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

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.

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. 

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

@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.

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.

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.

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 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.

"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?  

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.

@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: 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-...

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.

@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.

Ok Ralph, but what about everything else I said?

As to what sounds best? That is a personal issue that only you can figure out. What everybody else says is irrelevant. So it is like wine. You develop your own taste and perhaps occasionally get adventurous and try something different. Sometimes you agree with other sometimes not.
I do find it interesting that everyone will agree when a wine is really bad.  

I think he means "abilities" but whatever.

Yes- either way the meaning is not significantly changed.

Right. Ralph I think he means "abilities" but whatever. There are facets of this issue I think we can all agree on.

The best tonearms follow a record's undulations without disturbing the function of the cartridge. 
There are cartridges that are better trackers but a bad tonearm will interfere with that capability.
A tonearm's effective mass including that of the cartridge and screws has to be matched to the compliance of the cartridge resulting in a resonance frequency between 8 and 12 Hz.
Fluid damping of the tonearm can be useful if the Q of the resonance frequency is high or if the resonance frequency is out of band. 

So, what does all this add up to? Everyone has to make up their own mind but, I think it is pretty obvious that you can not just jamb any cartridge into an arm and expect it to work well.

My own interpretation of this is; you want a tonearm cartridge combination with a low moment of inertia as it will follow the undulations of the record surface better. Added to this should be a camping system that flattens the record such as reflex or vacuum clamping.
In keeping with low inertia you want a tonearm with a low effective mass.
I personally would not do anything over 18.
You want a cartridge that tracks well that has a compliance that matches the effective mass of the arm. I personally will not look anything under 
80um. 
Finally if a tonearm has an available damping trough that is an added benefit (it has to be both horizontal and vertical) I would not use it unless it was absolutely necessary.  

@rauliruegas,

Turn on your (english) spell check function. It will greatly help us and your learning english and writing experiences. I am a little confused as (english) spell check is already embedded in Audiogon discussion forum or on your laptop/desktop? Try using your desktop or laptop and not your cell phone, if you do and that will help.

That's one way I can tell your not using a translator because your mistyping and misspelling of words and the translator won't let you do that.

First is not the tonearm whom makes the tracking but the cartridge tracking habilities.

Now, everything the same the superior rtonearm is that one that permits that the cartridges tracks " everything " and I agree it should do it controlling resonance but this last sentence comes almost implicit in that tonearm because with out rigth resonance control the cartridge can't tracks in adequated way.

@rauliruegas  These two statements are in contradiction of each other and one occurs right after the other. Was this your intention? Obviously they can't both be true, assuming that by 'habilities' you meant 'capabilities'.

Dear @bukanona : "  Tonearm superiority isn't meant by tracking everything with all cartridges. It should do it also proper way controlling resonances and going fluently via deformations. ""


First is not the tonearm whom makes the tracking but the cartridge tracking habilities.

Now, everything the same the superior rtonearm is that one that permits that the cartridges tracks " everything " and I agree it should do it controlling resonance but this last sentence comes almost implicit in that tonearm because with out rigth resonance control the cartridge can't tracks in adequated way.



""  If to use only tracking test Telarc, HiFI news or even better Ortofon test record you'll find that most of the high end cartridges don't track everything. For designer it's quite easy to make suspension softer and to get 100 μm peak although sound generated by coils and in case of too much fluency in suspension sound level will be uneven.  "

Yes most high end cartridges don't track everything and is because are not mounted in the overall rigth damped tonearms.

In my arm that I'm using for some years now my Colibri tracks everything, Benz Micro LPS, Dynavector XV-1, Clearaudio Goldfinger, Ortofon Anna and A90, My Sonic Lab Eminnent, Lyra Etna SL and Kleos, Denon 103 and several other  cartridges I own or tested in my room/system.

No one of them comes with 100um spec, almost no manufacturer but Ortofon disclose that tracking spec.

Your " will be uneven " due to high compliance is false because other than me you can ask to MC2000 owners if they detected that " uneven " you mentioned. I owned 3 MC2000 but I own top cartridge performers with over 50cu spec and performs outstanding. ASll my vintageLOMC cartridges makes its tracking job, it depends of the tonearm where is mounted.

Btw, I own that very good Ortofon vintage Test LP ( as a fact I own " hundreds " of vintage Test LPs. The ones that used the Audio magazyne reviewers and some of the B&K. ) that is a D2D one.

As better the tracking groove modulations as better our sound we are listening because we have lower distortions and more signal MUSIC recorded in those LPs. Nothing substitute tracking characteristic and it's this characteristic what we must/should looking for when we want to buy or change a tonearm and/or cartridge.

Btw, Iown the Ultra 400, the ML140 and other Shure cartidge and own to the very top vintage models from Stanton and Pickering where in those 2 last ones I take out its brush because is way resonant and I prefer the quality sound with out the brush but in the Shure is welcomed.

M;aybe my tonearm knowledge is " poor " as you said but I think that don't have the whole first hand experiences I have with those over 150+ cartridges and over 40+ tonearms.

In the other side, as more live MUSIC events we attend seated at near field position as better our knowledge levels will be to try in some ways to uop-grade/improve our room/system base on those live MUSIC experiences because that kind of sound is what we should be looking for in our systems. Btw, when  @mikelavigne  made or makes changes in his room/system he made it for very good reasons and maybe he could share about that nera field position of his chair in his great room/system.

