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

Ok Ralph, but what about everything else I said?

@atmasphere  : "  Obviously they can't both be true,  "

Wrong, both are true. In fact the groove modulations are followed/riding by the cartridge stylus tip and if you have 2-3 tonearms the best of them is the one that best matched the cartridge for it can shows at its best.

mijostyn in the first sentences of one of his last posts gave the answer.

Now, I accept your critics but that kind of critic does not helps to any one of us to improve in the main subjects here.

R.

Ralph, I missed that part. I stopped reading his posts all the way through because they are so long and hard to understand. If my second to last post doesn't help anyone it is because they know this information already.
But I try.

Dear friends: This is the very well damped tonearm Technics EPA-100 that I own, read this information that per se tells you everything about the advantages and necessity to damp the tonearm/cartridge combinations:

http://www.edsstuff.org/docs/technicsepa100.pdf

the EPA 100MK2 is even better damped due that its arm wand instead to use nitride titanium as build material uses Boron/Titanium, I own too:

Btw, the AJ vandenHul reference analog rig is a SP10MK2 TT with EPA 100 tonearm and mounted the EPC100CMK4 cartridge, all made by Technics.

Lyra owner posted here in Agon:

"" IME tonearms were what Technics did best. In terms of quality, I consider the EPA-100MkII to be at the top of the Japanese-made tonearms. Even today, the MkII is more than competitive with most tonearms.

cheers, jonathan carr ""


R.

More useful information:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5864d96703596e675552b72c/t/58c8f0202994cabb5d41acad/148956368...

https://www.brinkmann-audio.de/inhalt/en/technical/resonances_in_analogue_playback.pdf

http://www.laudioexperience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bruel-Kjaer-Audible-Effects-of-Mechanical-...

@rauliruegas I quoted the two statements that were in contradiction to each other. I don't need to do it again. I asked about them to see if that is what you meant to say. From your rather acerbic response, apparently you did. In a court of law, any competent attorney would pounce on something like that, asking 'so were you lying then or are you lying now?'; contradictions don't go down well. That is why I asked. I really do think language is a great deal of the problem here. But in case its not, the simple fact is the cartridge can't do what its designed to do unless the tonearm does its job correctly. Its that simple. So no point in saying the cartridge can do this independently of the arm, which is what your post was saying, whether you meant it that way is a different story. 

Dear friends: As I posted in other thread I have mounted 3 of our self design tonearms alond other two ones.

Well, two the ones we designed share the same kind of gimball ABEC9 bearing and the other jewels and I have to tests 6 different build material arm wand and in all wecan use silicon damping for the cartridge or not.

The main arm wands I use are made  of: 2 wood, magnesium blend, 3D, and two other blended metal combination with wood.

In all circumstances the 3 tonearms using different arm wands performs really good and the cartridges trcks " splendid " but when in any one of them I use the silicon damping the whole performance change for the better. It's not nigth and day but the changes are easy detected especially at both frequency ranges.

Now, one of the other mounted tonearm is the AT 1503 where been a good tonearm I choosed it to make some tests adding a silicon oil paddle facility ( very hard task but I need to do it and test it. ).
Well, when I switch to the silicon oil damping the differences for the better ar night and day and cartridges with serious problems to track the Telarc 1812 those problems almost disappeared and the same with high velocity recorded high frequency groove modulations.

Several of these kind of tests were made it been at mi place 2-3 different audio friends and obviously through all the test sessions using the same LP tracks.

For me damping tonearm/cartridge subject is the way to go and I know ,because in that way several of you posted, that are more in disagreement with my advise that to agree with.
At the end this thread is for any one can shares his first hand experiences in the whole subject, the objectuive of the thread is not to find out whom is rigth or not.

