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

I must say that 10,000cst had a massive effect 

@kps25c the viscosity you quote is very heavy - I do have some so I shall give it a whirl 

I have made and use tail fluid dampers on my three cheap tonearms (Grace G-707 with Victor MC100 EB II, Rega RB300 with Ortofon OM20, and Thorens TP16 with Benz Micro Wood SL).

They don’t look good, but the sound is better with them. At It’s a very satisfying DIY trick.

S you were, expensive tonearm people. And Happy Thanksgiving weekend to you all from Canada!

Dear @kps25sc : Yes, that's was I figure out due that in the Townshend the damping is applied at the source and not at the back of a normal tonearm trough.

R.

After mixing different viscosity silicone oil, and comparing it to the oil Townshend sells as " Trough fuel" i think his oil is somewhere in the 50,000 CST range. 100,000 CST is much thicker than his oil, and 10,000 CST is much thiner. The Maplenoll Ariadne Signature that i use was copied and modified by Walker when he made his first TT’s, he did move the silicone trough to the back of the arm, some people are not comfortable with the oil filled trough hanging over their records, and the extra step that using it entails.
And yes the original pumps used on the Maplenoll TT,s where noisy and smelly, they where modified refrigerators pumps. My arm runs best with about 45 PSI and the bearing uses about 5 PSI, i use a oil-free shop compressor with a 100 L tank, its starts up and runs 1 min every half hour, and is noisy as hell, but is in its own isolated room far away from the listening room. 

@rauliruegas 

I must say that I don’t think I understand fluids and thermodynamics like professor Jack Dinsdale who was responsible for the trough - and viscosity... 

but I will fiddle - it is a hobby at the end of the day 

Dear @lohanimal  : well, the VDH advise and my self experiences that even that advise can helps with any tonearm with trough/paddle that normally has it at the tonearm pivot distance and this fact makes things different with the Townshend that does exactly at the source/cartridge and here it does not need it so high viscosity.

Anyway, at the ends test it is a must with. Appreciated that you share in the thread your coming experiences, thank's.
R.

@rauliruegas 
BTW I used 10,000 CST - I did various tests and I think this is similar to what Max uses - that said he is understandably guarded about the viscosity he uses/sells and even if I knew the exact viscosity he uses i won't share it out of respect and goodwill.

@rauliruegas I agree with everything you said

@lewm I wish i had the means to check the resonance of the arm tube alone

I'm pretty certain that there ought to be a relationship of arm resonance/ cartridge compliance/Oil weight.

My own theory FWIW stems largely from racing radio controlled cars (don't laugh) they have miniaturised suspension with coil over shocks. You can use progressive or linear rate springs. It's not always a hard and fast rule because other factors such as roll centre, camber etc come into play. In general when one increases the spring rate/poundage you normally increase the oil viscosity. I've always likened a cartridge cantilever to a suspension arm. All said and done the cartridge/stylus only travels a tiny amount and it may explain why such high viscosity tends to be used.

I hope to conduct experiments with the Shelter 501 and as I said I will remit back to this thread.

My other arm is a moerch DP6 - that can have silicone added (near the pivot)- I did add a bit. The effect on the silicone being added to that is nothing like the townshend which has the silicone at the headshell.

I spoke to Max Townshend and he says the effect of the silicone trough is thee same for any cartridge. I don't doubt him - but curiosity makes me want to explore this :)

@bdp24 

The Maplenoll Ariadne also had a silicone trough at the headshell end. It used a parallel arm. I am told it was brilliant but there were problems with the pump. Unless I am to be corrected it is a partial inspiration for the Walker Proscenium.

@yeti42 
I would like to get the bellows feet - what was the improvement?

On another point - there are other motor options - PM me as i have a massively modified drive on the Rock Elite.

@lohanimal  : The great Townshend characteristic is that the damping happens where everything start: rigth at the LP surface/cartridge and this is it's unquestionable advantage.