Something I learned through those near field live MUSIC events and probably the main subject is how sound the bass range and that's why I started to learn about and started to use my Velody subwoofers even I started a thread about:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer/post?postid=310058#310058


An absolute statement is: as better the room/system bass range as better the overal quality of what we are listening through it.

And to have a better bass range reproduction we need ( like it or not. ) a well damped tonearm/cartridge combination. No single doubt about.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@tyray : Thanks' again and for clarify to me too because many times I don't understand in precise way thetrue  meaning of what other gentlemans tell me.

R.

@rauliruegas

I really, really didn’t think you meant exactly what you wrote. Sometimes others who only speak one language don’t understand how hard it is to speak and write in others language. I respect that you don’t even use a translator too!

Believe me, I’ve insulted many a spanish and portuguese native speaking people in my life time and it definitely was not my intent!☺

Dear @bukanona : "  Tonearm superiority isn't meant by tracking everything with all cartridges. It should do it also proper way controlling resonances and going fluently via deformations. "

Please tell me if those statements are the reasons why you posted about my poor tonearm knowledge levels?

R.

Dear @tyray : Appreciated and that was not my intention. I posted with any attitude to insult japanese people, I took as an example and the regards is a fact and that's why manufacturers took Stevenson alignment as its holly grail.

Anyway and as I said appreciated.

R.

"  we can assume its compliance is stiffer than original, and I also pointed out that I used a very light weight headshell on the FR64S.. "

WE?, wrong because is you whom assume it and in the other side even with a low weigth headshell the resonance frequency is really low.

""  I don't know this to be true, but it is a possible explanation, because the mass can dissipate energy as heat. I took your (dismissive) response as evidence you disagree with the idea of mass damping .. ""

That is always the " problem " with you: always are assuming " things " for other people. Obviously those were not my words but only what is your hyphotesis with no true value at all.

Ignorant?, you can read my posts in this thread and I did not use that word in reference to some of the audiophiles that posted here.

Enough, period.

R.

@bukanona

tyray, in my opinion antistatic effect is very small and it’s more advertising gimmick. I am a little bit confused why none of MC cartridges uses brush. Maybe there is some interference. For high compliant ones it should be very OK...

Now that you mention it, I do remember before the market had ’standard’ stylus cleaning brushes, cleaning fluids and dust covers, folks just used to wipe the vinyl with a cotton cloth and blew on the ’needle’ or just used nothing at all, which I do remember caused a lot of static and not to mention dust accumulation on the needle.

I’m thinking we both are right though, the antistatic brush also could be thought of an antidust brush too. It must have been a ’revolution’ at the time it came out as it took some years before for the practice and use of ’record cleaning’ became an audiophile practiced standard.

I think the Shure brush patent was such a Shure engineering statement it became synonymous with the Shure brand. Stanton MM carts also uses brushes. Maybe it was just a MM Thing?

I had a Rabco in which I replaced the arm with carbon fiber and set up the cat whiskers to drive an opamp, complete with a bit of capacitive smoothing so the opamp could match the speed of the grooves. It worked well except that the track on which the arm moved was resonant and sloppy. Reducing the mass of the arm was a big deal though. I think that Audio magazine article really does itself an injustice by referring to ’pivoted’ as opposed to ’radial’ arms- in that regard it makes almost no sense unless you know that they mean ’linear tracking’ when the word ’pivoted’ appears....

tyray, in my opinion antistatic effect  is very small and it's more advertising gimmick. 
I am a little bit confused why none of MC cartridges uses brush. Maybe there is some interference. For high compliant ones it should be very OK...

Raul, I agree to stay away from this thread but of course I have one long thing left to say.  You wrote,

"Your post change nothing about that cartridge/tonearm combination with a resonance frequency at 4hz and everything surrounded this 4hz.That you like it what you listening is not under question because that is your privilege.

In the other side, where I posted that " mass damping in tonearms is ineffective " ? don’t put words in my mouth, those are your words not mine . "

First, where did I say some particular tonearm and cartridge exhibit a resonant frequency of 4 Hz?  I think you must be referring to my having used the FR64 with an Acutex cartridge.  But I always pointed out that since the Acutex is old, we can assume its compliance is stiffer than original, and I also pointed out that I used a very light weight headshell on the FR64S when I conducted that little experiment.  OEM FR headshells are VERY heavy and contribute to its high effective mass. Since I never mentioned the headshell, we would have an equation with two unknowns, compliance and effective mass.  So how can you assume the Fres was 4hz?  Otherwise, I truly don't know what you are talking about.
Second, I posted earlier in the thread that perhaps the large amount of mass added to the base of the FR64S by the presence of the B60 and the massive aluminum tonearm mounting board that I use with the ensemble has something to do with why my FR64S sounds outstandingly good with a variety of cartridges, despite lack of obvious external damping.  I don't know this to be true, but it is a possible explanation, because the mass can dissipate energy as heat.  I took your (dismissive) response as evidence you disagree with the idea of mass damping.  Those words came out of your "mouth"; I did not put them there.
As to the new question about Well Tempered tonearms, I refer specifically to the WT Reference tonearm and not to any later products, such as the tonearm on the Amadeus, because I have not heard those.  My very best audiophile friend owned a WT Reference turntable and tonearm for about two decades before he eventually died.  In his last 2-3 years, because he was by then disabled, I was setting up his table for a new cartridge, when I noticed what I think is an excessive amount of damping, also poor control of azimuth, also a not so rigid pivot bearing.  Also for those 20 years, I was hearing how it homogenizes the sounds of widely different LPs, from his collection of 6000 LPs, making them all sound "good" or pleasant, but not often like real music. (Is that better for you than "alive"?  Alive means "like real live music".)  I attend live music at clubs and in concert halls at least once or twice a month here in Washington, DC, where we have the Kennedy Center less than 30 minutes away from my house, driveway to driveway, and many good jazz clubs.  Plus I have performed myself as a jazz singer, standing and rehearsing in front of live musicians. Plus I play the piano at home. Those are my sources of my understanding of what live music should sound like.
Have you ever publicly respected the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you, even when we are really only talking about opinion, not factual analysis?  Or is everyone else on the other side of any fence you care to put up "ignorant" by definition?