Dick Olsher posted in 1995 this:

""" 

The perfect tonearm:

The role of the tonearm has been compared to that of the enclosure in a loudspeaker. In this analogy, think of the bass driver as representing the cartridge. The first important point is that it is impossible to assess the driver's performance without considering its interaction with the cabinet. The cartridge/arm combination should be viewed in the same light. The arm's effective mass should be compatible with the cartridge compliance to produce an optimal low-frequency resonance. Just as enclosure wall flexure and resonances may color a speaker's reproduction, so can arm resonances influence the overall frequency-response and time-domain behavior. Arm resonances, both lateral and torsional, should be minimal and well-damped.

From the perspective of the cartridge, the arm is essentially a "monkey on the back." As the stylus negotiates delicate groove modulations, the cartridge has to literally drag this monkey, kicking and screaming, down the groove spiral. Bearing friction at the arm pivot, sufficient to impede the motion of the cartridge, gives rise to distortion because frictional forces along the groove wall increase as a result. Thus, low bearing friction is an automatic prerequisite for a good arm. For a magnetic, velocity-characteristic cartridge, the differential velocity between the stylus and cartridge body gives rise to the output signal. Should the arm rattle the cartridge, the signal's amplitude and the system's frequency response will both be affected. This can happen when the arm bearings are loose and "chatter." Unfortunately, for conventional bearings of the gimbal or ball-race design, the requirements for low friction and tightness (no chatter) are contradictory; some compromise must be struck between the two. In other words, the tighter the bearings, the greater the friction.

The dynamic behavior of the arm is critical to overall performance. Real-world records are eccentric and warped. Trying to negotiate such a record subjects the arm to lateral and vertical accelerations. By far the most serious practical problem is that of negotiating a small-radius warp. As the stylus starts to climb the uphill side of the warp, the cantilever is compressed upward, which may significantly increase vertical tracking force. This is bad enough in itself—increased VTF accelerates record wear—but the cantilever may be displaced upward to the extent that the cartridge enters the twilight zone of nonlinearity: either because of suspension overload or operation in the fringe of the magnetic field.

On the downhill side of the warp the cartridge begins to lose contact with the groove. The effective VTF is reduced, which increases distortion, but the ultimate danger is that of complete loss of contact and groove skipping. What's required here is a nimble arm, dynamically able to keep the stylus in the groove while negotiating a roller coaster.

A figure of merit for assessing a tonearm's dynamic performance is the ratio of VTF to effective mass: the greater the better. This (with an important caveat) gives the maximum acceleration in gravitational "g" units that the arm can withstand before leaving the groove.

What we have ignored so far in the dynamical analysis of the arm are the effects of damping fluid and arm-pivot restoring forces. Damping is normally applied at the pivot of the arm in the form of a fluid. Used in moderation, damping is a good thing. It is not a magic potion that will somehow convert a poor arm into a good one, but it does help an already good arm perform even better by reducing the "Q" of any resonances. Used in excess, damping can backfire by reducing the dynamic capability of the arm. """"

As we can read seems to me that damping is welcomed.

R.

"In all circumstances the 3 tonearms using different arm wands performs really good and the cartridges trcks " splendid " but when in any one of them I use the silicon damping the whole performance change for the better. It's not nigth and day but the changes are easy detected especially at both frequency ranges."

Rauliruegas, How did the performance "change for the better." By listening? By observation with an oscilloscope? By what measure?  

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? Playing the trough at the headshell resolves the resonance at the outset.

It's a shame I can't locate thee Professor Dinsdale white paper that explains this fully.

Lohanimal, there are so many situations it is hard to generalize. Don't forget there is an element of damping in the cartridge itself. Some combinations have an inherently low Q. If the vibration does not occur at the resonance point then the resonance is not excited. Good tonearms break up the vertical and horizontal resonance just a little by adding a little more mass in the horizontal direction. This acts like damping in that it lowers the Q. There are many who will say that if damping improves the performance of a tonearm cartridge combination then it is either a poorly designed arm or a tonearm cartridge mismatch. 
If you really want to see what is going on you have to hook an oscilloscope up to the phono stage. Then it becomes rather obvious.   

