TONEARM DAMPING : DAMPED OR NOT ? ? USELESS ? ? WELCOMED ? ?
Dear friends: This tonearm critical subject sometimes can be controversial for say the least. Some audiophiles swear for non damped tonearms as the FR designs or SAEC or even the SME 3012 that is not very well damped in stock original status.
Some other audiophiles likes good damped tonearms.
In other thread a gentleman posted:
" If a cartridge is properly matched to the tonearm damping is not required. " and even explained all what we know about the ideal resonance frequency range between tonearm and cartridge ( 8hz to 12hz. ). He refered to this when said: " properly matched to the tonearm ".
In that same thread that a Triplanar tonearm owner posted:
" This is the one thing about the Triplanar that I don't like. I never use the damping trough...... I imagine someone might have a use for it; I removed the troughs on my Triplanars; its nice to imagine that it sounds better for doing so. "
At the other side here it's a very well damped tonearm:
Now, after the LP is in the spining TT platter ( everything the same, including well matched cartridge/tonearm. ) the must critical issue is what happens once the cartridge stylus tip hits/track the LP grooves modulations.
The ideal is that those groove modulations can pass to the cartridge motor with out any additional kind of developed resonances/vibrations and that the transducer makes its job mantaining the delicated and sensible signal integrity that comes in those recorded groove modulations.
That is the ideal and could be utopic because all over the process/trip of the cartridge signal between the stylus tip ride and the output at the tonearm cable the signal suffers degradation (
resonances/vibrations/feedback ) mainly developed through all that " long trip " .
So, DAMPING IS NEED IT AT THE TONEARM/HEADSHELL SIDE OR NOT?
I'm trying to find out the " true " about and not looking if what we like it or not like it is rigth or not but what should be about and why of that " should be ".
I invite all of you analog lovers audiophiles to share your points of view in this critical analog audio subject. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT?
Dear @billstevenson : "
While you seem satisfied with you methodology, I encourage you to try and borrow an "O"scope because I am sure you would like it. "
Yes, maybe I like it.
Bill I don't want and don't need to go so " detailed " on the cartridge tracking issue because could be useless at the end other than " curiosity ".
You can be sure that my whole tests process with all my choosed LP tracks tells me all what I need and if you tested my finding through an " O'scope " you will find out that I'm in the " road ". The key there/in the process was and is its methodology and those choosed tracks and to know at 100% why choosed those tracks and no others.
Anyway your advise is welcomed but remember that we ( at least I. ) are just audiophiles.
Dear @lohanimal : ""
I had a short listen to the FR64s and thought it sounded perfectly good...""
Good even that the resonance frequency is ouit of the ideal range. Your experience with confirms the benefits of tonearm damping.
Some audiophiles think and post even here that the heavy mass tonearm as the FR provides " damping ", well damping against what is one of the questions but other critical issue with heavy effective mass in tonearms is during the LP play process where the cartridge has to deal with that heavy dynamic mass that complicated more its already hard job.
If I remember in the measured numbers og the MC2000/Technics combination the effective mass ( tonearm/cartridge. ) ( static. ) was 24grs. but the dynamic mass was measured over 31grs. that it's not a good number and that affects what we are listening through. Maybe if LP were perfect with no off-center, micro/macro waves and the like that dynamic mass could makes lower/less harm but unfortunatelly it's not this way.
I used the Monster Sigma deliberately because it is a very light 4.5gram cartridge which is medium compliance
I am going to use my Shelter 501 mk 2 next which is both heavier and much lower compliance.
The use of the trough made a significant difference.
When i say 'perfectly good' I was using a very English phrase that may have been a bit lost in translation. Remember that the rest of my audio chain is good, so it's never going to sound that bad...
What i will say that i will do more extensive listening once I've given the headshell, arm and cable a good run in with my burn in disk.