About silicon viscosity I think that 10cst is to low and you wil try higher. I posted this statement from Dr. A.J. van den Hul:

""  The higher the viscosity figure in centistokes, the stronger the damping effect ( his advise is no more than 500cst. )  ""

I tested as higher as 500cst and you will need to test 100-200-300cst with low/medium compliance and even with high compliance and after your self experiences you will know and can decide about.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @lohanimal : " At first you think images are smaller - in fact they are far more precise and occupy spaces much better. In addition to this surface noise comes down and bass was more preisee to my ears "

That’s what you stated with the Sigma2000 and that’s preccisely ( more or less other than improved tracking. ) what makes the silicon oil damping even with a tonearm/combination out of the ideal resonance frequency.

All kind of improvements are important for us but for me the main and most critical improvement in both kind of damping: directly on arm wand or the trough is the improved quality level of the bass range and this improvement permits per sé that all the other frequency ranges really shines too. Btw, I mentioned " arm wand " because there are good tonearms with damped arm wands and with out trough and performs fine as the : Cobra or the VPI Fatboy. Other tonearms use a blended materials in the arm wand to take advantage of its damping characteristics of those materials.

Any thing that helps to improve the cartridge signal quality of the bass range always will be welcomed because it’s the frame of the whole " picture " we are listening and as better the bass range as better our MUSIC/sounds enjoyment no matters what.

R.

The Ortofon MC2000 is a high compliance cartridge that would never be paired with an FR64S, at least not by me.  In his original review, J Gordon Holt noted that if one were to try to keep the calculated resonant frequency of the MC2000 cartridge within an acceptable range, it needs a 5-gram tonearm, in fact, because of its high compliance coupled with its own rather heavy weight.  There have only been a very few tonearms ever made that qualify purely on that criterion.  Yet, humans do enjoy the MC2000, somehow.

I, for one, never said that the FR64S might be sufficiently damped by its own high effective mass.  My point was that if you add the B60 and a very massive tonearm mounting apparatus made from materials that transfer energy from the tonearm base, you can achieve some degree of mass damping.  I use a B60 plus about 5 lbs of tonearm mount, none of which adds to the effective mass.  If you then dismiss the heavy FR headshells (20g is typical) and use a lightweight rigid headshell (less than 10g), you can expand the useful range of the tonearm.  Finally, in general I have agreed over and over again that damping is beneficial.

Can I just add that my logic is that the lower the compliance the heavier the silicone oil must be - It's like car suspension soft springs don't go with low viscosity oil as it will allow rebound and resonance and the 'damping' will not be performing its function

@rauliruegas 

I used the Monster Sigma deliberately because it is a very light 4.5gram cartridge which is medium compliance

I am going to use my Shelter 501 mk 2 next which is both heavier and much lower compliance.

The use of the trough made a significant difference.

When i say 'perfectly good' I was using a very English phrase that may have been a bit lost in translation. Remember that the rest of my audio chain is good, so it's never going to sound that bad...

What i will say that i will do more extensive listening once I've given the headshell, arm and cable a good run in with my burn in disk.

Dear @lohanimal  : ""  I had a short listen to the FR64s and thought it sounded perfectly good...""

Good even that the resonance frequency is ouit of the ideal range. Your experience with confirms the benefits of tonearm damping.

Some audiophiles think and post even here that the heavy mass tonearm as the FR provides " damping ", well damping against what is one of the questions but other critical issue with heavy effective mass in tonearms is during the LP play process where the cartridge has to deal with that heavy dynamic mass that complicated more its already hard job.

If I remember in the measured numbers og the MC2000/Technics combination the effective mass ( tonearm/cartridge. ) ( static. ) was 24grs. but the dynamic mass was measured over 31grs. that it's not a good number and that affects what we are listening through.
Maybe if LP were perfect with no off-center, micro/macro waves and the like that dynamic mass could makes lower/less harm but unfortunatelly it's not this way.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @billstevenson  : "  While you seem satisfied with you methodology, I encourage you to try and borrow an "O"scope because I am sure you would like it. "

Yes, maybe I like it.

