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?
I forgot that's more important than what we could think that exist a good match between cartridge/tonearm in the way that can achieve a resonance frequency number inside the " ideal " resonance range : 8hz to 12hz or really near it.
Many of us are accustom to like the reproduction sound in our room/system witrh a total cartridge/tonearm mistmatch and we like it but we have to think all what we are losting with out all those additional developed distortions that we are accustom to and that impedes that the cartridges can shows at its best.
@rauliruegas, It's got about 50 hours on it. The signal to noise ration is more a function of the phono stage. If I had a Seta L20 it would be dead quiet. Now with the system set above 90 dB I can just hear a hiss. With the MSL the system is dead quiet to max volume. It has probably 10 dB more gain in current mode than the MC. 1.5 ohms vs 6 ohms. Because the bass is better in current mode with everything I have used so far I think you would really like it.
The damping trays might be useful in a situation were the arm is too heavy for the cartridge but it is much better to match the cartridge to the arm. I try to get as close to 8 Hz as I can. As far as bearing go they have to be ultimately smooth and as low in friction as possible. You can tell how good and arm is by setting it to neutral balance so that it floats horizontally and just blow very lightly on it and it should respond instantly and come to a very gradual halt. The abruptness at the end should be ever so slight. If you blow on the head shell from the top thearm will do one of two things. It will either gradually stop at a new position (neutral balance) or it will oscillate up and down and slowly come to a stop (stable balance)
If you have not gotten them yet you should get the WallySkater and Reference. They really are great tools and make set up much easier.
You say you have very good damped arms and have read the Bugge thesis i sent to you. That being said have you heard the townshend in action?
The original excaliber arm and the current one (which is custom made to order) could also be factored into the equation - I understand thee original arm doesn't have a fully fixed pivot point so to speak and floats in silicone - I might be wrong.
When you say you damp the arm - for most it is:
a. a silicone trough near the base like you get for Moerchs and SME's. Arguably pointless because the spurious resonance does not get killed at source. Liken it to a long car wishbone - the damper and springs are mounted closer to the wheel due to the better control it provides to the forces
b. you damp with tape or a head-shell attachment - the spurious energy remains and gets transferred down the arm. It is mechanically brilliant and effective.
Enough of the theory - buy a Townshend ROCK of any iteration then use your ears.
The original Excalibur arm was plagued with bearing issues. I know this because I used to sell the Elite Rock's. I still somewhere have a hand written 2 page letter from Max Townsend on how to fix them. The fix was not permanent though - there was a design flaw in the arm bearing.
Funnily enough for a few months I ran my Eminent Technology air bearing arm on the Rock with no damping and it was excellent - far better than with the Excalibur/trough.
Dear @lohanimal : You are rigth that perhaps I need to experience in my system the Townshend one but my point is what said the tonearm patent that whith other words I understand like this:
" different damping levels at frequency ranges with the trough at the cartridge position and at the same time allowing for " free movement " at the cartridge stylus "
Both actions can't live together or is dampened or exist that critical and extremely important FREE MVEMENT but not both together.
As everything in audio exist trade offs that I'm not discovery yet in my well damped tonearms with out the trough. Till today in all frequency ranges with the " free movement " Ithe system achieved a not tiny improvement and the better of those improvement started with the low bass that's the one range that puts/colored all what in any room/system we are listening.
Now, I gone from 500Kc silicon density to zero silicon damping. I know that I need try something from 10K and from there make more tests and this will take some weeks or months to have a conclusion because is not to easy to clean up the tray to change new density silicon along that my test proccess is a little with long time.
In reading through this thread after so many months of its existence, it seems to me that most commenters are mixing together two different phenomena. The first is the resonant frequency that we calculate from tonearm effective mass and cartridge compliance. This resonance we want to lie in the range 8 to 12Hz, or very close to it. This resonance will not "happen" unless vibrational energy in the range of the resonant frequency is fed into the "system", defining the system as the tonearm/cartridge and anything attached to the tonearm or cartridge. Energy at or near that resonant frequency will excite the unwanted response. The second kind of resonance would be that which results from playing music, where a wide range of audible frequencies (but almost never in the range of 8 to 12Hz) is constantly being fed into the system due to the contact between stylus and groove where the frequencies are encoded and due also to any source of acoustic feedback in the listening room. Seems to me it is this latter source of resonance(s) that we want to control or eliminate, so the conventional matching of tonearm and cartridge based on effective mass and compliance is not so primary in this pursuit.