@bukanona

Company which built their reputation on tracking is Shure with V15 series If you’ll check Shure Ultra 500 which is the best in the line you’ll find that it has brush at the front. It’s not intended as anti-static brush, it’s part of suspension keeps it more steady.

The brush is intended to be used as an anti-static device. Shure refers to it as a ’Destatizer Brush’. What's confusing is the ’Destatizer Brush’ is also part of the suspension as it is attached to the ’Dynamic Stabilizer’ which is part of the suspension mechanism.

The anti-static brush is also VERY good with warped vinyl to help the cartridge from bouncing up and then down damaging the stylus. Trust me on this. I USED to play my Shure V15xMR cartridge with the suspension mechanism raised up until I unsuspectedly played a ’used’ new warped album and watched the stylus snap off right before my eyes. I was crestfallen...

@rauliruegas

My friend, never do or say this here - or anywhere else again.
Very uncool.

Japanese people are not a true reference as true audiophiles, they likes high distortions and unfortunatelly they don’t know that what they are hearing has those higher distortions. I don’tcare about those gentlemans, I only took them as an example

Dear friends: This is what a true cartridge expert says about the thread subject. This expert is A.J. vandenHul him self:

"" What is the advantage of mechanical arm damping ?

As you will know, there is a cartridge/tone arm resonance frequency around 8 - 12 Hz ( ideal range. ). In cases where the amplitude is too high (a too high mechanical Q-factor), it causes problems with the tracking of the grooves of the record. What is left as possible tracking ability is getting too low. So some treatment needs to be applied. An oil damped arm is an option. The viscosity of the damping oil is a part of the story, also the quantity. The higher the viscosity figure in centistokes, the stronger the damping effect ( his advise is no more than 500cst. ). Also the paddle surface makes a difference. The bigger the surface, the stronger the damping. But... keep in mind that any off-centre record also causes a serious problem in combination with your oil damper. The small cantilever has to pull the whole paddle trough the damping oil because of the eccentric grooves: two times every revolution. """

Nothing is perfect, trade-offs always exist in audio. Fortunatelly exist only a few recordings with severe off-center problems, the majority of the LP off-center issue always exist but at lower levels.

Related to that A:J: vandenHul answer comes this one when some one asked him about inner groove distortions and here his answer:

" When the music is recorded with, say, an amplitude of 70 micron (already high) and your arm resonates with an amplitude of 30 micron, you are able to track just a nice 40 micron. (This because a cantilever can at its maximum linearly track around 70 micron amplitude, of which, in this case, 30 micron is arm resonance, leaving only 40 micron for the music). And that is not enough to replay the recorded 70 micron without distortion. Or the anti-skating setting is too low for 70 micron, though works well with an amplitude of 60 micron. Or to save the record you reduced the tracking force. But sometimes you need more. Or there is extra friction in the arm at the last part of the record. Together with the 70 micron it gets too much.   "


Not only me but other gentlemans in this thread already posted that silicon oil damping improves the cartridge tracking habilities and there are several reasons for that fact and several facts that confirms it.

Other related answer is this one where he answered:


""" Is there any possibility to induce mechanical damping by means of reducing the cartridge’s electrical load impedance ?

 No, there is no feedback from electrical properties to mechanical properties. Only from mechanical to electrical. When you want to tune your cartridge mechanically it needs some mechanical work . ""


I just remember when was that @mikelavigne made comments about the " near field " seated pósition and was when he gave the anwser to my question and things were this way:

looking to his room/system I noted ( this last time. ) that his seat position was at near field position or at least nearer than in the past and he posted that through the time he changed his seat position to nearer one. He has reasons about that I think he did not shared that time.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @lewm : I was thinking I was doing a favor to not name you directly, never mind last time I do something like that.  Not only that but I will never post again your moniker lewm because you are not so important or an audio reference as you could think, me neither. I respect you as a human been as any other human been, no doubt about.

Your post change nothing about that cartridge/tonearm combination with a resonance frequency at 4hz and everything surrounded this 4hz.
That you like it what you listening is not under question because that is your privilege.

In the other side, where I posted that " mass damping in tonearms is ineffective " ? don’t put words in my mouth, those are your words not mine .
Not only FR has a problem but any undamped tonearm and the problem is for the cartridge and what the cartridge pick-up and develops during tracking those tortuose groove modulations, especially the ones recorded at high velocity. I don’t have to prove you personally nothing because those articles and information posted here already did it.

Good that you know where I stand and I know that you have true/real idea about.

Over the thread you have enough evidence on the subjects here. What are you talking about?. No sense at all.

Your WT example was touched only for you: " nothing sounds alive " and only for curiosity: with which cartridges do you listened, speakers, electronics and LP tracks? and how many years ago did you have those WT experiences?

R.