Bill I don't want and don't need to go so " detailed " on the cartridge tracking issue because could be useless at the end other than " curiosity ".

You can be sure that my whole tests process with all my choosed LP tracks tells me all what I need and if you tested my finding through an " O'scope " you will find out that I'm in the " road ".
The key there/in the process was and is its methodology and those choosed tracks and to know at 100% why choosed those tracks and no others.

Anyway your advise is welcomed but remember that we ( at least I. ) are just audiophiles.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Well @rauliruegas 

I tried the FR64s with the trough.
My audio chain:
1. Modified Townshend Rock Elite
2. FR64s arm
3. Monster Sigma Genesis 2000MC
4. Cardas Golden Reference phono cable
5. Lavardin IT amp
6. DNM speaker cables
7. Roksan Darius S1 speakers

I have this in a nearfield set up.

I used 10,000 cst silicone oil which i understand is lighter than the standard oil weight. 

I had a short listen to the FR64s and thought it sounded perfectly good - though I must say the image precision was a tad lacking but it had plenty of gusto.

I stuck it in the trough and the transformation was very clear. At first you think images are smaller - in fact they are far more precise and occupy spaces much better. In addition to this surface noise comes down and bass was more preisee to my ears

A spring oscillates like the rubber spring in a cantilever the silicone acts to control the oscillation- I understand that it controls’velocity’

Merely being able to play an LP side without skipping or obvious distortion is not itself proof of good tracking.

An oscilloscope has been indispensable in our mastering operation. Test equipment can be quite handy for moving from anecdote to more fact-based findings :)

Spring loaded anti-skating mechanisms actually provide some damping. I prefer my fluid damped arms, but the engineering is the real key.  I added a bit of very thick fluid to the "razor" bearing of a pal's Grace 707, and it did smooth it it a bit.

lewm

... you are using a pure tone from a test LP, not music, which is fine but does not quite mimic the real world situation. Because music will always give a very complex wave form ...

That's true, of course. Regardless, it is often possible to detect mistracking using steady-state tones before such mistracking can be detected audibly using actual music.

Thatis part of why I discount many of the claims that a cartridge "tracks great." When questioned, those making the claim usually can't really explain how they arrived at their belief. Merely being able to play an LP side without skipping or obvious distortion is not itself proof of good tracking.

Lewm, Your point about the complexity of a musical wave form is well taken, which is why it is important to follow up by listening to music as Raul has explained.  This is a very enlightening discussion because it underlines the importance of keeping an open mind and that there is value in using every available resource to optimize the set up of our record playing equipment.  And of course things change over time, so it is necessary to check, realign, re-check etc. to get the best results.  It is worth it, though, at least to me.  I find analog more challenging and more rewarding that digital equipment that sits gathering dust most of the time.

Bill

Makes sense. Thanks.  But in that case you are using a pure tone from a test LP, not music, which is fine but does not quite mimic the real world situation.  Because music will always give a very complex wave form on a 'scope, that is why I asked the question. 

lewm

... What does mistracking look like on a ’scope? Wouldn’t you need a positive control, a cartridge that does not mistrack the passage, to know what you are looking at?

You use tracks of increasing amplitude from a test record - such as the Ortofon LP - then look for deviation from a smooth sine wave on the ’scope. It is possible to see mistracking before you can hear it.

Bill, What does mistracking look like on a 'scope?  Wouldn't you need a positive control, a cartridge that does not mistrack the passage, to know what you are looking at?  Thanks.