As a result, you could have a tonearm/cartridge that are well matched based on the equation that predicts "resonant frequency", but the combination may sound bad due to the excitation of undamped or inadequately damped resonances caused by higher audio frequencies. You could also have a tonearm/cartridge that are a bad match based on the standard equation based on tonearm effective mass and cartridge compliance but sounds wonderful (so long as it is isolated from the sub-audio frequencies that excite the inherent resonance), because the tonearm is well damped or otherwise built to avoid resonances excited at audio frequencies.
Dear @lewm : Certainly you had not experiences with the main subject thread and seems that you did not read carefully may latest posts.
It's not that the cartridge /tonearm match can does achieve that absolute necessary FREE MOVEMENT in the ridding cartridge stylus but that along that match the tonearm ( any ) must be a well damped design.
When we achieve those the rewards are unimaginable specially for audiophiles with out the " very good damped tonearm design ". NO, your love for the FR and the 505 is only " your love " but it's full of distortions/colorations that you love and that's all. It's wrong to use that kind of audio items if we want to stay nearer to the recording and as always that's my target and when any one achieve that target he will has an experience in MUSIC reproduction way better than never before. Of course that that gentleman needs to own a good room/system with high resolution and obviously with very good first hand experiences with live MUSIC events seated at near field position.
I still own your FR and owned the 505, that's why I'm posting about.
What did I just write that’s in conflict with what you just wrote? And I know very well how you feel about the FR64S. Nothing I just wrote was in defense of the FR. Try to work on understanding my English before needlessly attacking it.
In my latest post I was not mixing anything but only said:
" It’s not that the cartridge /tonearm match can achieve that absolute necessary FREE MOVEMENT in the ridding cartridge stylus but that along that match the tonearm ( any ) must be a well damped design. "
both phenomena must exist always, no matters what and there is no conflict.
Btw, I’m talking for me. All those is only about the cartridge/tonearm but we must add that always we need a good damping TT mat and a good damping clamp as the reflex Bais audio and that the TT be well damped at its plynth and the plattform that's supporting it and we need not forget the tonearm arm mount that needs be well damped too.
I haven't read thru this entire thread.....sorry but been listening to music. Have a question. Why doesn't the new Kuzma Safir 9 arm not use damping fluid like 4POINT? Also have seen on other sites where people that own the 4POINT have actually removed the top dampening trough that they say improves sonics. Curious others thoughts.
Raul, in alluding to the fact that “some” of the respondents have conflated tonearm to cartridge matching based on the standard resonant frequency calculation with how tonearms control energy put into them by the act of playing an LP, I certainly did not mean to include you. But I do maintain those are two different phenomena. Which might explain why occasionally a tonearm to cartridge mating that seems ill advised based only on the resonant frequency math can actually sound very good, if both elements are isolated from those frequencies below the audio band that might excite the pairing. I hope I’ve made my thought more clear.
Dear @rsf507 : In theory the sapphire used in the arm wand Kuzma tonearm could helps for the tonearm been " well damped " but those 60grs. in EM goes against the cartridge needs matching resonance frequency inside the ideal frequency range: 8hz-12hz and in the other side that really high inertia moment is nothing good for the cartridge ridding and its suspension in higher ways than in more normal tonearms.
Kuzma says that is the best ever tonearm arm wand by its rigidity and low resonant figures but the Technics EPA 100MK2 was and is in reality the best one about by its boron arm wand that has better characteristics than sapphire and not so weigthy and for that synthetic sapphire arm wand Kuzma ask 20K for its tonearm.