Raul, Quoting me without naming me is just as annoying to me as are your direct insults.  I fully approve of properly done damping of tonearms.  I think it can be way overdone, as with the Well Tempered tonearms at least the ones that pre-date the Amadeus, which I have not heard. Those older WT tonearms homogenize the music; everything sounds "pleasant".  Nothing sounds alive.  I judge tonearms based on their performance with a variety of cartridges, not based primarily on the presence or absence of damping.  So in my world, the FR64S still can rank as a great tonearm, while I also like an admire many well damped tonearms.  Can you show me actual data derived from use of the FR64S that proves it has a problem due to lack of damping?  I'd appreciate that. Also, can you prove that mass damping in tonearms is ineffective?  I'd appreciate that, too. And are you sure that the lubricant inside the FR tonearm bearing assembly has no effect on damping?  In starting this thread, you deliberately set up a "straw man", so you can pontificate on one of your tenaciously held beliefs.  We already knew where you stand.

Dear friends: In this thread I posted the importance to have deep first hand experiences listening live MUSIC seated at near field position and this " condition "  is need it to any one of us can make any kind of listened evaluation of the quality of our room/system with the LP tracks we are listening.

I posted all those from several years now and posted often in different threads and that I remember only @mikelavigne made comments on that issue and I posted the very first time when my common sense told me that the recording microphones are " seated " at really near field to pick up the MUSIC source information and that information is the one recorded in the cutted/pressed LPs.

THose adjectives used for we audiophiles as: warm, organic, sweet,  and the like just does not exist in near field live MUSIC but what we like in our room/system quality performance levels are  what is inside the overall meaning of those adjectives and many more and we always are looking for that " nice " sound ( that's the way we make evakluations/test/comparison and what defines ourdecisions to buy this or that audio item. ) that does not exist in near field  live MUSIC, so we are just wrong it does not matters that that is what we like it

I have those kind of experiences through many years in different venues with different kind of MUSIC when attend to do it and before I learned my take on the issue was exactly as the one of any audiophile.
Even when I make an audio items evaluations my LP tracks listening time I made it seated in my room at near field.

Well, I just found out an artricle that I have to paste here because the site just does not works to link it. In this article for the first time I confirmed that I was and am to wrong in this important issue and in the subjects of this thread: we have to know what to look for when listening damped against undamped tonearm/cartridges combinations.
The article autor is a :Professor Mathematics Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley  and a symphonic orchestra musician/player and audio reviewer:


""" How far away from the performers do you have to be for the reverberant soundfield to be at least half the sound you hear (in sustained sound)? Not very far. The precise answer depends on the hall; but usually at anywhere beyond around 20 feet, the reverberant sound predominates in a typical hall. "This would mean that [in a usual concert hall) only for the musicians and the conductor (and the microphones placed in their vicinity) is the direct sound not overpowered by the statistical (reverberant) sound".

Records and Reality: How Music Sounds.

Right from the beginning, there is this difference between what is recorded and what you would hear if you were at the performance: Almost all records are made with the microphones closer to the performers than the audience would be. The sound very close to the performers is also an aspect of the absolute sound of live music. But the sound that the composer and the performers intend for us to hear is the sound at audience locations, and the sound the audience would hear is presumably what we should be trying to hear at home from our audio systems.

Close-up and distant sounds differ in the relative amounts of direct and reflected sound. There 'is also an important difference in the spectral balance-that is, the relative prominence of the various frequency ranges. At first sight, it may not be clear why an increase in the distance should be associated to changes in balance. But these changes do.occur and, in fact, are substantial. The reason for and extent of these shifts in spectral balance are what I want to explain here as well I can.

As long as we are restricting our attention to spectral balance specifically, there is useful information available from acoustical theory and measurements. The numerical data agree well with. the results of listening in this case (something that doesn't always happen!).

To set up our measurement picture, imagine a sound source on stage radiating sound with the same intensity at all the audible frequencies. The basic question is: What would be the intensity at various frequencies at audience locations in the hall? This amounts to asking how the sound heard by the audience differs from flat frequency response relative to sources on stage. If we can answer this basic question, then we will have a fairly good idea of what transformations will occur in musical sound from stage to audience, as far as frequency balance is concerned. The issue is complicated by the fact that most musical instruments beam the higher frequencies, but we shall take that up a bit later on.

The most natural and convincing approach to the basic question (other than just listening) is the empirical method of putting a known sound source on stage and applying a spectrum analyzer to the sound at various locations around the hall. The results of such measurements are given for a number of halls in Halls for Music Performance, Two Decades of Experience: 1962-1982 (R. Talaske, ef al. editors, published by American Institute of Physics for the Acoustical Society of America, 1982). The data given there consist of graphs of spec trum analyses from 125 Hz (or, on occasion, 8000 Hz) of the response to a sound source with a steady state, uniform dispersion standardized essentially flat frequency response. (The minor deviations from flat power response of the source will not be important to us, since we are only going to be considering the general picture.)

The graphs show considerable variety from hall to hall in bass and mid-bass response, with the halls that are regarded as desirable for orchestral performances having considerable bass to mid-bass warmth. A less desirable feature of many halls is a slight 250 Hz depression, apparently caused by absorption arising from the seating pattern. In the midrange above 250 Hz up to the 2-4 kHz region, most of the halls are essentially flat. But around 4000 Hz, and sometimes as low as 2000 Hz, virtually every hall begins a rapid roll-off at even quite close-up audience locations. By 8000 Hz, there is typically a 7 to 10 dB dropoff from midrange level. The graphs are not given beyond 8 kHz; but from theoretical considerations, the roll-off at higher frequencies would be expected to be even greater.