Can I just add that my logic is that the lower the compliance the heavier the silicone oil must be - It's like car suspension soft springs don't go with low viscosity oil as it will allow rebound and resonance and the 'damping' will not be performing its function
The Ortofon MC2000 is a high compliance cartridge that would never be paired with an FR64S, at least not by me. In his original review, J Gordon Holt noted that if one were to try to keep the calculated resonant frequency of the MC2000 cartridge within an acceptable range, it needs a 5-gram tonearm, in fact, because of its high compliance coupled with its own rather heavy weight. There have only been a very few tonearms ever made that qualify purely on that criterion. Yet, humans do enjoy the MC2000, somehow.
I, for one, never said that the FR64S might be sufficiently damped by its own high effective mass. My point was that if you add the B60 and a very massive tonearm mounting apparatus made from materials that transfer energy from the tonearm base, you can achieve some degree of mass damping. I use a B60 plus about 5 lbs of tonearm mount, none of which adds to the effective mass. If you then dismiss the heavy FR headshells (20g is typical) and use a lightweight rigid headshell (less than 10g), you can expand the useful range of the tonearm. Finally, in general I have agreed over and over again that damping is beneficial.
Dear @lohanimal : " At first you think images are smaller - in fact they are far more precise and occupy spaces much better. In addition to this surface noise comes down and bass was more preisee to my ears "
That’s what you stated with the Sigma2000 and that’s preccisely ( more or less other than improved tracking. ) what makes the silicon oil damping even with a tonearm/combination out of the ideal resonance frequency.
All kind of improvements are important for us but for me the main and most critical improvement in both kind of damping: directly on arm wand or the trough is the improved quality level of the bass range and this improvement permits per sé that all the other frequency ranges really shines too. Btw, I mentioned " arm wand " because there are good tonearms with damped arm wands and with out trough and performs fine as the : Cobra or the VPI Fatboy. Other tonearms use a blended materials in the arm wand to take advantage of its damping characteristics of those materials.
Any thing that helps to improve the cartridge signal quality of the bass range always will be welcomed because it’s the frame of the whole " picture " we are listening and as better the bass range as better our MUSIC/sounds enjoyment no matters what.
@lohanimal : The great Townshend characteristic is that the damping happens where everything start: rigth at the LP surface/cartridge and this is it's unquestionable advantage.
About silicon viscosity I think that 10cst is to low and you wil try higher. I posted this statement from Dr. A.J. van den Hul:
""
The higher the viscosity figure in centistokes, the stronger the damping effect ( his advise is no more than 500cst. ) ""
I tested as higher as 500cst and you will need to test 100-200-300cst with low/medium compliance and even with high compliance and after your self experiences you will know and can decide about.
@lewm I wish i had the means to check the resonance of the arm tube alone
I'm pretty certain that there ought to be a relationship of arm resonance/ cartridge compliance/Oil weight.
My own theory FWIW stems largely from racing radio controlled cars (don't laugh) they have miniaturised suspension with coil over shocks. You can use progressive or linear rate springs. It's not always a hard and fast rule because other factors such as roll centre, camber etc come into play. In general when one increases the spring rate/poundage you normally increase the oil viscosity. I've always likened a cartridge cantilever to a suspension arm. All said and done the cartridge/stylus only travels a tiny amount and it may explain why such high viscosity tends to be used.
I hope to conduct experiments with the Shelter 501 and as I said I will remit back to this thread.
My other arm is a moerch DP6 - that can have silicone added (near the pivot)- I did add a bit. The effect on the silicone being added to that is nothing like the townshend which has the silicone at the headshell.
I spoke to Max Townshend and he says the effect of the silicone trough is thee same for any cartridge. I don't doubt him - but curiosity makes me want to explore this :)
@bdp24
The Maplenoll Ariadne also had a silicone trough at the headshell end. It used a parallel arm. I am told it was brilliant but there were problems with the pump. Unless I am to be corrected it is a partial inspiration for the Walker Proscenium.
@yeti42 I would like to get the bellows feet - what was the improvement?
On another point - there are other motor options - PM me as i have a massively modified drive on the Rock Elite.
@rauliruegas BTW I used 10,000 CST - I did various tests and I think this is similar to what Max uses - that said he is understandably guarded about the viscosity he uses/sells and even if I knew the exact viscosity he uses i won't share it out of respect and goodwill.