I can say that " on paper " I do not buy even at 2K tag price.
says that is the best ever tonearm arm wand by its rigidity and low resonant figures but the Technics EPA 100MK2 was and is in reality the best one about by its boron arm wand that has better characteristics than sapphire
Wrong.
The Technics EPA 100MK2 is predominantly a titanium arm tube with a boron coating. Titanium is not rigid, it flexes, you can bend a titanium tube with your bare hands. How do I know this - I use to work for the largest manufacturer of titanium tubing on the planet.
On the other hand the high mass of the Safir would be a concern to me.
The question is whether boron nitride coated titanium (if that’s what Technics used) is superior to other materials for dissipating energy, not so much whether it can be bent by a human exerting strength to bend it. I doubt many arm wands of any kind except maybe steel ones could resist such an effort. Certainly aluminum, wood, and CF wands could be easily bent.
Rsf, thank for referencing that thread on WBF. Interesting to note that Kuzma rationalizes cartridge compliance/ tonearm effective mass mismatches, IF a massy tonearm (i.e., his Safir ) is mated to a high compliance cartridge. He points out that modern high end TTs and stands provide good isolation and very low rumble, thereby rendering a low resonant frequency (the result of combining high EM with high compliance) harmless. One comment on the Safir: seems you adjust azimuth by rotating the arm tube near the pivot, as with the Triplanar. This works but also introduces yaw at the headshell because of the headshell offset angle, which may not be such a good thing.
I just googled “tubing made out of sapphire”. In the US there are at least two companies that will sell you lab grown pure Sapphire tubes of many different lengths and diameters for very low cost per tube. Who will be the first among us to make his own sapphire tonearm?
@rauliruegas try and recreate a trough on a large scale. I did (i will email you a design i made once) I tried this out using a paddling pool and found that the water and paddle steadied the movement of my makeshift arm and significantly alleviated my strain. Always visualise and experiment - I'm sure you must be bonkers enough like me to try it out 🤣
@dover : Not wrong because the Technics blend in the MK2 is way better in the arm wand that sapphire.
" The EPA-100Mk2 arm was a titanium alloy tube with boron fiber surface inside and out. The fiber gets there by chemical vapor deposition (the method by which the EPC-100MkIV cantilevers were strengthened/stiffened). Because of the way the boron was applied, it created a super-stiff super-light arm tube, which had both longitudinal and torsional stiffness but which absorbed micro vibrations. "
" not so much whether it can be bent by a human exerting strength to bend it. I doubt many arm wands of any kind except maybe steel ones could resist such an effort. "
Dear @lohanimal : I did it in massive way to the point where the cartridge tonearm can't goes on after the last recorded groove, stop there and can't pass through the end of the non-recorded LP surface before the center label.
I can say that I tested everything you can imagine and in my " natural " well damped tonearm the best trough is not trough at all. That's what my very high resolution system tells me and to my friends too. Diffreneces for the better are just obvious but as almost always depends on the whole room/system resolution and the kind of test proccess each one of us have for comparisons.
you said you tried all permutations - therefore did you re-create the Townshend Trough? I have a Moerch DP6 which allows damping - and frankly i prefer it without damping - however - mounted using a Towsnhend front trough is an altogether different animal.
There's damping and there is damping and there is damping.
Even inside the ideal cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency how can help the cartridge stylus jitter?
We can see several things, first of them is the way very hard task the stylus tip has to ride those tortuose groove modulations, cartridge/tonearm job should be really fenomenal for been faithful to the groove modulations information recorded there the other thing we can see is that the stylus tip ridding is almost " out of its control " almost at " random " as the self cartridge tracking habilities permits it.
And it’s these critical microscopic out of control stylus tip movements the ones that must and should be " tamed " to lower the developed distortions/to lower the additional non recorded movements and for the stylus tip pick up a higher true groove modulations.
Could you share what to do about? because jitter means higher added distorion levels. Due that you posted:
" 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 "
I used damping on an SME V because I read it would help the mistracking (which I had not experienced) of the London Decca Reference and these days the same cartridge sits on an SME IV without damping and still exhibits no mistracking. Does it sound more dynamic without the damping trough? I can’t say I can tell the difference.
