Dear Dan_ed, We are some kind of international community with the same hobby. The only thing that matters is the
content of the information the members have to offer. I am reluctant to refer to Raul but we all have some profit from
his contribution. There are the so called language-purist,
mostly the language teachers,but this is,at present time,
pathetic. I am more familiar with language philosophy (logical as well as lingustic) then with analog gear. So I
think I can disentangle this language myth. I am communicating in 5 different languages daily 3 of wich I am
fluent in. No problem with the other 2 that includes English. So this language myth is easily 'refuted' if you think of all of those scientist that come from Europa to the USA and become university teachers that further the
American leadership in science. If you think that they all
ware fluent in English then you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no problem at all with your qualification that I come across as a 'non-intellectual American'. But this qualification may say more about you then about me.
Regards,
Regards, |
Question for all of you: why don't you use damping fluid with the Triplanar? |
Many have tried it, including me. No one I've met in five years likes it.
In my case the result with Shelter 901, several ZYX's and a few MM's was always the same: dullsville. Transients that should explode off the record like a Leroy Neiman just lolled around like a Rubens.
I suppose it might help tame some cartridge that sounds totally raw and edgy, but I'd rather get a better cartridge than fix a bad one with band-aids. Besides, the TP's noise floor is significantly lower with the damping trough removed.
YMMV as usual. If you like Rubens, give it a try!
Note: this has NOTHING to do with fluid damping in the bearing well of arms like unipivots from such as Graham or VPI. Fluid damping on those arms is differently implemented and IME it's beneficial with almost any cartridge. Perhaps a unipivot bearing doesn't sink resonances away from the cartridge as well as captured bearings (?). Whatever the reason, on those arms it's a big help.
|
Thanks for the reply, Doug. I had never removed the trough (even though I had never added fluid) but last night I gave it a try at the suggestion of Kevin (from KAB) who suggested it might cure my rumble issue.
It didn't - but it certainly changed the sound. I'm now wondering if removing the trough would help (I'm desperate :-)) |
Having just bought a Tri-Planar V11 U11 to go with GPA Monaco table and not having seen this thread I contacted Doug via a recommendation on another thread to get some advice in respect of damping fluid level. His advice was, as clearly stated in this thread, to get rid of the trough and pack it away. I followed his advice and as you no doubt all know the rewards were immediate. I haven't stopped smiling. Also, I have adjusted anti skate to the minimum level with again beneficial results but this time not as great as getting rid of the damping trough. My thanks to Doug for sharing his knowledge of this arm and assisting me in maximizing its performance (or at least getting a great deal of the way there). Now why is that trough and the silicone fluid included? |
Phaser,
Congrats on your table and arm. I went the same path as you and really have enjoyed my GPA Monaco and Tri arm. What cartridge and arm cable are you using?
I also put 2 o rings on the cueing lever, one down a ways and one up. On Antiskate, I decided I like the weight better than just o rings, so I flanked each side of the weight with o rings jammed as close to the weight as I could. Seemed to marginally help a little.
But agree with others, the damping trough is just awful, it should be left it box automatically and only added by user desire. |
Can anyone tell me why the damping trough should be such a negative as claimed? Do you think it is the damping per se or is it resonances set up by the physical presence of the trough and paddle? In that regard, have you all checked that the screws securing the trough were tight, in the process of deciding to remove it entirely? By the way, between Leroy Nieman and Rubens, who would want the former? An unfortunate analogy. How about Rubens v Pollack or v a great French Impressionist? Nieman is trite.
I am going to try it, because now that I am also listening to a Dynavector DV505, I notice that the Dyna is more dynamic sounding than the TP. |
Lew,
So sorry for the poor analogy, especially if it offended artistic sensibilities. Pollack will do.
While we're offering corrections, no one on this thread has merely "claimed" the damping trough is a negative. We've removed it and listened for ourselves (and yes, mine was screwed on very tight).
The PRESENCE of the trough is a negative for one reason, as discussed above when the suggestion was first made. It's the same reason the antiskate device and armrest are (somewhat lesser) negatives.
The USE of the trough is a negative in sonically different ways. Damping alters the internal resonance characteristics of the arm, and the result is not good.
Try it. You'll have no trouble deciding for yourself, as so many others have. Explanations don't convince so well, and risk being trite!
|
Thanks, Doug. I did not mean to sound snotty about Nieman, but I guess I did.