Dear @lohanimal : well, the VDH advise and my self experiences that even that advise can helps with any tonearm with trough/paddle that normally has it at the tonearm pivot distance and this fact makes things different with the Townshend that does exactly at the source/cartridge and here it does not need it so high viscosity.
Anyway, at the ends test it is a must with. Appreciated that you share in the thread your coming experiences, thank's. R.
I must say that I don’t think I understand fluids and thermodynamics like professor Jack Dinsdale who was responsible for the trough - and viscosity...
but I will fiddle - it is a hobby at the end of the day
After mixing different viscosity silicone oil, and comparing it to the oil Townshend sells as " Trough fuel" i think his oil is somewhere in the 50,000 CST range. 100,000 CST is much thicker than his oil, and 10,000 CST is much thiner. The Maplenoll Ariadne Signature that i use was copied and modified by Walker when he made his first TT’s, he did move the silicone trough to the back of the arm, some people are not comfortable with the oil filled trough hanging over their records, and the extra step that using it entails. And yes the original pumps used on the Maplenoll TT,s where noisy and smelly, they where modified refrigerators pumps. My arm runs best with about 45 PSI and the bearing uses about 5 PSI, i use a oil-free shop compressor with a 100 L tank, its starts up and runs 1 min every half hour, and is noisy as hell, but is in its own isolated room far away from the listening room.
Dear @kps25sc : Yes, that's was I figure out due that in the Townshend the damping is applied at the source and not at the back of a normal tonearm trough.
I have made and use tail fluid dampers on my three cheap tonearms (Grace G-707 with Victor MC100 EB II, Rega RB300 with Ortofon OM20, and Thorens TP16 with Benz Micro Wood SL).
They don’t look good, but the sound is better with them. At It’s a very satisfying DIY trick.
S you were, expensive tonearm people. And Happy Thanksgiving weekend to you all from Canada!
In the midrange crossover I use caps in parallel too, 4 of them and only in the band-pass and tweeter crossover filters use only one.
Thank’s that in that forum ( techtalk. ) the experts in the subject ( some of them are DIY. ) gave me the normal audiophile advise to use some of the boutique caps and that no one of them gives me nothing different ( I’m not blame in any way to any one of them, as a fact I already appreciated their opinions. The best they can. ) I started to make a deep research by my self ( for moths and " thousands of tests with several models of Wima/Kemet/Vishay caps. Tests mainly in the midrange/tweeter crossover filters. ) through the internet and after I took in count that I had many Wima ( different models. ) caps that I changed in my electronics for many past years that I changed for in theory " better " caps type: more or less " boutique " type of caps.
In that research I found out with no single doubt the very good reasons why Wima, Vishay and Kemet are the true Industry Standard devices and I mean in all kind of Industry from the aerospace, automotive, militar, medical, audio and the like and at the same time I found out and learned why audiophiles and some high-end audio items manufacturers use the " boutique " names that they used/choosed not with very good reasons but for the very " wrong " reasons with out knowing theirt bad caps selections: I was one of them as and audiophile/manufacturer.
In my case my mistake/error was not made comparisons between the " boutique " caps and the way humble Wima/Kemet.
Nothing can compare against those Industry Standard caps, nothing at all ( at least not any " boutique " one. ).
Some of you like to make some DIY up-grades in your systems and for you I urge to try these caps in electronics and speakers and you will find out that all those euphonic distortions you like it and that are developed in your system just disappers leaving the signal MUSIC just " untoachable "/alone. It’s a total extasis about and I mean it.
At the begining you can experienced, as some audiophiles that do not like damping because the sound is lifeless/dullness and the like but the reality is exactly the latest @lohanimal experiences when at the first moment he thinked exist some " trouble " with the stage performance and bass but latter on he posted that that was not in that way but more music information with lower distortions and this is what you will find out with those caps: the true and only the true, you can’t deceit your self. You can lost nothing because at the end of those changes and after your brain/ears been accustom to if even this you don’t like it then always can come back at the same place where you started with.