Raul,
While you seem satisfied with you methodology, I encourage you to try and borrow an "O"scope because I am sure you would like it.  When the arm and cartridge are optimally set up and playing a high velocity groove on a test record right on the edge of the ability to trace the tone, in addition to being able to hear the edginess as the stylus barely maintains contact with the groove, you will be able to see the trace and any mistracking on the scope.  So you have two data points, auditory and visual.  In many cases it is possible to fine tune the set up even further using the trace on the scope even after all seems ok to the ear.  Conversely, in my experience it has never been possible to beat the trace on the scope just using the ear.  But of course you must have access to a scope and spend time experimenting to see what I mean.  Also, the scope saves time in that you will get the optimum result faster and it will always be repeatable.  Try it, you'll like it.  I think, too, that once you have tried this set up method, you would then continue to confirm your results with your current methodology.  Please do not assume that I am finding fault with what you are currently doing.  Not at all.

Bill

Hi @rauliruegas 
i think I will try some silicone o-rings first that’s unless I can get sorbothane o-rings - I think the use of tape is just a bit clumsy. I have various frequency sweeps and methods to measure arm/cartridge resonance - though I’m not sure how I will apply this - happy for suggestions. Using my ear alone is always going to be subjective.

Dear @lohanimal : Those white papers are essential to read it for any one in the analog alternative as us.

I tested my 64S using the arm wand tape ( and as always setting VTF through/using the counterweigth. Recomended. ) and improved so you can make both things: use the around tape arm wand and listen after this the silicon oil damping and listen it and even after those you can try only with the silicon oil damping.

I wish I have your alternatives to test it about or any other tonearm.
Yes I know that I need to buy the Townshend and for me is a real temptation.

I will wait for your experiences about.

R.

FYI I have asked Max Townshend for a copy of the White Paper from professor Jack Dinsdale about the damping on the Townshend Turntable. With luck he may stick it on his website. 
Due to an oafish error on my part i damaged the cable on my Helius Omega, so I am going to try out the FR64s on the Townshend once I drill a new arm-board. I haven't used it having set it aside for my JVC QL10 that i am having bits done to. I am very curious how the trough works with this arm. I know that Jcarr ain't a big fan nor @rauliruegas there again @syntax is a big fan of the arm for its energy transference.

I will report back my findings.

Raul, I should add that I have also upgraded the feet on the Technics and have the KAB RCA jack plate which allows me to use higher quality interconnects.

Dear @lohanimal  : "  I have a Townshend Rock Elite with  a Helius Omega. Sounds very good without the trough - sounds significantly better with the trough. For the uninitiated Townshend Rock turntables use a silicone damping trough at the headshell end. I have used other arms too and the step change is consistent regardless of arm

Would you have a car with spring suspension alone, or damping too?.  "

Your great tonearm comes in the OP due that's the " extreme " on overall damping thread subject.

Yes, damping benefits almost all tonearms/cartridges combinations and I said " almost " because I don't listened yet all tonearms down there.


"  I agree that cartridges do have some in-built damping but it is actually quite crude (it's a piece of rubber). The problem with a rubber spring is the opposite and equal reaction back - ie it's like puncing a ball against a wall. That's why car suspension uses damping whether through air or oil leaving the spring to do its part.

placing the damping at the front where the cartridge is creates a significant mechanical advantage and prevents spurious resonances going down the arm in the first place.  "

Quite correct and precise and that "  spurious resonances going down the arm in the first place "  is what happens with the Townshend but with a different tonearm the silicon fluid and the tape around the tonearm wand makes a really good job about. 

The @big_greg first hand experiences with his Technics 1200 is evidence that confirms with out doubt your posts.

"  The CST/Wt was partially arrived at to stop it dripping - he says a thinner oil works and to try and use the thinnest weight that carries out the resonance control whilst also allowing the treble transients to shine through. I hasten to add that I personally don't think that the silicone weight commonly used robs treble energy - it simply cleans up splash.  "

  Exactly: "  it simply cleans up splash. " !  .


Btw, great contribution for the thread and for all of us and any audiophile.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @billstevenson  : Yes, controversial due that not all audiophiles have first hand experiences with tonearm/cartridge after market damping ( any kind of damping. ) " devices ".

Well your first set-up as you said and JGH too was a " state of the art " combination and that Shure cartridge is a great tracker so not easy to be aware of damping benefits and certainly can't be a " huge " benefits but as you posted you detected " something " for the better.