The Series V holds a Benz LP-S now, and the damping trough has had all the silicon removed.
Dear @dogberry : " Does it sound more dynamic without the damping trough? I can’t say I can tell the difference. "
During LP play we can't avoid the jitter cartridge tracking " phenomenon " that's a kind of " mistracking " because suddenly the stylus tip lost contact with the LP groove. This sudden contact lost develops a kind of " high frequency distortion " that we all are already accustom to and that we all are not really aware when it's happening, so it's not easy say is a mistracking but it's.
Now, the V and IV have different quality level bearings: ABEC 9 in the V against ABEC 7 in the IV. It's weird that you can't detect those two " characteristics ": different bearing and damping.
Now, remember in the V the cSt silicon viscosity? 10K, 100K, etc etc. ?
@rauliruegas That guy has a serious problem with record hygiene. I can't see the jitter through the dirt. I do not use the term jitter. I call it miss tracking.
Do you have a problem with mistracking? I certainly do not. The last time I heard one of my cartridges mistrack it was because the stylus wound up pointed in the wrong direction. It was a warranty repair.
As I stated before, if good cartridges are set up properly in the right mass tonearm, damping is not necessary and would even do more damage than good. You use damping to control resonance that can not be controlled any other way. Air bearing linear tonearms benefit from damping. The Saphir might benefit from damping. I know some audiophiles that would definitely benefit from some damping.
Dear @mijostyn : " I certainly do not. " wrong, every cartridge with perfect match to any tonearm lost contact with the LP groove during play ride. Name it mistracking or jitter it does not matters the issue is that you can’t avoid it and if you can’t detect it that’s is your room/system/ears problem not mine.
Many times like in this thread you read but do not in true " read " just read and that’s all.
Anyway, that jitter/mistracking needs tobe disappears and that’s the question fo you: how other than damp the cartridge ( not the tonearm ) stylus/cantilever? and again you are ( for me ) in serious trouble if you can’t detect that phenomenon, really serious even if you don’t care.
Btw, you are very good to critic something as the dust in tha video but even that you are not very good to offer solutions about ( not to clean that dust. That video was an example just to shows what you can't detect yet. )
@mijostyn : In this thread and through the Townshend white papers/tesis exist the scientific/measures facts that tells your theory of not silicon damping is wrong and Townshend proved with his design.
I think that you are not aware of that jitter distortion because you never listened/tested the same tonearm/cartridge with and with out that tray.
You need to do it and remember that the you don't need to immerse totally the rod in the silicon tray because you always can put at diffeent immerse distance an additional to that we can make the test with different silicon viscosity values.
If you decide do not do it then you can't make any critic inside this very specific subject. You like science and there are those white papers and your own first hand experiences that can or not corroborate your hypothesis showed till today.
@mijostyn : I have to say that time later that when started this thread and in some ways " following " what you said I came back to listen my cartridges/tonearms with out use of the silicon tray and I did it in the last 6-8 months till I decided ( due to some kind of improvements in my room/system ) to tes again the silicon tray that it was an is revelatory for say the least and it's in this way as I decided to folow with that kind of cartridge damping.
Btw, @dogberry: how much time ago did you that tests with the V/IV with and with out silicon?
Within the last 18 months the Reference moved off the Series V, initially when it went for a rebuild. When it came back, I put it on a Series IV (as the V now has an LP-S), where it sounds just as exciting. Recently I removed the damping silicon from the V, to see if it made a difference to the LP-S, but I don't think it does. It may be that those cartridges just don't need any damping on those arms.
Dear @dogberry : The issue is that it’s not an easy task to detect the analog jitter/natural mistracking, you can see that here mijostyn just has no answer or solution or as you think that it’s not need it.
All cartridges in all tonearm need it and to detect the " phenomenon " we need a self very good test proccess especially with LP tracks recorded at high velocities.
Now that I know what to look for I have not many trouble to detect it but first we need to make several tests til we can be " there ".
Before I started this thread I was over 0ne year making almost everything of cartridge damping to know if it’s need it or not and as Townshend my conclusion was and is that it’s need it.
