TONEARM DAMPING : DAMPED OR NOT ? ? USELESS ? ? WELCOMED ? ?
Dear friends: This tonearm critical subject sometimes can be controversial for say the least. Some audiophiles swear for non damped tonearms as the FR designs or SAEC or even the SME 3012 that is not very well damped in stock original status.
Some other audiophiles likes good damped tonearms.
In other thread a gentleman posted:
" If a cartridge is properly matched to the tonearm damping is not required. " and even explained all what we know about the ideal resonance frequency range between tonearm and cartridge ( 8hz to 12hz. ). He refered to this when said: " properly matched to the tonearm ".
In that same thread that a Triplanar tonearm owner posted:
" This is the one thing about the Triplanar that I don't like. I never use the damping trough...... I imagine someone might have a use for it; I removed the troughs on my Triplanars; its nice to imagine that it sounds better for doing so. "
At the other side here it's a very well damped tonearm:
Now, after the LP is in the spining TT platter ( everything the same, including well matched cartridge/tonearm. ) the must critical issue is what happens once the cartridge stylus tip hits/track the LP grooves modulations.
The ideal is that those groove modulations can pass to the cartridge motor with out any additional kind of developed resonances/vibrations and that the transducer makes its job mantaining the delicated and sensible signal integrity that comes in those recorded groove modulations.
That is the ideal and could be utopic because all over the process/trip of the cartridge signal between the stylus tip ride and the output at the tonearm cable the signal suffers degradation (
resonances/vibrations/feedback ) mainly developed through all that " long trip " .
So, DAMPING IS NEED IT AT THE TONEARM/HEADSHELL SIDE OR NOT?
I'm trying to find out the " true " about and not looking if what we like it or not like it is rigth or not but what should be about and why of that " should be ".
I invite all of you analog lovers audiophiles to share your points of view in this critical analog audio subject. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT?
Rsf, thank for referencing that thread on WBF. Interesting to note that Kuzma rationalizes cartridge compliance/ tonearm effective mass mismatches, IF a massy tonearm (i.e., his Safir ) is mated to a high compliance cartridge. He points out that modern high end TTs and stands provide good isolation and very low rumble, thereby rendering a low resonant frequency (the result of combining high EM with high compliance) harmless. One comment on the Safir: seems you adjust azimuth by rotating the arm tube near the pivot, as with the Triplanar. This works but also introduces yaw at the headshell because of the headshell offset angle, which may not be such a good thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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:
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.
@mijostyn You don't need a damping trough with a CD playere - just seismic pods.
Pre-Galileo most thought the Earth to be the centre of thee solar system.
Using a tangenital arm - with a a needle in a groove is inherently flawed. It does not change that it is my preferred method pf music playback.
The trough system has worked on every arm I happen to own. I wonder if the naysayers have experienced it - or is a bit like people comparing cars they have never - or never will - own?
I appreciate the banter and pseudo-science of most the posters here - me - I prefer the dissertation of Bugge signed off by professor Dinsdale - pm me if you want a copy - Max Townshend said I can share it.
I just wish that on occasion some posters will admit they like a warm, bloomy, sound that is ultimately a lack of focus created by extraneous vibration. I have to say its very entertaining (FR64S arm is a great example - and I own one).
Dear @ihcho : The DP 80 is a good vintage TT that even in its Denon plyth needs damping even at the arm board where it's seated in the plynth and with its footers.
You need to a better clamp and different mat than the stock one.
As you said when you have all mounted you can " know " what to do which " road " take.
My turntable is Denon DP80 with DA401, and the mat is a stock. It has AT618 disc stablizer (clamp). DA309 is with PCL7 headshell. I ordered DK2300 from Japan. Once I get it, I will try to have dual arms installed for DP80. It is a long thread and loaded with technical details most of which I am not familiar with, but I will try to make those understood by myself. Thanks for your comment.
Dear @ihcho : Damping is need it. You need a good TT mat and a good TT clamp. You can help your cartridges in the 309 using a good damped headshell: build material is the key here as wood or magnesium or even blended material builded headshells. You can't do that with the 401 that came with a dedicated headshell.
Now, read the first 1.5 page on this thread where Agoners posted " things " that could help tonearm/cartridge damping issue.