Frequency Response of Two Concert Halls:

Davies Hall, San Francisco and Orchestra Hall , Chicago

Note the high frequency roll-off, largely unaffected by changes in the hall acoustics, whether via movable devices ( Davies) or architectural modifications (Chicago).

Before you decide to disconnect your tweeters, we need to consider carefully what these data mean. The sound source used for these experiments is a steady state source, sustained like a held note or chord. Measured or heard response from a source in a hall is always a combination of the direct, unreflected sound straight from source to you and the sound from subsequent reflections off the room boundaries-the walls, floor, ceiling. For a steady state source, the direct sound has constant volume, of course. Moreover, soon after the source begins radiating, the reflected sound builds up to a volume that also remains constant. The explanation of the measurements I have described is that this reflected sound, the reverberant soundfield, as it is called, has very little high frequency content. As the reverberant soundfield accounts for much of the total sound, a high frequency rolloff is expected.

Transient sounds are much different. The steeply rising transient wavefront is received directly first, with the high frequency content unattenuated by reflection. A sharp transient always contains extensive high frequency content. You can verify this fact by covering your tweeters and noting how transients become dulled. A transient sound does not build up a true, constant reverberant soundfield. There is not time for it to do so. And the boundary reflections that do occur will not blur the feeling of sharpness, of hard attack, nor will they in general confuse the sense of where the transient came from. The brain notes where the first wavefront came from and does not let itself be distracted by the reflections (the Haas effect). This perception of transient location makes possible the precise sense of where instruments are even in a distant audience location, where the reverberant field of sustained sound predominates.

The situation with transients is one reason why putting in a fast roll-off high frequency filter will not produce true concert hall sound from a record that is bright because of being too closely miked. Transients that should be sharp and clean will be dulled; and the sound will become muddy, muffled, and diffuse, even if the steady state tonal balance has been made more or less correct.

There is some loss of highs with distance even in transients, because the air itself absorbs high frequencies more than it absorbs lower ones. Below 1000 Hz, air absorption is a negligible effect. But from 1000 Hz on up, the rate of air absorption increases steadily with increasing frequency. At 1000 Hz, the air absorption is less than .25 dB per 100 feet; at 4000 Hz it is 1.2 dB per 100 feet; and at 10,000 Hz it is 4.3 dB per 100 feet. So 50 feet back, say, 4 kHz is down about .5 dB, 10 kHz is down about 2 dB, relative to 1 kHz. These amounts depend considerably on relative humidity. The figures given are for 40 percent humidity. In the winter, when indoor humidity is very low because of heating, the differential air absorption is higher, with 10 kHz down 8 dB at 100 feet when the humidity is 20 percent. 

Air Absorption of Higher Frequencies

Direct sound loses high frequencies only a fairly small amount, but the loss in the reverberant soundfield is much greater. The reason has to do with both air absorption and room boundary absorption. The rate at which the air and the room boundaries together absorb sound is usually measured by the reverberation time, with short reverberation time corresponding to high absorption and long reverberation to less absorption. By definition, the reverberation time at a fixed frequency is the time it takes a uniform soundfield in the hall at that frequency to drop 60 dB, measured from the time the source of the soundfield stops radiating. It turns out that this time does not depend on the absolute loudness of the soundfield. The choice of 60 dB is arbitrary; but the 60 dB figure seems to have been motivated by the fact that it is roughly the decibel separation between medium loud music levels and the noise floor in a reasonably quiet room.

You can get an approximate idea of a hall's reverberation time by noting the time it takes for the music to become inaudible after the players stop playing. In truly resonant spaces, such as large stone churches, the sound remains audible for a surprisingly long time.

When a single reverberation time is specified for a hall, it is usually for 500 or 1000 Hz or some average over this range. For a hall regarded as good for symphonic music, this reverberation time will usually be around two seconds with the hall occupied, though other acoustic characteristics of the hall can make shorter or longer times acceptable. The reverberation times at other frequencies are also important, and these other reverberation times generally differ substantially from the midrange time.

We have noted already that air absorbs sound rather little at frequencies below 1000 Hz, so absorption by the room boundaries becomes the main factor in determining the reverberation time for frequencies below 1000 Hz. The more absorbent the materials of which the hall is constructed, the shorter the reverberation time. The volume of the hall also plays a role because, in a large hall, the sound takes longer to go from one boundary, and hence one absorption, to another. This is one of the reasons that good halls have high ceilings: For a fixed seating area, a higher ceiling makes the volume larger and the reverberation time suitably long. Of course, this process can be carried too far; the Gothic cathedrals, with their vaulted ceilings, have reverberation times that are too long for satisfactory symphonic music listening, though the reverberation is suitable for organ music, antiphonal brass, and the like.

Most of the materials used in concert hall construction absorb bass frequencies less than midrange frequencies, and the good symphonic halls often have bass reverberation times of more than three seconds. The resulting warmth is usually regarded as a virtue. This regard is not just a case of making a virtue of necessity. It is possible to make a hollow-walled hall that would have short bass reverberation time, but such halls usually sound awful.

The air absorption of sound at high frequencies is so large that the high frequency reverberation times are short even if there is no absorption whatever by the room boundaries. For instance, at 40 percent humidity (humidity matters again), the maximum possible reverberation time for 10 kHz sound is 1.2 seconds. At 20 percent humidity, the maximum possible at 10 kHz is only .6 seconds. The maximum possible values above 10 kHz decrease steadily with increasing frequency. In practice, concert halls are designed to be nearly as "live" as can be arranged, that is, to have walls and ceiling that do not absorb high frequencies too strongly, so that the reverberation times are not too far from the maximum possible values. But it remains an inevitable fact that air absorption makes the high frequency reverberation times lower than the midrange ones, if the midrange times resemble the commonly accepted ideal value of around two seconds.