I knew Herb Papier for his last 15 years or so. He was a very careful listener, and he did not do anything to his tonearm that he himself did not try out in his own system, which was a pretty good one (Sound Lab A1, Rowland 7 amp and his top preamp, Basis Debut turntable). Since I assume Herb felt the damping trough was a positive addition to his tonearm and that this judgement was based on his own trial and error in his own system, I have been reluctant to believe that one would be better off without the trough entirely. But you make a good point; I need to try it. I am now prompted to do so after being blown off my feet by the dynamics of the DV505 tonearm compared to my TP.
PS. I don't know whether the trough alters the resonance of the tonearm so much as it may sink some of the energy at resonance, which was meant to be a good thing. Perhaps it is not. |
I have to give kudos to the non damping crowd,wheter it "is" in the bearing or not(as in trough...a total NO-NO).
I have a group of pals who will not touch an arm if it requires "any" kind of damping!....Bearing or an external trough!!
From my experience with a Graham 2.2 and Phantom I,and II.....the pivot bearing certainly had it's own "signature",regardless of how much, or little fluid was needed.The results were absolutely superb,but there was always a "something" going on with any fluid addition or subtraction.
Though the results were superb,I always wondered how much more could be had without any fluid,if that could be the case(this was a NO-NO on the Grahams).
I finally gave up,once it was demonstrated enough times,on a "measely" VPI 12.6,using NO fluid anywhere(the "measely crack" was just kidding,because it is quite superb,and the arm replaced an Air Tangent linear masterpiece).
I'm going to assume that the latest Triplanar arm is about as good as is "really necessary",and should suffice any realistic assumption of what should be had from an LP.
If I were to buy any current arm(not any time soon,due to my daughter's upcomming wedding....OUCH)the TRI would be high up on the list.
Regards
|
? about removing the dampening trough: Do you also remove the flat metal bar that the trough attaches directly to? Also, it looks as though you definitely have to remove the arm from the armboard (Teres) to remove the dampening trough. Correct? |
Yes, you have to unmount the arm to remove the trough, and yes you want to remove the support bar. The idea is to eliminate a vibrating tuning fork. You'll be removing two small, straight slotted jewelers' screws. Store everything in your Tri-Planar box in a small, ziplock baggie and SAVE it. The serial number is engraved on this support bar. I recently added a setup page to my Tri-Planar section - for the Artisan Cadenza cartridge which you may better know as the Benz Ebony S-Class - http://www.galibierdesign.com/prd_triplanar_setup_art_cadenza.html. The idea behind this series of pages it to document my experiences with the setup of various cartridges - to at a minimum give you a starting point for your journey. The Tri-Planar (with its three ancillary counterbalance weights) allows you to fine tune the effective mass of the toneaarm, and this can have it's benefits if you avail yourself of this feature. Benzes have always worked better on the light side of the effective mass scale - in the context of a Tri-Planar arm as well as in my experiences with the Moerch DP-6 (precision red arm wand). This is accomplished by selecting heavier counterweights so that you end up with the weights located closer to the bearing pivot when you've set them for the appropriate tracking force. In the case of the Tri-Planar, this means using the main (large) counterweight in conjunction with the largest of the three ancillary weights. Fine tuning like this is one reason Raul will correctly tell you that there are some arm/cart combos that work magic, while others don't. Fortunately, with the Tri-Planar and Moerch, we have a better chance of achieving a successful match. My apologies for the photo quality on some of the other cartridges' web pages. As time permits, I'll return to them - applying my improved lighting setup and photo skills to documentation of the other cartridges. Oh yes ... should you lose the link to this thread, I maintain it at the bottom of my Tri-Planar setup tips page - the general page which is not dedicated to any specific cartridges. There's some good information in this thread, and I wanted folks to have easy access to it. Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
As to suggestion #6:
6. For fine VTF adjustments don’t futz with the counterweight, there’s an easier way. Set the counterweight for the highest VTF you think you’ll need (ie, close to the pivot). Pick up some 1/4" I.D. O-rings from Home Depot. To reduce VTF a bit just slip an O-ring or two on the end stub. Thin O-rings reduce VTF by .01-.02g, thick ones by .04-.05g. Quick, cheap, effective. (For safety, always lock the arm down while adding or removing O-rings.)