Anyway, I want it to share with all of you my caps discovery because the rewards are extremely high and worth to do it or at least try it.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R:
Btw, today I can listen my system at any SPL you can name it and imagine does not collapse and even very high SPLs my ears don't ask to go lower but even can " support " higher levels that are really dagerous for my ears. I never imagined that the female voice sshhhh was developed by the system or at least making it with higher SPL.
Dear @lohanimal : Great, I think that all of us appreciated.
The Cranfield Institute of Thechnology made a true deeep reasearch and measurements about rigth what @bdp24 and you posted, it's not just bla bla bla.
Well, here and in other threads I posted " similar " way of thinking ( bla bla bla. ) on the whole necessity of tonearm/cartridge damping where several audiophiles first don't cares enough about and second don't makes to them " click " my empirical/common sense way of thinking, well maybe not only common sense but first hand experiences even with out scientific measurements.
A critical issue in that patent information that again I always talked about is that every kind of developed noised and distortions at any frequency develops harmonics/overtones that modulates/colored all the frequency range and in that patent they remarks that the frequencies developed even been to low: 0.56-3hz its harmonics goes to 20hz. Damping puts at minimum that problem either that the damping trough stays at the front or back in the tonearm.
That's why I always state that as better the room/system bass range quality level as better will be the whole room/system quality MUSIC reproduction. From here came my first hand experiences with a pair of powered subs that I shared through my subwoofer thread.
So, a tonearm needs at least to be designed and builded choosing the materials not only by its rigidity/stifness but taking in count the necessity to be well damped even with out using the silicon oil trough.
Well there are many things to comment on that patent and the damping benefitial effects and for me is a learning lesson that I hope could be that way for other audiophiles.
I know that always exist the audiophiles that no matters what they are entilted to that horrendous: " that's how I like it " even if he choosed the " wrong " road.
Dear friends and @lohanimal : The ones that use the trough fron/back in tonearm/cartridge combinations coincide in that the bass is truly improved and this fact gives " ligth/shine " to the other frequency extreme and obviously at the middle range too.
Some audiophiles here or in other thread acused me to insult japanese people and vintage manufacturers as FR/SAEC that desifned very bad damped or non-damped tonearms when I posted that they just like things different and I understand this coming from an audiophile but coming from a tonearm manufacturer only means very low knowledge levels about that's what I posted not as an insult but a fact. Even SAEC in its information puts pictures on how heavy mass damps almost " everything " and puts that information with out any tonearm research on the issue.
Several manufacturers do not design with the trough but their designs have a good level of damping in other ways.
I find audiophile discussions hilariously boils down to this.
Many talk about bloom, je ne cais quoi, inexplicable. Thee science has not caught up to explain what i can hear so science must be wrong. The mathematician once said that his maths were from gos and were always a discovery. There is always an explanation for why things are what they are. Flat-Earthers clearly refer to facts and figures - DD lovers ought to be from this camp - strangely not... But remember this @rauliruegas isn't it always more important to simply enjoy what it is you have? distortions or not - they can both be great fun.
Dear @lohanimal : Of course, at the end is what you have and you can’t enjoy nothing but what you own and normally you have it because you are satisfied with.
But in the tonearm damping we are not talking to invest thousands of dollars when you can damp your tonearm arm wand ( tape or O-rings, etc. ) and inside your same system you will detect a quality improvement.
Yes we can be a little lazzy to do it or just do not like how the tonearms looks with but these is another matters.
Many audiophiles made or make by their self modifications in their speakers or electronics that are way more dificult and expensive and some of these gentlemans own non damped tonearms as the FR ( only an example. ) where they can do it. Yes it’s up to them but remember that tonearm damping lower distortions and this fact is important, at least to me.
I strongly recommend that you source a trough from a rock 3. I happen to have a spare. I have kept it with a view of fitting it to my Sony TTS8000. The trough on the 3 was plastic and can therefore be cut. There's no reason one can't fit a trough to their own turntable.
Dear friends: I was making several tests all these days " playing " with the silicon viscosity and using different compliance cartridges.