Now you see why concert hall response is at least potentially flat across the midrange, but tends to roll off as soon as air absorption becomes a significant factor, for around 4 kHz up. There just is not much higher frequency energy around in the reverberant soundfield because, as the sound bounces around the hall, the air soaks up the highs even if the walls don't.

Reverberation Times versus Frequency for

Davies Hall, San Francisco and Orchestra Hall ,Chicago .

(from Halls for Music Performance )

Naturally, this does not mean that there are no highs in the concert hall. In a close seat with direct sound, over half the total, the highs would be down only a few decibels since the highs in the direct sound would have suffered little distance attenuation; and the reverberant field, with its low content in high frequencies, would be only the smaller part of the perceived sound. But in a more remote seat, where the reverberant soundfield predominates, the suppression of highs would be much greater, as we saw in the experimental data. This all applies only to sustained, not transient, sound, as discussed.

How far away from the performers do you have to be for the reverberant soundfield to be at least half the sound you hear (in sustained sound)? Not very far. The precise answer depends on the hall; but usually at anywhere beyond around 20 feet, the reverberant sound predominates in a typical hall. "This would mean that [in a usual concert hall) only for the musicians and the conductor (and the microphones placed in their vicinity) is the direct sound not overpowered by the statistical (reverberant) sound".

Many musical instruments beam their high frequencies to a considerable extent. Trumpets, for instance, are much brighter on axis than far off axis. The effect of such beaming is to increase the proportion of direct compared to reverberant sound at the more distant audience locations. Since direct sound contains more high frequencies, beaming brightens the sound at distant locations and prevents excessive dullness. The effect is only partial, however. Distance attenuates even directly radiated highs, and the room sound with its lack of highs also continues to account for much of what is heard at a distance.

The beaming is directed up and out, toward the balconies. At a close-in seat in the orchestra, the highs are mostly being beamed over your head. An approximate uniformity of brightness is obtained because the distant balcony seats receive the beaming, brightening what would otherwise be too dull because of the predominance of reverberant sound, while the close-in seats, which receive more of the direct sound, are off the beaming axis, reducing what would otherwise be too much brightness.

The most important thing to note, however, is that no audience location can possibly receive anything like as much high frequency energy as a microphone that is both close to the performer and on the beaming axis, i. e., close to, in front, and up fairly high where microphones are in fact typically positioned!

Because, for the bass-midrange, smaller room volume makes for shorter reverberation times, living rooms have short bass-midrange reverberation times, typically on the order of half a second. High frequency reverberation times are also short, because they are always short on account of air absorption. Small rooms do not have the large difference between bass, midrange, and high frequency reverberation times that is typical of concert halls, where bass is often over three seconds, midrange is about two seconds, and highs are one second or less.

In a usual living room, a non-beaming source produces room sound at least as loud as direct sound at any location more than about three feet from the source. The room sound, which thus plays a large role at normal listening positions, is tailored not only by the reverberation times at different frequencies, but also by the directivity of the speakers at different frequencies. Most loudspeakers, whether by accident or design, become more directional at higher frequencies. If such a speaker has flat on-axis response, it will produce a proportionately lower total energy level in the higher frequencies because of its narrower directivity. Since the reverberant sound field treats all directions the same way, the room sound will have rolled-off high frequencies, just as it does in a concert hall. But this compensation seldom works out exactly right.

Data on directivity and the actual room response of loudspeakers are often provided in British magazines and some owner's manuals as well. While such data have perhaps rather distant relevance to choosing speakers, it is useful in getting some general idea of the effects we are discussing here, and indeed a general pattern emerges. Most speakers roll off above 10 kHz in room response, as expected from directivity considerations. On the other hand, many are relatively flat in the 4-10 kHz region. Thus, the concert hall roll-off, in fact, starts much sooner than the room-speaker roll-off for these speakers. It follows unquestionably that close-miked records will be too bright tonally if concert hall sound is the standard.

The roll-off in the 10 kHz up region cannot repair the damage done by brightness in the 4-10 kHz region. In fact, the 10-20 kHz octave, which plays a large role in transient accuracy and texture, has an effect on tonal character that is smaller than, or at least different from, the 4-10 kHz range. Too much in the top octave makes things edgy, grainy, and over-etched. Too much in the 4-10 kHz region gives music a finger-nails-on-blackboard harshness. Neither frequency range can repair disaster in the other.

These considerations offer an explanation of several otherwise seemingly inexplicable situations. For instance, how is it possible that many musicians regard 78 RPM records as truer to the sound of music than many modern LPs? Strictly in terms of midrange/treble tonal balance (and in my experience tonal balance is what most musicians listen for first and [almost] only), it might actually be true that 78s are closer to the real thing than multimiked LPs, just because technical limitations prevented 78s from having a peaky top end. Similarly, how is it possible that an inexpensive AM radio, say, can provide enough musical information to make it possible to identify singers or, for that matter, violinists? Again, the crucial identifying information is contained in the midrange, because the wide variations with audience location of the higher frequencies make these frequencies less a part of the performer's identity. You could look at this the other way around, too: Those wide variations in high frequencies are acceptable precisely because the crucial tonal information lies in the midrange. None of this is to be taken as meaning that live music does not contain extreme highs, nor that 78s and AM radios actually sound like music! As noted, hard transients contain very high frequencies indeed, far beyond 20 kHz, even at audience locations.