I don't understand why you are using o-rings when it is easy enough to use the counterweight system to make fine VTF adjustments. You should have a small weight that screws into the end of the tonearm. The way to make fine VTF adjustments is to unscrew the small weight when you want to decrease VTF and screw in the small weight when you want to increase VTF. I haven't had any difficulty making fine VTF adjustments using this technique, and it seems easier to me than slipping on (and off) o-rings. |
12-06-09: Thom_mackris
Yes, you have to unmount the arm to remove the trough, and yes you want to remove the support bar. The idea is to eliminate a vibrating tuning fork. You'll be removing two small, straight slotted jewelers' screws.
From my perspective, I would say that this idea of taking apart the tonearm to remove the trough is very inadvisable. First, the trough and support bar are VERY rigid. Second, to test my intuitions, I did an experiment in which I tapped on the trough with a screwdriver to test for resonances. There were none. The trough and support bar is no tuning fork. |
Paperw8:
interesting test. i can whack parts of the arm support with a finger tap and hear it. so i am suprised your test didn't result in something. was the needle in the groove or just stationary in the resting position?
with my grand prix table i was able to remove the trough with out removing the arm. it's a instant change for the better. i won't be going back...but that's my arm on my table, i am sure there is a possibility of things turning out different for others...
good luck ! |
Jfrech:
When I tap on the trough, I hear a *sound* but a sound is not necessarily a resonance. The sound that I hear when I tap on the trough quickly dissipates. Now, you can impart a lot more energy upon a tonearm part with your finger (or a screwdriver) than can ambient sound energy from your speakers. So, what that means is, when resonance is lacking, sound energy has no chance of having any impact on the sonic performance of the tonearm.
Resonances are something different. What is different about a resonance, and why resonances are such a problem, is that when a resonance exists, sound energy is trapped within the object, which then becomes a source for additional sound propagation. In effect, sound energy that enters the object tends to stick around for a lot longer. That's why the tone that you hear from a tuning fork hangs around so long - it's because of the resonance at the tuned frequency of the tuning fork. On the other hand, other frequencies tend to get wiped out rather quickly, so that's why you don't hear them.
I can't, and don't, comment on what people think they are hearing. For example, I will not tell you that you aren't hearing what you say you are hearing. I simply lack sufficient information to make such a statement. The question that I ask myself is: "is there an explanation that is based in sound physics or electronics reasoning that explains what people say they are observing?" |
Paperw8,
The small, threaded VTF weight at the end of the stub only arrived with the TriPlanar VII U ("U" stands for updated). Previous versions of the arm lacked that feature. As I expressly stated in my original post, these tips are for the TriPlanar VII. Their applicability to other versions is untested, but #6 obviously does not apply to the VII U.
FWIW, the publication of suggestion #6 here is what inspired Tri-Mai to add that small, threaded VTF weight. You apparently got one and your gratitude is duly noted! ;-)
***
As for theoretical arguments that the damping trough is quite rigid and "shouldn't" need to be removed, I'll refer you to the dozens of owners who've actually tried it. Not one has failed to hear improvements such as I described.
Whether you choose to try it yourself or not is up to you of course, but theoretical objections won't convince anyone who's actually heard the difference.
|
08-22-10: Dougdeacon
the publication of suggestion #6 here is what inspired Tri-Mai to add that small, threaded VTF weight. You apparently got one and your gratitude is duly noted!
The fact of the matter is that I do appreciate that you contributed to improving the tonearm. I only got my tonearm a couple of months ago, so I didn't know the history of it all. As to your other comment:
As for theoretical arguments that the damping trough is quite rigid and "shouldn't" need to be removed, I'll refer you to the dozens of owners who've actually tried it. Not one has failed to hear improvements such as I described.
Whether you choose to try it yourself or not is up to you of course, but theoretical objections won't convince anyone who's actually heard the difference.