I used from 50Kcst to 600Kcst and what I found out with all cartridges is that the more significant changes belongs between 100K to 300K and this does not means that at 500K-600Kcst there are no changes but are subtle changes where you need very high resolution room/system and a good evaluation process to be aware on it.
So, the ones of you with a tonearm with trough it's worth to test different silicon oil viscosity and the amount of deep you most place the rod/paddle in the tray.
The tonearms with out trough we have to damp the arm wand in some way, the rewards/benefits are more important that what you could think.
As I said somewhere in the first page damping everywhere in the room/system is critical and a necessity to achieve the best top quality sound reproduction levels and increment our MUSIC listening enjoyment times.
Btw, your findings or ideas on the whole subject are welcomed and appreciated.
Tonearm damping is a bandaid for poorly designed arms or turntables and/or mismatched arm/cartridge.
In my experience with many arms, even those with damping facilities provided, the application of fluid damping slugs the sound, particularly in speed and resolution.
For the highly-motivated: In the 90’s Townshend Audio offered for sale separately their Damping Trough, for installation and use on non-Rock tables. The DT Kit included the Trough, mounting plates (two, of differing dimensions) and hardware, a small bottle of damping fluid, and the requisite headshell-mounted plate and "paddle" (the little hollow aluminum tube that is mounted onto the headhsell plate and descends into the fluid).
I’ve never seen one for sale on the second-hand market, but ya never know. Mine will be, but not until after I die. My ancestors (on both sides) lived relatively-long lives (into their 90’s), so don’t hold yer breathe ;-) .
While I’m here, let me make something clear (if it isn’t already): The Townshend Audio Rock Turntable Damping system is not a "tonearm damper"; it addresses the issue of the tonearm/cartridge resonance that is inherent in the LP phono system, REGARDLESS of the specific arm and cartridge. For the complete story, read the Dinsdale papers (see above post), written after the research conducted at the Cranfield Technical College in England was completed.
Dear @dover : "
Tonearm damping is a bandaid for poorly designed arms or turntables and/or mismatched arm/cartridge. "
A bandaid?, well all after market devices as: protractors, mats, tip toes, still points, clamps, treatment, amp damping, TT damping, system item racks, power conditioners, power cables, etc, etc, according your point are bandaids for audio items poorly designed ones.
Well, in audio does not exist any single audio item and after market devices that are PERFECT and that's why everywhere we need " bandaids ".
All what you said already posted other audiophiles and through the thread to all of them were proved that they had a misunderstood about and that were not true their opinions and that damping is always welcomed, obviously you share with them the same misunderstood.
Here some links that between other gentlemans @antinn shared with us that one way or the other tell us the damping needs no matter what.
Obviously the @lohanimal links and posts as the bdp24 and from other gentlemans:
Dover is perfectly correct. Most of the stuffs Raul just mentioned are also band aides for poor design. Which means by this definition most turntables are poorly designed requiring numerous band aides. Some turntables like Technics Direct Drive and virtually all VPI table are so bad there are not enough band aides in the world to save them:-) This is the reason many of us are drifting toward digital program sources. How are you going to put a damping trough on a DAC.
Dear @mijostyn : The worst deaf-man is the one that does not wants hear in the same way that the worst blind-man is the one that does not wants see.
Know you or not and rigth from your first post in the thread you did not posted any evidence, fact, true explanation that supported your posts and rigth from your first post you are wrong and you showed and still show your very low common sense levels.
" poorly designed " ? well everything is " poorly " designed because xist tube dampers too. Damping is used everywhere in the audio world: speakers, cables, amps, preamps and even DAC units to lower vibrations.
Now, the origen of what you said: " poorly designed " audio items belongs to the media it self bacause the design of the analog/LP alternative is way faulty and it's a " brutality " ( for say the least ) the existense of those recorded grooves in the way were designed in that black kind of vinyl material and that's why the media/alternative needs to many " bandaids " everywhere in the analog chain.
It's really " unimaginable " that the transducer ( mounted in tonearm. ) job is dependent of the extremely hard task in that tiny stylus tip ridding that extremely tortuose randomly grooves LP surface path,. It's incredible ! ! !
