. For the complete story, read the Dinsdale papers (see above post), written after the research conducted at the Cranfield Technical College in England was completed.