I tried to make clear that it is not my business to tell people that they aren't hearing what they say they are hearing. My inquiry tends to focus on whether I can make sense of what other people are saying; things that make sense to me are more persuasive than things that don't make sense to me. I must say that the fact that other people say that they can "hear the difference" is not particularly persuasive because you always have to watch out for the "emperor's new clothes" phenomenon in which one person says something, and then other people possibly convincing themselves that it is true because they saw it in writing somewhere. The reason for my skepticism is that in this forum, I have read incorrect statements made by people who assert the authority of the statements on the basis that others had written the same thing, or that they saw it in a wikipedia entry, and so forth. While the Internet is a good source of information, one of the problems with the Internet is that incorrect information can get propagated, and then acquire a certain measure of authority by the mere fact that it was repeated. |
I kind of agree with paperw8. If the damping trough is securely fastened, then it is in effect a part of the overall mass of the tonearm. The totality of the tonearm almost certainly has a resonant frequency, so removing the damping trough could only alter that frequency, as the act of removing the trough has altered the mass of the tonearm. Since the damping trough is such a small fraction of the overall mass of the tonearm, one would expect that its effect on the resonant frequency is small. Maybe it goes up a few Hz because the mass has been slightly reduced. However, if the damping trough were loose and could therefore resonate independently, then removing it would only be a good thing, because by itself the trough would resonate at a high-ish frequency. The frequently reported improvement in sound related to removing the trough could also be due to the fact that the arm may sound better without any damping applied. If you're not going to use damping fluid, you may as well remove the trough. Then there is also the "Emporer's new clothes" effect, mentioned by Pw8.
As regards that added way of fine adjusting VTF in the Ultimate version, isn't it interesting that the rear end of the arm has a threaded hole, even on very old arms like mine? Seems maybe Herb Papier was thinking about a threaded weight 20 years ago. |
Dougs recommendation to "improve" the Triplanar are spot on. It is a good design from scratch which survived a long time. But honestly, the main problem from the Triplanar is, it has no weight. It looks solid, but it isn't. This is the main reason why this Arm works super - or best - with cartridges which do not reflect much energy into it, or which are not heavy. Its own energy transfer reaches the limit based on this. I think, the actual copy, the Talea, solved this. IMO, without listening to it. |
Paperw8, I would advise you to stop tapping and start listening. Your test, by the way, does not tell you anything about resonances during playback and that is what is important. (I'd like to find the first guy who ever started this "tapping" argument and punch him in the mouth. It proves nothing.) We don't know what your system is but I believe it is you who needs to spend time listening to your new TP to get to know it better with respect to your system and what ever cartridge you are using. If you don't hear improvements by following the advice offered hear, that's ok, but don't assume that those of us who find good improvement by reducing some of the resonant parts are hypnotized or sipping kool-aid.
If you can get up to New England I'd be glad to show just what the TP sounds like, with and without these parts installed.
Syntax, it can be said the Talea is similar to several other arms if we only take looks into account. You are correct that the Talea has surpassed the TP, and I agree with your assessment of the TP.
disclaimer, Talea dealer and TP owner |
The Triplanar has a extensional damping material on the arm tube to reduce mid and high frequency resonance artifacts. This is one of the reasons this arm is so neutral- most arm manufacturers do little to address this issue. |
Hi Ralph,
Do you use the damping fluid trough? |
Jb0194, no, I don't. I don't think its much of an issue in my case- Warps the like don't seem to phase either arm.
I run the Transfiguration Orpheus on one arm and the ZYX Universe on the other- neither seems to need the damping. So right now I have the damping troughs removed. |
|
The damping trough is becoming a vestigial device, as I've yet to run a cartridge on this arm where I prefer it with damping.
I think it's smart for Tri-Planar to continue to provide the feature, as there's no telling when a cartridge will crop up which benefits from it. Still, in my humble opinion, it is a solution for cartridges of yesteryear.
We can discuss issues of rigidity until we are all blue in the face. Would you say that the thin bar that supports the damping trough is more rigid than say, a ... tuning fork?
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
In the past year much of this thread has been filled by posts from people who won't take fifteen minutes to try a simple, reversible tweak. Some timidly seek explanations, others boldly assert them. Neither will try or trust their own hands and ears.
Such abstraction wants to believe (and by posting asks us to believe) that a tonearm is an idea pure enough to be understood without the messy realities of handling it as a tool or even hearing it as an instrument. That has not been my experience.
Timidity and chutzpah,
Insecurity and overconfidence,
Inverse and obverse,
Of one counterfeit coin.
This thread addresses mainstream investors:
Put up real money,
Post audited results,
Shareholders will notice.
|
08-27-10: Thom_mackris
We can discuss issues of rigidity until we are all blue in the face. Would you say that the thin bar that supports the damping trough is more rigid than say, a ... tuning fork?