I read somewhere that the trough makes a inexpensive not so well made tonearm sound better than it should, i think Townshends own Excalibur tonearm was a modified Rega arm. I especially like the bass detail with a front trough, but getting the paddle depth right is important, or it will rob treble energy and dynamics.

This came from a PU3 reviewer:

" with a particularly lucid and organic midband. Whereas arms like the Zeta give epic, grandstanding performances of every record you play on them, the PU3 is altogether more subtle and cohesive. Bass is lighter and slower with less energy and articulation..""

Organic? that does not exist in live MUSIC at near field and that bass range?

Anyway, pun is not intened but only to put " things " in the rigth perspective for all of us.

Btw, :  ""  There are many who will say that if damping improves the performance of a tonearm cartridge combination then it is either a poorly designed arm or a tonearm cartridge mismatch. """

Those " many " are all wrong, have extremely low knowledge levels on the subject and obviously what speaks is their ignorance level.

R.

@atmasphere  : 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.

R.

Raul,
Congratulations for picking another fascinating and controversial topic for discussion.  I intended to sit it out because there is no single solution to your puzzle, but decided to chime in with my opinion based on some measurements and experiences with two different set ups.  First set up:  Arm, SME Series III.  Cartridge, Shure V15 Type V MR.  Test Record used, Shure ERA IV.  I know you are aware, but for the record this was a high compliance cartridge and a low mass tonearm, considered state of the art back in the day by Gordon Holt among many others.  It still sounds very good mounted on a VPI HW-19.  Anyway in setting it up first without damping fluid in the trough, and then with damping fluid in the trough there was very little difference in tracking ability leaving the VTF at a nominal 1 gram with the little damped brush down as per Shure's instructions.   With the brush up, the damping fluid in the tray might have made a slight difference, but really not enough to get excited about in my opinion.   What did make a clear difference, however, was that little brush, stabilizing the arm and improving tracking in all tests.
Sometime later I played with fluid levels in the trough and found that it made no discernible difference until too much fluid was added.  I determined too much fluid to be approximately half full for the Series III trough.  Too much fluid made the sound thicker somehow and noisier.
Second set up, I added a damping trough from KAB to my SL1200GAE, a SoundSmith 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.
This experience is not enough to draw broad conclusions from, although I believe Shure demonstrated conclusively that a damped brush on the end of any tonearm can stabilize the arm and aid tracking.  I will go further and opine that this would be so for high and low compliance cantilevers, low to high mass tonearms, and would be particularly efficacious as tonearm length increases.  Again, for emphasis, that is my opinion only and is not based on experimentation.

Bill

Yes Bill, all that makes sense. Basically damping can be useful with cartridge tonearm mismatches or if a particular combination has a very high Q. Using a Kuzma 4 Point (the 11" one) horizontal damping made no audible difference with the Lyra Kleos and Ortofon Windfeld Ti. This is three people listening. Both cartridges have a compliance in and around 14 um/mN and are well matched to this arm. It would have been nice to evaluate this with an oscilloscope but one was not available then. I have one now but my current arm and the ones I lust after do not have nor do they need damping. The Friend with the Zuzma 4 Point lives on the other side of the state so this experiment is not likely to happen in the near future.
Rauliruegas, the Syrinx PU 3 was a top arm in it's day and it still has a big fan base. There are certainly arms today that are better.
I'm sure you love listening to music and perhaps you have wonderful hearing. But what you hear in your own personal evaluations may be interesting but it has ZERO scientific validity. It is only your opinion which I think you have made perfectly clear in spite of the language barrier. 

Oh I guess I should have stated that an "O"scope was used in all my tests.  Really this tool is essential for these kinds of tests to be useful and repeatable.

@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. 

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.

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

Got it?

R.

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.

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

 @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.

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.

@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.

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

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

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.

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.

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. 

@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...

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.

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.

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 @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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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, 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

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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