Now, the Shure brush is a terrifc damping help that permits the cartridge to track everything including the most severe warps we can imagine ( I owned and even still own a Shure other models. ) and even that something happened down there and this " something " means a lot about coming from that tonearm/combination.

"  that it made no discernible difference until too much fluid was added.  " Here as in any other damping fluid tonearm the key is: how much and to determine that we must try. We need patience and time but the rewards always are worth to do it.

In your second set-up you posted:

"  Hyperion made no audible difference, although using the Ortofon Test Record, it did track a bit better. I have not experimented with fluid levels on this set up, but left the level below half full. "

and the important experience there is that improved the track a bit better and this means lower distortions levels and more music information and again you need to test with fluid damping levels.

"""  an "O"scope was used in all my tests. Really this tool is essential for these kinds of tests to be useful and repeatable.  ""

In my case it's not a essential tool if we have the rigth evaluation overall proccess and I have it where not only one track but several LP tracks can tell you very easy if fluid damping was for the better with out necessity of " Oscope ".
Telar 1812 or RR Dafos or M&K Flamenco Fever works marvelous about if you know exactly what to look for and if the room/system has an adequated whole resolution. Those LPs are not the only one that can tell you about.

Nice to read your true contributions.

R.

Dear @big_greg: I'm not surprised tha your Technics gives you the 95% quality level vs your VPI.

Technics was one of the few Japanese tonearm designers/manufacturers to have in its tonearm designs a dedicated damping mechanism, obviously that it can't comes in the 1200 because price and because Technics is not dedicated to the true high-end market.

In the other side your Virtuoso cartridge is very good performer and as your Technics better that what audiophiles can thing. Good ! !

Rergards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Raul, I use the Technics for used records and have a VPI Classic 2 with a Classic 3 tonearm (no damping). With cartridges that cost about half of what the one on the VPI does, I would say the sound quality is close to 95% of the VPI. I like being able to swap cartridges so easily on the Technics. Right now I have a Clearaudio virtuoso wood on it. I think I paid about five hundred bucks for the Technics. It's quite a bargain and very enjoyable.

@mijostyn I don't lack humour - just getting bored of the jibing when someone posts and wants to discuss a very valid point.

That said resolution comparisons from in front of a computer screen is very interesting...

Sound identical: obviously that's a bad joke coming from a rookie.

Is it still a good joke if you're not? Raul, I cut my own LPs; as you know I have the LP mastering system as well as a variety of tape machines. You can try to write that stuff off if you want but its disingenuous. 

Dear @big_greg : Technics is better of what people think and I'm sure that your tonearm now performs with higher quality level helping to the cartridge job better than before.

Is it that way?

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Sound identical: obviously that's a bad joke coming from a rookie. Tubes and additional inverse RIAA eq. only an stupid could think that " identical " and I said could because it can't even sound near both mediums and certainly not with that average system.

R.

Does my Technics SL 1200 MK2 with the KAB fluid damper and a little Fo.q tape on the tonearm count as "audiophile"?  

lohanimal, you need to learn to find the humor in things.

Atmasphere, I have a very low resolution system so I can not possibly hear what rauliruegas hears. Darn, your system must be worse a you can't even hear the difference between a mastertape and the record.
What are we going to drown our sorrow in. Scotch? Islay or Highland?

@lohanimal : unfortunatelly for them is: dead or life. To low knowledge levels, that’s all. A shame and pity for say the least. They have not respect for them him self. Such is life and to each his own.

R.

atmas: I already posted that you are worst than mijo and you deceit your self if you really think your LP sounds the same as the tape with that kind of cartridge, tonearm etc, etc, you own.

You make me laugh and make my day ! ! Go a head.

R.

 @mijostyn :

Now If you own a true high quality resolution room system and a bullet proof test/evaluation proccess then you don’t need to measure/oscilloscope.