I won't speak about all tuning forks, but the tines of a fork have properties of a tuning fork. I would say that the trough on the Triplanar is more rigid than are the tines of the fork. However, you have to keep in mind that there are several factors that influence the resonant character of a tuning fork. Among those factors are the geometry of the object and the material properties of the object. I would encourage you to read the comment by Atmasphere:
08-23-10: Atmasphere
The Triplanar has a extensional damping material on the arm tube to reduce mid and high frequency resonance artifacts. This is one of the reasons this arm is so neutral- most arm manufacturers do little to address this issue.
This is an example of a statement that makes sense to me. To my observation, when I tap the Triplanar at various points, I found the tonearm to be very dead. I can believe that the material properties of the Triplanar dampen vibrations. So my empirical observations support what Atmasphere is saying. It is hard for me to imagine that such an apparently dead tonearm would be picking up the resonances that some here have claimed to be the case. You are correct, people can discuss this stuff until they are blue in the face, but ultimately what counts is whether a person knows what they are talking about. In my case, I tend to make that determination based on whether I can make sense of what the person is saying. |
Paperw8, did you TRY listening to the TP with that trough removed? Atmasphere posted that he also has removed the trough, or did you miss that? |
... ultimately what counts is whether a person knows what they are talking about. Agreed. In this case the measure is how music sounds with and without the trough. We know. You don't. The OP requests that you avoid further postings on his thread, which he started to help people willing to help themselves, not to argue anyone into something they're unwilling to try. |
08-27-10: Dougdeacon
... ultimately what counts is whether a person knows what they are talking about.
Agreed. In this case the measure is how music sounds with and without the trough. We know. You don't.
The OP requests that you avoid further postings on his thread, which he started to help people willing to help themselves, not to argue anyone into something they're unwilling to try.
What I know is what you say you hear, but you have failed to give a logical explanation as to why you are hearing what you say you are hearing. As it turns out, some of us have other things to do rather than to spend all our time listening to a wide variety of audio equipment. Since some of us have limited time, we need to cut down the search by pre-screening down to a set of logical candidates to investigate from the wide variety of available audio equipment that is sold. That's why I look for logical explanations, because that is how I get clues as to what is worth my while to investigate further. Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a limit to what you can learn from objective data. If you want to optimize a system to your specific tastes, you can only do that by listening to the actual equipment. But you should understand that there are real limits to subjective evaluations: they are subject to being colored by various preconceived notions. That's why you, and audiophiles in general should learn more critical thinking about this stuff. You will find that seeking out objective information and data to support your subjective assessments will help you in your own evaluations. Ultimately, what you do is up to you. But what I am telling you is that when you post your opinions on public forums like this one; those comments are going to be evaluated by people like me based on whether subjective comments can be supported by an rational explanation (or at least some evidence of reasoning) of why you might be observing what you are observing. In my mind, relying on well-worn buzzwords just doesn't cut it. |
Dear Paperw8, You went to the effort to quote my comment about the the THIN BAR to which the trough mounts, and then conveniently side-stepped my point by IGNORING this bar and turning your attention to the trough itself. The (relatively) heavy trough hangs off this (relatively) flimsy bar. I don't have time to make this any more obvious to you. Yours is a classic straw-man argument and has no relevance to my point. I completely agree with you and with Ralph, in that the Tri-Planar's arm wand is extremely well damped. It is however, not perfect. No tonearm is. The well behaved properties of the Tri-Planar's arm wand is is no reason to ignore other sources of gremlins - vibrations entering from other points in the arm. The more I learn about hi-fi, the more I learn that EVERYTHING matters, and the less inclined I am to be dismissive of others' observations. I agree with you, that this forum is a cauldron of ideas from which we all distill and refine our collective knowledge. I applaud that you want to spend more time listening to music, and as a designer, I frequently longingly look back at the "innocent times" when I didn't have to listen to my hi-fi so critically. I for one however, am grateful for the efforts of people like Doug. The lifting he does, I don't t have to do. With infinite possibilities, no single one of us can track every last gremlin down. Of course, we still have to pick and choose our battles, based on what makes sense to us, and this is dependent on our experience set. Without a critical mind we run the risk of letting charlatans and snake oil salesmen who would help us part with our money. There's a fine line however, between a discriminating mind and a closed one, and when you struggle to twist someone's words to suit your preconceptions, you have lost me. You are correct, people can discuss this stuff until they are blue in the face, but ultimately what counts is whether a person knows what they are talking about. In my case, I tend to make that determination based on whether I can make sense of what the person is saying. Based on this logic (presuming that you're not a particle physicist), then quantum mechanics and string theory is all hogwash. One final comment - many of the tweaks Doug suggests will be wasted on a mediocre turntable. The hierarchy still applies, and if you don't optimize your basic platform first (your turntable), then much of the ground Doug has traversed won't be appreciated. I'll let others comment further. I have a turntable to release in time for the Audiofest ... Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
08-28-10: Thom_mackris
Dear Paperw8,
You went to the effort to quote my comment about the the THIN BAR to which the trough mounts, and then conveniently side-stepped my point by IGNORING this bar and turning your attention to the trough itself.