Dear @bdp24 : Yes, that resonance can't be avoided and some audiophiles think that if it's in side that " ideal " frequency range: 8hz- 12hz everything is fine but the harmonics of that kind of resonances always " color " the whole frequency range of what we are listening, this is: paint it.
Right @rauliruegas. My point was that even if there were a "perfectly damped tonearm" (if such a thing is even possible), there will still be the cartridge/tonearm resonance that is produced by ALL cartridge/arm combinations. A poorly or non-damped arm may exacerbate that resonance, but it will be there even with an arm 100% free of it's own resonance. At least, that was the finding of the Cranfield research.
I have Denon DA309 and DA401. They have dynamic damping mechanism. Well, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know a bit about dynamic damping. Do I need to care about damping for the proper functioning of those tonearms? If I do, what do I need to do?
Dear @bdp24 : ""
it addresses the issue of the tonearm/cartridge resonance that is inherent in the LP phono system, REGARDLESS of the specific arm and cartridge. ""
That's the great contribution to the analog alternative but historically several of the vintage tonearm manufacturers, some way or the other, took in less " dramatica/effective " way the issue on the necessity of some kind of damping in their designs.
One way or the other all tonearm designers know the importance of damping and they try that their designs have it.
Triplanar, SME, Jelco, Technics, Schroeder, Reed, SAT, etc, etc did it. A non-damped tonearm is just out of question and today and with all respect a design stupidity.
Dear @mijostyn : The worst deaf-man is the one that does not wants hear in the same way that the worst blind-man is the one that does not wants see.
Know you or not and rigth from your first post in the thread you did not posted any evidence, fact, true explanation that supported your posts and rigth from your first post you are wrong and you showed and still show your very low common sense levels.
" poorly designed " ? well everything is " poorly " designed because xist tube dampers too. Damping is used everywhere in the audio world: speakers, cables, amps, preamps and even DAC units to lower vibrations.
Now, the origen of what you said: " poorly designed " audio items belongs to the media it self bacause the design of the analog/LP alternative is way faulty and it's a " brutality " ( for say the least ) the existense of those recorded grooves in the way were designed in that black kind of vinyl material and that's why the media/alternative needs to many " bandaids " everywhere in the analog chain.
It's really " unimaginable " that the transducer ( mounted in tonearm. ) job is dependent of the extremely hard task in that tiny stylus tip ridding that extremely tortuose randomly grooves LP surface path,. It's incredible ! ! !
All the evidence and facts ( almost. ) that supports the damping necessity are very well detailed through the thread including why M.Townshend choosed that damping design.
Again, you are wrong and trying to support your self by the high dover misunderstood on the main subject was a mistake from your part that only confirm the same: you are wrong, have nothing on hand.
Please don't try to justify your self posting no true facts. Rigth now and maybe just from your first post you are acting as a simple troll and nothing more.
Dover is perfectly correct. Most of the stuffs Raul just mentioned are also band aides for poor design. Which means by this definition most turntables are poorly designed requiring numerous band aides. Some turntables like Technics Direct Drive and virtually all VPI table are so bad there are not enough band aides in the world to save them:-) This is the reason many of us are drifting toward digital program sources. How are you going to put a damping trough on a DAC.
Dear @dover : "
Tonearm damping is a bandaid for poorly designed arms or turntables and/or mismatched arm/cartridge. "
A bandaid?, well all after market devices as: protractors, mats, tip toes, still points, clamps, treatment, amp damping, TT damping, system item racks, power conditioners, power cables, etc, etc, according your point are bandaids for audio items poorly designed ones.
Well, in audio does not exist any single audio item and after market devices that are PERFECT and that's why everywhere we need " bandaids ".
All what you said already posted other audiophiles and through the thread to all of them were proved that they had a misunderstood about and that were not true their opinions and that damping is always welcomed, obviously you share with them the same misunderstood.
Here some links that between other gentlemans @antinn shared with us that one way or the other tell us the damping needs no matter what.
Obviously the @lohanimal links and posts as the bdp24 and from other gentlemans:
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.
Tonearm damping is a bandaid for poorly designed arms or turntables and/or mismatched arm/cartridge.
In my experience with many arms, even those with damping facilities provided, the application of fluid damping slugs the sound, particularly in speed and resolution.
Dear friends: I was making several tests all these days " playing " with the silicon viscosity and using different compliance cartridges.