The relative absence of higher frequencies in the reverberant soundfield, the consequences for multi-miked recordings, and the relationship with directivity and room sound have been considered carefully by speaker designers, or by some of them at least. The Quad 63s have controlled directivity (cf. Peter Walker interview, TAS, Issue 23), as do Spendor SP-1s in perhaps a less systematic way. The Celestion SL-600 and SL-6 use an even more radical approach: They are not even flat on axis, but rather have the treble shelved a few decibels down from 2 kHz on. The designers seem to have felt that this produced more realistic sound from most records. :" It can be argued that the shelved down treble effect, even with acceptably miked recordings, approximates simply moving back in the hall a bit, and as such is consistent with preserving the tonal balance of the real sound of music."

There are recordings with concert hall correct tonal balance and ambience, or something very near at least: the Reference Recordings and Waterlily Acoustics orchestral records come to mind. Purist miking of large ensembles effectively forces relatively distant miking: You just cannot get very close to the instruments of an orchestra all at once with only two or three microphones. So, de facto, minimal microphoning tends to produce natural (I.e., fairly distant) tonal balance in the recording of orchestras.

For smaller ensembles or solo instruments, however, minimal miking, even Blumlein one-point stereo, can be far too close for concert naturalness in tonal quality. Such close-up records can be and often are exciting, but providers of audience-location sound they are not. My feeling is that a certain distance is desirable. Modern instruments, and old ones rebuilt for modern use, are made to be brilliant enough for use in large spaces.

Even chamber music, as presently performed, is intended for halls holding hundreds of people. To put the players literally in your living room, to bring the players to you rather than you to the hall, will produce an over-bearing, too brilliant sound. (Even though for chamber music, I, in fact, do like to sit in the first row or two, that is still a long way from close-miked sound.)

Though opera singers certainly sing louder than untrained voices, the human voice is the one instrument that cannot be rebuilt for increased volume and brilliance, and closemiked vocal records can sound natural if the singer relaxes to unforced voice level. As for the rest: Back off, I say. Too many audiophiles and recording engineers seem to feel that the existence of details-keys clicking, fingers striking strings-is almost synonymous with realism. Of course, the system should reproduce these details if they are on the record. But an over-abundance of such detail in a recording or in a system is an immediate tip-off that the recording is too close or that the system is hyping up the highs or mid-highs. We have been wading in deep waters here, and it would not be appropriate to draw overly doctrinaire conclusions about such complex matters, in which personal preference (among other things) plays a role. But certain conclusions seem inevitable: First, the quality of the recording is crucial. As DAW remarks : "A correctly engineered recording will sound satisfying on virtually any reasonably good playback system. Yet a poorly engineered recording will not please the careful listener on any system, regardless of quality". To this I would add specifically that no equipment can truly repair the damage inflicted by unduly close miking, since you need to keep the highs for the transients but to get rid of most of them in the steady state sound. The controlled directivity approach to speaker design may help, but in the end what is really needed is a correctly balanced record. In frequency balance, as in soundstage, there ain't no cure for the multi-mike blues.

 Variations in the bass and mid-bass, as long as they are not seriously deficient, or in the higher frequencies, as long as they are not over-prominent, tend to be consistent with differences in hall acoustics; and such variations keep things in the realm of live music. But, because good halls have flat midrange response themselves, midrange irregularities in equipment or recordings will not in general be consistent with concert hall experience. 

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

Dear friends: "  "  If a cartridge is properly matched to the tonearm damping is not required. "

through this thread that statement not only can't be corroborated/confirmed but the other way around: is totally false.
It's easy for any one of us make a critic or adverse opinion in an audio subject and unfortunatelly  this kind of posts are very often in the forums where the person that post a critic never gives any prove/facts that can confirm with out doubt that he is rigth, any facts that be the foundation of his opinion. 

So that kind of statements are not only false ( till can proved. ) but totally useless for all of us.

In the articles linked we can read:

"  The first (A) is the result measured with an arm/cartridge resonance of 7 Hz. In (B) the resonance is around 9,5 Hz and in (C) it has been put at 16 Hz and some damping applied. The lack of sidebands in (C) compared with (A) gives a clear improvement in sound quality in terms of increased stability and transparency in the stereo picture. From this it is clear to see that to improve audible quality the main problem IS TO REDUCE THE RELATIVE MOVEMENTS BETWEEN CARTRIDGE AND RECORD AS MUCH IS POSIBLE.
 !n other words, ONE HAS TO DAMP THE TONEARM RESONANCE . 
In pursuit of this goal one should not make trade offs with respect to rigidity of the tonearm tube and fixture. Flexing in the arm and other spurious resonances could then be the result and destroy the stability of the stereo image. "



""  However, one must realize that these resonances build up when hit by transients in the music, either direct from the groove or indirect via the loudspeaker. When the transient is gone the resonances deliver their stored energy BACK to the cartridge and IS NOW CONVERTED TO ELECTRICAL SIGNALS AT A TIME WHERE THERE SHOUILD BE NO SIGNAL. ""



"""  Lastly we demonstrated the influence on tracking force giving distortion in the midrange during playback of high frequencies. As a parallel to the now widely used term TIM (Transient Intermodulation Distortion) which indicates the distortion components falling into the audible band when high level and high frequency (out of band) signals are fed to a feed-back amplifier — we could introduce the word BIM (Ref.5). Bass Intermodulation — a result of a high level low frequency (out of band) signals from a record boosted by an UNDAMPED tonearm resonance. The last conclusion we can draw from these investigations is the means of avoiding BIM. Since we have to accept that practical records (Ref.2) contain a large amount of "rubbish" centred around 4 — 5 Hz including warps, the optimum solution is clear... In addition some DAMPING should be applied to eliminate oscillations and influence on the frequency response above 20 Hz. """

Btw, the capital letters came from me but comes in the articles.