How each one of us do it that cartridge damping is all about each one of us the easy way to go is with the silicon tray but if any of you have other " solutions " then are welcomed if decide to share it. Remember that’s it’s not to damp the tonearm but the riding cartridge: this is the real subject.
SME had and have its reasons to have that silicon tray as did it Micro Seiki that was a cartridge manufacturer too and other tonearm manufacturers.
Say it does not need it can’t help to the issue and if that does not need it is your way of thinking at least share an explanation why does not need it.
Again science and Townshend tesis says it's need it.
Raul, you may be right, and it is hardly for me to argue. But if my one, poor, remaining ear cannot hear the difference, what then?
I shall note that SME do not include any damping trough on most of their tonearms: it is standard only on the V (but is offered as an add-on for some of their other models). I have a good deal of respect for Alastair Robertson-Aikman's engineering decisions.
Might it be that you are referring to some more esoteric effects of damping rather than obvious mistracking?—when I got into Decca cartridges it was received wisdom that they would probably mistrack in an obvious way without a damped tonearm. My experience has been otherwise, but I don't have any of the classic Decca cartridges before John Wright modified them into something more refined and capable. And if we are to consider more subtle things than obvious mistracking, what of the supposed loss of dynamics that goes along with use of the damping trough? It is the (I'd say unrivalled) dynamics of Decca cartridges that makes us love them, and to dampen them down might remove their character.
Dear @dogberry : Yes, I owned the V and IV and its add-on tray.
No, the intrinsical character do not changes but improves. Now I think that could be more easy for any one of us to detect that analog jitter not with LP tracks recorded at high velocities but more easy in a " normal " recordings.
For years I developed my overall test proccess where I usem almost everykind of LP tracks and always the same.
As I told you, it's not easy to fall in count what to look for, we need patience and no we don't need " golden ears " to do it.
@dogberry : What I try to say is that we need that to amke comparisons with and with out silicon damping we need that the in the tonearm tray came facilities to do it because if each time you need to remove the silicon oil to test with out and have to fill each time you need to test with silicon damping then maybe not a good idea because the test with and with out we need to do it " almost " in the fly ( not in the fly really ) very fast in the same track.
I can't remember how came in the SME but in my today tonearms and in the MS MAX you can do that and is easy to listen with and with out.
@rauliruegasIf you have mistracking problems with the tonearms you are using you need to try different arms or maybe try increasing the VTF. You do not want to know what I think about Townsend. I assure you that I am VERY sensitive to that type of distortion and I am well experienced with it having had bad cartridge tonearm combinations in the past. Maybe you have owned to many Decca cartridges? I assure you, none of my current cartridges mistrack any record I have played, mounted in the Schroder CB as long as the stylus is pointed in the right direction. If you want to mess up your life with silicon goo mixed with dust and flies, have fun.
The solution for dust is proper record management, a dust cover and control over static. If you clean your records stay away from methods that air or fan dry records. However, perfect control over dust in the typical home environment is impossible. I still use a conductive sweep arm during play and clean the turntable at least once a month.
@rauliruegas, @dogberry AB testing damping methods is easy. You make a 24/192 recording of each condition you want to compare then have a friend do the switching so you are blinded. Digital recordings at that bit rate and frequency are invisible. Pure Vinyl, a program by Channel D is an excellent vinyl recording program and once set up it is a breeze to use. Many reviewers use it.
Dear @mijostyn : " I assure you, none of my current cartridges mistrack any record I have played, "
All your today and past cartridges has that analog jitter and you can’t avoid it. That you just don’s accept it is only your attitude or " ignorance " because evidence are there.
Shure, Stanton, Pickering and the like knew about and thta’s why its cartridge stabilizers to help a little on that regards.
If you are happy with that analog jitter in your system it’s fine with me but that you post after post tell that you don’t have that problem is just something " stupid for say the least: the day is nigth as not the other way around.
Btw, what you don’t understand yet is that that specific regards has nothing to do with which tonearm which kind of tonearm are you using and if it’s good matched or not: THE ISSUE BELONGS TO THE CARTRIDGE/GROOVE /FRICTON riding.