Please I’m not braging but I have that toom/system level and that test proccess too and in no order here are some of the LPs I use through test/evaluations audio items, I don’t use all the LPs always but depending what I want to evaluate and inside each of those LPs I already have choosed the tracks and which part of those tracks I use.
All those tracks parts I know it better than the fingers of my hands including the tone of its clicks or posps that believe me or not gives my information about.

So I know for sure what to look for not if that music I like it or not but what to look for to know the quality levels of what I’m testing:

Stereophile one side recording, Mercury Firebird ( Dorati ) and the Sheffield Firebird too, RR Dafos, RR Fiesta, RR Berlioz Fantastique, MOFI The Power and the Majesty, Sheffield Drum Track, Sheffield Mikey Ruff, Wind Music Paramita, Jazz at the Pawnshop, Clarity Recording one side Salamandra, Wilson Center Stage, Athena Symphonic Dances, Propious Kabi Laretei ( Piano Works. ),ACT Youn Sun Nah, Audio Fidelity Kate Bush, Sire, Regina Specktor, 3ú Mary Black, AT Music Lyn Stanley, Atlantic Laura Branigan ( single : Self Control. ), Vertigo Dire Straits ( Love over Gold. ) Patricia Barber Cafe Blue, High Fashion Fun Fun ( single 45rpm Color My love. ), Janis Ian Breacking Silence, M&K Flamenco Fever, MCA Records David Bowie ( single 45 rpm. Cat People. ), Geffen Eagles, RCA Red Seal Montserrat Caballe, Audio Fidelity Satchmo Plays King Oliver, MOFI Resphegui ( UHQR. ), Telarc 1812.


I you listen the Telarc 1812 it has at least 4 parts that are the ones that can disclose everything about a cartridge/tonearm combination and obviously any room/system.

One of those parts is at around the first 7 minutes, other when played the tambourine ( that are many cartridge/tonearms that just can’t pick up any information at all about !, third is the part with the Carrillon that tell you many thing because the whole room/system must be differentiate the sound of " hundreds " of bells where each bell has a different sound and all sounds at the same time so some cartridges " speaks " in one way and other in way different way and the last part is obviously the cannon shots.

In that last part ( inner grooves. ) in the Telarc 1812 you can know everything about that cartridge/tonearm combination because here there are cartridges that can track all the 16 cannon shots but this is not ebough because a cartridge can track all but not cleanly and other can do it in better way, some cartridges can track all the shots but the last one or only six of the shots.

Is to long to explain all about each one of all test recordings I have in my self " designed " tests proccess that includes too around 10 CDs tracks where one of them is Gladiator Original Film Soundtrack.

So believe me that for me is really easy if the silicon damping helps or not.

All mt tests are seated at near field position and I do it with different SPL : 75-80-85-90 and 95dbs at seat position and here with peaks in the 107dbs.

All those is not a joke I’m to serious about and learned on this subject through several first hand experiences from many years.

Mijostyn I can go to your place ( or any other audiophile place. ) with 2-3 of my test LPs and I will tell you ( in less than 30 minutes. ) what is really good and what is wrong and why is wrong and what to do to improve it. I really made my job in the last |20-30 years.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Btw, you posted a lot of " things " where almost all goes against that silicon oil damping and you posted hypothesis and some technical aspects about but you own a Sota TT ( I owned that TT and is very good. ) I know too your PU3 ( I had in my system several years ago. ) and if it’s the vintage one is not a very good tonearm ( maybe you can remember all the problems that the owners of that tonearm had several years ago where even magazynes puts warning against that arm especially to the PU2. ) but you don’t use in your system the silicon oil paddle so how can you post nothing about when you have not today first hand experiences in your system with not one tonearm but several tonearms and not with one cartridge but several cartridges?

Makes sense to you? because for me has no sense. So you are just trolling. Where are your today first hand experiences in your today room/system?