""""  When looking a iittfe closer to the oscillograms in Fig.28 it can be seen that in the case of arm nr. 3, the tracking force 20% of the time is below 5 mN (half of the preset value). It follows then that the cartridge is not able to track high frequencies without distortion for a considerable part of the total playback time. In this connection it could be mentioned that in a corresponding time interval the Fig.27. Set-up for recording the tracking force variations during play-back of ordinary records tracking force is far above what it is Fig.29. Here we have shown on the B&K Type 2131 1/3 Octave Analyzer, the distortion from the playback of a 1/3 octave pink noise at 20kHz (from test record B&K OP 2011). supposed to be with possible acceleration of record wear. The actual increase in distortion due to mistracking is illustrated in ...""""


SO, Tonearm and Cartridge must be well damped no matters what till some one comes here and proves with facts/live measurements damping is not necessary to improve the quality performance of any cartridge/tonearm combination.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Tonearm superiority isn't meant by tracking everything with all cartridges. It should do it also proper way controlling resonances and going fluently via deformations. 
If to use only tracking test Telarc, HiFI news or even better Ortofon test record you'll find that most of the high end cartridges don't track everything. For designer it's quite easy to make suspension softer and to get 100 μm peak although sound generated by coils and in case of too much fluency in suspension sound level will be uneven. So designer has to put into one sound profile - size of coils, impedance of coils and magnet type and shape, weight of cartridge and decide about suspension material, type and shape of cantilever it's material, stylus length and diamond shape. 
Company which built their reputation on tracking is Shure with V15 series If you'll check Shure Ultra 500 which is the best in the line you'll find that it has brush at the front. It's not intended as anti-static brush, it's part of suspension keeps it  more steady.

Dear friends: This is a clear example of the benefits of a tonearm damping mechanism as this Technics EPA250 mounted in a SP-10MK2 in the Ortofon extremely LOMC cartridge MC-2000 reviewed by Pisha in Audio magazyne ( page 83. )  where live measurements said the resonance frequency between cartridge/tonearm was/is 5.1hz and this combination tracks with out trouble the Telarc very high velocity cannon shots in the 1812 recording and this I can attest it because I tested  the MC-2000 several times with that great Telarc recording and only with well damped tonearms ( GST-801, MAX,EPA 100, AT1010. ) made the LP tracking with out problems ( with SAEC/FR/Grace/AT 1503 even that the resonance frequency was in the SAEC/FR/AT inside/nearest the ideal frequency range just can't do it. ): 

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1984-12.pdf

R.

Dear @bukanona : Yes, I agree that my know-how in tonearms is " very poor " as you saidand I don't want to argue neither but at least let me ask: why do you think is " very poor ". Which your reference about?

As I always say: I'm willing to learn in any audio/MUSIC subject. So your help appreciated and this is in good shape.

R.

Mijostyn - it can be done via transfer energy towards stub and absorbing it there. They do occur always.
If we speak about high fidelity everything matters you can't void and say that they are not important. 

bukanona, in regards to the tonearms major resonance frequency effective mass is 1/2 the equation. We must be talking about different subjects. I think you are talking about minor resonances that might occur in the arm tube or balance weight. Proper choice of materials and construction can certainly minimize these and produce a better sounding tonearm , but this has nothing to do with the major resonance as dictated by the cartridges suspension and the effective mass of the system.

for finish, I do promise never argue again, here.
spring in tonearm - doesn’t do anything if you have completely flat record.
But in case of valleys/bumps it helps (short version). Also spring has some impact as damping.
So in my not perfect world spring can be removed if turntable has vacuum or outer ring - sound might improve (never tried it yet).

Raul, your know how is very poor especially in tonearms. If you own tonearm it doesn't mean that it's the best in the world. 

Mijostyn, you are putting damping and effective weight into one bin. That is not correct.
All materials have some damping qualities and choosed by designer not only by desired weight. 

So what? japanese or not you can invite him to post. It will be a learning lesson if he decides to post.

That's the kind of gentlemans, other than the ones here, that can contributes to enrich our each one knowledge levels, especially in this regards.

In the past he posted in this forum, let me see if I remember his moniker and I will do it.

R.

@fsellet : I was whom deleted 3 of my posts. Any one else.

Btw, you don't have to read it. Why should you?, makes no sense to do it.

R.

Frankly, I am not interested in antique tonearms even if they are superbly made. All my favorite arms, the ones I would buy if I had the money, do not have damping troughs and these are totally unnecessary if paired with the right cartridge. Thes arm also happen to be on the light side with low moments of inertia. Larger arms like the 4 Point 14 could definitely use damping if paired with a high compliance cartridge and the 4 Points have both horizontal and vertical damping. They have fallen of my personal list. To bad Frank Schroder isn't here. I would love to ask him what he thinks of tonearm damping. Rauliruegas, is Frank Schroder OK?
At least he is not Japanese.

so @rauliruegas not only you  are not going to apologize for your offensive post, but you repost the same hate-filled nonsense after the moderators remove it! There is no place in this world for these comments and we should all petition audiogon to have you removed as a contributor. I certainly will stop reading your posts and boycott anything your are part of. I hope others will do the same.