All the evidence and facts ( almost. ) that supports the damping necessity are very well detailed through the thread including why M.Townshend choosed that damping design.
Again, you are wrong and trying to support your self by the high dover misunderstood on the main subject was a mistake from your part that only confirm the same: you are wrong, have nothing on hand.
Please don't try to justify your self posting no true facts. Rigth now and maybe just from your first post you are acting as a simple troll and nothing more.
Dear @bdp24 : ""
it addresses the issue of the tonearm/cartridge resonance that is inherent in the LP phono system, REGARDLESS of the specific arm and cartridge. ""
That's the great contribution to the analog alternative but historically several of the vintage tonearm manufacturers, some way or the other, took in less " dramatica/effective " way the issue on the necessity of some kind of damping in their designs.
One way or the other all tonearm designers know the importance of damping and they try that their designs have it.
Triplanar, SME, Jelco, Technics, Schroeder, Reed, SAT, etc, etc did it. A non-damped tonearm is just out of question and today and with all respect a design stupidity.
I have Denon DA309 and DA401. They have dynamic damping mechanism. Well, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know a bit about dynamic damping. Do I need to care about damping for the proper functioning of those tonearms? If I do, what do I need to do?
Right @rauliruegas. My point was that even if there were a "perfectly damped tonearm" (if such a thing is even possible), there will still be the cartridge/tonearm resonance that is produced by ALL cartridge/arm combinations. A poorly or non-damped arm may exacerbate that resonance, but it will be there even with an arm 100% free of it's own resonance. At least, that was the finding of the Cranfield research.
Dear @bdp24 : Yes, that resonance can't be avoided and some audiophiles think that if it's in side that " ideal " frequency range: 8hz- 12hz everything is fine but the harmonics of that kind of resonances always " color " the whole frequency range of what we are listening, this is: paint it.
Dear @ihcho : Damping is need it. You need a good TT mat and a good TT clamp. You can help your cartridges in the 309 using a good damped headshell: build material is the key here as wood or magnesium or even blended material builded headshells. You can't do that with the 401 that came with a dedicated headshell.
Now, read the first 1.5 page on this thread where Agoners posted " things " that could help tonearm/cartridge damping issue.
My turntable is Denon DP80 with DA401, and the mat is a stock. It has AT618 disc stablizer (clamp). DA309 is with PCL7 headshell. I ordered DK2300 from Japan. Once I get it, I will try to have dual arms installed for DP80. It is a long thread and loaded with technical details most of which I am not familiar with, but I will try to make those understood by myself. Thanks for your comment.
Dear @ihcho : The DP 80 is a good vintage TT that even in its Denon plyth needs damping even at the arm board where it's seated in the plynth and with its footers.
You need to a better clamp and different mat than the stock one.
As you said when you have all mounted you can " know " what to do which " road " take.
@mijostyn You don't need a damping trough with a CD playere - just seismic pods.
Pre-Galileo most thought the Earth to be the centre of thee solar system.
Using a tangenital arm - with a a needle in a groove is inherently flawed. It does not change that it is my preferred method pf music playback.
The trough system has worked on every arm I happen to own. I wonder if the naysayers have experienced it - or is a bit like people comparing cars they have never - or never will - own?
I appreciate the banter and pseudo-science of most the posters here - me - I prefer the dissertation of Bugge signed off by professor Dinsdale - pm me if you want a copy - Max Townshend said I can share it.
I just wish that on occasion some posters will admit they like a warm, bloomy, sound that is ultimately a lack of focus created by extraneous vibration. I have to say its very entertaining (FR64S arm is a great example - and I own one).
Dear @mijostyn : "" With proper tonearm matching damping is not needed and indeed is a negative. It is like adding friction to your bearing and forces the cartridge to work harder pulling the tonearm back and forth particularly on an eccentric record. Vertical damping might cause difficulty negotiating warps.
Don't use crutches. Fix the problem. ""
Well it takes me 2 full years to stay very near your statement meaning due that over those 2 years my room system fine tunning proccess arrives to an incredible top position in the quality level of sound reproduction.