I used from 50Kcst to 600Kcst and what I found out with all cartridges is that the more significant changes belongs between 100K to 300K and this does not means that at 500K-600Kcst there are no changes but are subtle changes where you need very high resolution room/system and a good evaluation process to be aware on it.
So, the ones of you with a tonearm with trough it's worth to test different silicon oil viscosity and the amount of deep you most place the rod/paddle in the tray.
The tonearms with out trough we have to damp the arm wand in some way, the rewards/benefits are more important that what you could think.
As I said somewhere in the first page damping everywhere in the room/system is critical and a necessity to achieve the best top quality sound reproduction levels and increment our MUSIC listening enjoyment times.
Btw, your findings or ideas on the whole subject are welcomed and appreciated.
I strongly recommend that you source a trough from a rock 3. I happen to have a spare. I have kept it with a view of fitting it to my Sony TTS8000. The trough on the 3 was plastic and can therefore be cut. There's no reason one can't fit a trough to their own turntable.
Dear @lohanimal : Of course, at the end is what you have and you can’t enjoy nothing but what you own and normally you have it because you are satisfied with.
But in the tonearm damping we are not talking to invest thousands of dollars when you can damp your tonearm arm wand ( tape or O-rings, etc. ) and inside your same system you will detect a quality improvement.
Yes we can be a little lazzy to do it or just do not like how the tonearms looks with but these is another matters.
Many audiophiles made or make by their self modifications in their speakers or electronics that are way more dificult and expensive and some of these gentlemans own non damped tonearms as the FR ( only an example. ) where they can do it. Yes it’s up to them but remember that tonearm damping lower distortions and this fact is important, at least to me.
I find audiophile discussions hilariously boils down to this.
Many talk about bloom, je ne cais quoi, inexplicable. Thee science has not caught up to explain what i can hear so science must be wrong. The mathematician once said that his maths were from gos and were always a discovery. There is always an explanation for why things are what they are. Flat-Earthers clearly refer to facts and figures - DD lovers ought to be from this camp - strangely not... But remember this @rauliruegas isn't it always more important to simply enjoy what it is you have? distortions or not - they can both be great fun.
Dear friends and @lohanimal : The ones that use the trough fron/back in tonearm/cartridge combinations coincide in that the bass is truly improved and this fact gives " ligth/shine " to the other frequency extreme and obviously at the middle range too.
Some audiophiles here or in other thread acused me to insult japanese people and vintage manufacturers as FR/SAEC that desifned very bad damped or non-damped tonearms when I posted that they just like things different and I understand this coming from an audiophile but coming from a tonearm manufacturer only means very low knowledge levels about that's what I posted not as an insult but a fact. Even SAEC in its information puts pictures on how heavy mass damps almost " everything " and puts that information with out any tonearm research on the issue.
Several manufacturers do not design with the trough but their designs have a good level of damping in other ways.
Dear @lohanimal : Great, I think that all of us appreciated.
The Cranfield Institute of Thechnology made a true deeep reasearch and measurements about rigth what @bdp24 and you posted, it's not just bla bla bla.
Well, here and in other threads I posted " similar " way of thinking ( bla bla bla. ) on the whole necessity of tonearm/cartridge damping where several audiophiles first don't cares enough about and second don't makes to them " click " my empirical/common sense way of thinking, well maybe not only common sense but first hand experiences even with out scientific measurements.
A critical issue in that patent information that again I always talked about is that every kind of developed noised and distortions at any frequency develops harmonics/overtones that modulates/colored all the frequency range and in that patent they remarks that the frequencies developed even been to low: 0.56-3hz its harmonics goes to 20hz. Damping puts at minimum that problem either that the damping trough stays at the front or back in the tonearm.
That's why I always state that as better the room/system bass range quality level as better will be the whole room/system quality MUSIC reproduction. From here came my first hand experiences with a pair of powered subs that I shared through my subwoofer thread.
So, a tonearm needs at least to be designed and builded choosing the materials not only by its rigidity/stifness but taking in count the necessity to be well damped even with out using the silicon oil trough.
Well there are many things to comment on that patent and the damping benefitial effects and for me is a learning lesson that I hope could be that way for other audiophiles.
I know that always exist the audiophiles that no matters what they are entilted to that horrendous: " that's how I like it " even if he choosed the " wrong " road.
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.