But no only all those but your analog system is a mess for say the least especially your tube phono stage and because those tubes you can't detect almost no minute changes about damping ( that you don't have ! ) and I can say you can't be aware almost of nothing and not only because tubes but 20 years ago ST made the review of your phono stage and found out the worst ever RIAA eq. deviation high gain stage ever: yes it's a CRAP.

So I don't know how you dare to post nothing not only in this thread as if you were an expert and owner of first class top quality very high resolution room/systemm and with critics to almost all Agon true audiophiles and true lovers.
 You can't talk with true knowledge levels on this thread subjects and almost in any audio subjects no matter what ! ! ! ? ?

What you will own it does not matters and no one cares today because you are posting with out the rigth system: you don't have yet your new audio items but something is really wrong with you: Atlas SL? really? with that crap of phono stage?. Come on ! !

Yes, I know that you think you are an expert because you were and are posting everywhere on everything with out first hand experiences in your room/system. Go figure ! ! You are the new guru: congratulations for that and keep walking.

R.

Why oh why does it come to handbags at dawn between the usual protagonists...
It's a forum guys

You are whom posted what I stated in the OP:

""" " 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. "

Other audiophiles with out knowing that was you whom posted in this thread posted something like: "t that person with the Triplanar does not knows what is losting down there "

You are worst than mijostyn because he has not the opportunity to test in his tonearm the silicon trough. You had it and still have and you NEVER used ! ! ! ? ? ? Go figure and you follow posting in the main thread subjects.

With all respect and in this cartridge/tonearm issue you are almost a rookie and you need to learn a lot before you can try through your posts to help us. Unfortunatelly at this moment you can't do it no matter what and you don't need to answer this post.

Ugh. What an odious post.

I did recognize my own words.

I've not used the damping troughs for a simple reason: I have the master tapes of LPs I've recorded, and the simple fact is that without the troughs I get the LP and tape machines to sound identical.

Useless your answer. You can't troll about/anything with that phono stage: PERIOD.

Got it?

R.

Raul, do you think this is the only tonearm I have ever owned. My current turntable is my old stand in. I sold all my other two turntable because I will be getting a Dohmann Helix as soon as vacuum clamping is added to the design. At this moment I plan on putting two Schroder LT's on it. It does not have nor does it need a damping trough. One will have the Clearaudio Charisma in it. The other will have a Lyra Atlas Lambda SL.
As for my system you can see it on my system page. I promise you won't like it.

@mijostyn 

I have tried more than the one arm/cart with the trough including a Moerch DP6 that allows cartridge arm matching - however which way you do it the trough works its magic. It's just i use it with the Helius Omega - a very good arm.

I agree that cartridges do have some in-built damping but it is actually quite crude (it's a piece of rubber). The problem with a rubber spring is the opposite and equal reaction back - ie it's like puncing a ball against a wall. That's why car suspension uses damping whether through air or oil leaving the spring to do its part.

placing the damping at the front where the cartridge is creates a significant mechanical advantage and prevents spurious resonances going down the arm in the first place.

@kps25scTo some extent the trough improves a cheaper arm (i have used a Jelco/Mission arm - it does not take it totally out of the equation.

The Townshend excaliber has come in several guises - many are rega based, but the excaliber sold throughout the 80s was a proprietary design

@rauliruegas 

Funny you like the syrinx - it was re-made by Audio Origami - the chap that makes it is incredibly clever, and will happily speak to you. The current version i am told is a lot better than the Syrinx - i haven't got one so i can't say...

All said the guy from Audio Origami told me that one ought to try different oil weights with the Townshend. The CST/Wt was partially arrived at to stop it dripping - he says a thinner oil works and to try and use the thinnest weight that carries out the resonance control whilst also allowing the treble transients to shine through. I hasten to add that I personally don't think that the silicone weight commonly used robs treble energy - it simply cleans up splash.

I would love to hear a Maplenoll Ariadne as it used a trough, parallel arm and air-bearing.

I think on this note I will try a few different oil weights and try and report back on the thread - silicone oil is readily available for about £3.50 - £5.00 per bottle from radio control car/model shops in precise wt/cst.