There is no single tonearm that totally " Fix the problem ", however tonearm designers work hard to do it and they try to do it using different alternatives but today tonearms in one way or the other were designed taking in count seriously the damping issue. Some made it choosing the tonearm build material or blend materials or other solutions as the SAT that not only choosed a material but how they use it for the arm wand.
Please read here something interesting about and that's not easy to avoid it even today:
and from the radical damped Townshend tonearm patent we can read:
" for damping a range of frequencies of vertical and horizontal vibrations of the carrying means, so as to provide relatively low damping for frequencies below 5 Hz, moderate damping between 5 Hz and 20 Hz, and relatively high damping for frequencies above 20 Hz.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a phonograph having damping means which is effective over a wider range of frequencies than hitherto known.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a phonograph having a vicous damper which has direct effect at the position of the pick-up cartridge.
It is yet a further object of the invention to provide a phonograph having damping means which can substantially avoid unwanted high frequency complex modes of vibration caused by the arm vibrating, and damp out other unwanted audio frequency vibrations of the cartridge and of the arm, whilst allowing free movement over warps and eccentricities. "
But in the last statement about " free movement " this can't be acomplished through silicon damping tray and certainly can't even in the Townshend and I said this because through my latest tests and due that I own very well damped tonearms ( that I was using the silicon tray ) with out the silicon tray sound reproduction I mean quality sound level reproduction is way better with out the tray specially from the midrange up range and all the high frequency range.
That clearly improvement is because now exist that " free movement " but we have to be really carefully that the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency stays in the 8hz-12hz range.
Obviously that with out using the tray some cartridges that runned very well the canon shoots in the 1812 now have problems especially with the last 2 shoots however with the 1812 and other recordings the bass range performance is extremely good. Even and talking of the bass range with out tray I had to increment the SPL in my subwoofers that means that with the tray probably existed higher developed bass distortions with lower definition due that was not ridding with " free movements ".
Seems to me that the free movement is the key here if the tonearm design is a good damped design.
Technics knew very well and that's why used Boron blend in its tonearm arm wand and headshell along a resonance operation " Dynamic damping balance weigth " through the tonearm counterweigth but Technics did not use the silicon tray as SME several years ago and today in its series V model and Triplanar and others.
The other Technics critical design characteristic is that the friction level in the bearing is as or lower than 5mg.
@rauliruegas, Damn you have a long memory! In that statement I was referring to added damping like silicone wells and such. Items to try and dampen the cartridge's resonance point. Nothing in a tonearm can resonate. It is why Schroder does not put a rest or finger lift on his tonearms. All the materials and shapes of each individual part have to be used and designed to be critically damped at all frequencies in the audio band including at least 2 octaves above. You know all this already. I am preaching to the choir.
The MC Diamond is a fine cartridge. I wish it's impedance was lower otherwise it is top notch. The signal to noise ratio is better in voltage mode but prefer the sound better in current mode. It has more punch. The MSL is comparably polite. Just as detailed but less of an edge and not quite as punchy.
Dear @mijostyn : That " free movement " that unfortunatelly the Townshend tonearm can’t achieve is the real key to stay nearer to the recording if and only if the tonearm in use is a good damped design.
All what heppened in my room/system using that " key " was nothing " tiny " but higher improvement that I was not expecting and prepared too and that I had to increment the SPL in my subwoofers says a lot about because is not only that distortions goes lower but the clear definition of the low bass that’s not an easy task to achive. Overall I’m really happy .
Btw, of the really good vintage tonearms that I remember and owned only the MS MAX 237/282 came with a silicon tray that the owner can use using two different silicon density depending of the cartridge in use and MS gaves a list for the cartridges for one and the other silicon density.
Today those vintagey or new tonearm not well or undamped designs always could be benefiated by a not to wide riboon around the arm wand in an helicoidal way. Iyt does not affects the tonearm EM and improves the cartridge resolution during listening sessions.
About your MC Diamond maybe needs more playing hours.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