Till you understand that you will stay in trouble.
" You do not want to know what I think about Townsend. "
What you think about has no importance what has importance is that you can prove it that what Townshend and his surrouded external enginners measures and all the science behind them tha are facts. You have not facts and you know that I respect you but what you are posting in this specific regards is only you ignorance levels about because you don't belive that could happens then you never tested.
Now you are very shilled working with wooooood and mayvbe metal too and own all the necessary tools to make a tray and test in your system.
Your posts does not help you till you experience as first hand in your system. This is not about our believes, this is about reality and again it's not a tonearm issue.
@mijostyn : Cranfield Institute of Technology is whre everything were do it where Townshend was the manufacturer who was interested to go a head with.
His take was about the tonearm and overall developed " distortions " in TTs but through the time I learned about and my take is a little different and relationed to the cartridge groove ridding it self.
From the point of view of cartridge/tonearm perfect resonance frequency level you are rigth but thast is not my take.
Even that we can be out of that ideal resonance frequency level things happened and happens that goes against what we all learned about. The Ortofon MC 2000 real time measures under its review confirm that because its tonearm/resonance frequency was below 5hz and the reviewer can't detect any trouble with and was not any reviewer but an engineer/audiophile/music lover and proffesional reviewer.
Dear @mijostyn@dogberry and friends : Here what the gentlemans at Cranfield Institute of Technology found out about damping that Townshend decide to took and manufacture with a lot of success.
Same measures with and with out damping and they used a low viscosity at 10K when SME V use 60K and I already tested 100K, 300K and 600 in different ways. Mijos please do not makes a critic as is usual in you and try to enhance the dialogue with real solutions on this cartridge ridding subject that is what we all need. Critic is totally easy and any one can do it but real solutions that's a different history:
Thanks, Raul. I need to hear those differences rather than see them on paper to know if they are significant. And SME silicon is 60cS rather than 10, which I assume is a significant difference. I shall have to experiment some more, but it should wait until I finally move cartridges around on the tonearms so that they are in their final places (I'm being influenced by the idea, still, that the Decca will benefit the most from damping, if any of them do.)
Dear @dogberry : Of course that you need to hear it.
I shared those measures only for we can see that damped vs undamped valuations.
They used 34 different cartridges as the Decca London Gold, Ortofon MC 30, Denon DL103D, Empire 2000, Goldring 900, Nakamichi MC 1000 ( I owned this and was a great performer. ), Shure V15, Sonus Silver and many more with different compliace/weigth, characteristics.
@mijostyn I know that this gentleman has very good experience levels and very god knowledge levels and I think that to post something that enhamce the subject dialogue he has to " open " a little his way of thinking.
It took two albums this morning for me to change my mind and get up and swap the London Reference and the BM LP-S, moving the former on to the V and the latter on to the IV. Set the VTF, adjusted the overhang, set the anti-skate and rechecked the VTF. Refilled the damping trough with the last of my SME silicon, rechecked the level of the tables and off I went. Naturally everything sounds wonderful, as it always does after such exertions. I’m not sure it sounds different though! It had to be done at some stage, anyway, so no harm done. Maybe prolonged listening will make it all clear.
I have several years posting about that analog jitter/mistracking way before I started this thread or that P.Lenderman video and way before I knew about the white papers I mentioned here.
Those white papers are around 250 pages, it’s truly bigger to read it but yesterday for the first time I read there:
" this is atributed to cartridge vibration at high frequency upseting the subtle phase effects...."
" The name clamp or stabilizer seems more appropiate than damper, as the device only damps over a very narrow frequency range: 8hz-15hz but clamps from 20hz to 50khz. It is the clamping which gives the improvements:
a) bass coloration reduced
b) mid band "openess" improves
c)distortions at all frequencies is reduced
d)stereo imagery improved
e) tracking problems " eliminated " and
f) feedback greatly reduced. "
Maybe could be a good test with higher viscosity than 60K, at least this is my first hand experiences with different tonearms where I builded its dedicated trays.
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.