The (relatively) heavy trough hangs off this (relatively) flimsy bar. I don't have time to make this any more obvious to you.
What is obvious to me is that you have a different tonearm than I have, because on my tonearm, the bar is rigid. In fact, the entire assembly of the trough and bar is rigid. It does not look like "flimsy" construction to me. You didn't say what it is that you design, but it doesn't appear to be electronic equipment (then again, judging from your comments about quantum mechanics, I gather you aren't a physicist either - as it turns out, I took a class in quantum mechanics when I was in college). If you look at the specifications of some audio equipment, you see that some makers list data that seem to have no practical value other than to look impressive. For example, the frequency response of an amplifier at 200KHz is of no significance to me - I can't hear frequencies that high anyway. This is the point, you try to sort out what matters and what doesn't matter from the constant barrage of claims that you see relating to audio equipment. To sort it all out, you need more than buzzwords; you need good data and information. You say you're hearing what you're hearing. I'm not saying that you're aren't hearing what you say you're hearing. But if you can't give a logical explanation for why you are hearing what you are hearing, your opinion has less value to me. On the other hand, opinions that are attached to some rationale have more value to me. That's not being dismissive, and that's not being closed minded that's just my saying that you haven't given me enough information. I ask for a logical explanation and all I get are "wizard of oz"-type assertions of "we know what we're talking about! Don't question our knowledge!" Neither you, or anyone else here, owes me any specific information but I do evaluate information based on the extent to which it makes sense to me. I mean, when I read stuff on this forum, one reaction that I have is that I find myself thinking with amazement over how some guys seem to blow a lot of time and money constantly turning over new equipment in pursuit of some "ultimate" audio experience. Hey, if you're got the time, money and motivation, then from my perspective, have at it - it's your time and your money as far as I'm concerned. But I'm just not one of those people who is looking to go out of my way to spend large amounts of time and money on audio. I'm thinking about it now because I am in the process of replacing components in a system that I have had for over a decade. |
What is obvious to me, Paperw8, is that you have had your TP for a few months, we're going on many years of our own experiences with the TP. I have had my TP for five years and I know that is far less than the length of time Thom and Doug have owned their arms. I see that you are relatively new to Audiogon, so maybe we all need to get to know one another a little better before we go poking sticks, or tapping, in other people's faces.
Tapping on a Rega to find resonance points is one thing, tapping on a Triplanar is plain foolish and will not reveal the differences in nuance that these tips address. The vibrations created at the cartridge are entirely different from the vibrations you created by tapping on your arm. Your empirical observations are completely irrelevant to what happens in the cart/arm during playback. And let's not forget that the particular cart in use will have an impact on the vibrations the arm sees. |
Dear Paperw8, I am not sure what you mean by 'logical explanation' (08.27.10). I thought that logic is about 'deduction'. Ie if the premise is true and deductions
correct, then the deduced statements must be also true.
Are you questioning the premises of your,uh, opponents?
Regards, |
Dear Paperw8, Your point about people blowing more time and money is absolutely spot on, and it is work like Doug's in understanding the gear he owns that adds to the volumes of information on this forum. At your leisure, take a look at Doug's posts, and you'll find a host of them where he advises postesrs to slow down, put their checkbook back in their drawer, and get to know their gear better. In response to your question, I manufacture turntables ( http://www.galibierdesign.com/). I also sell the Tri-Planar, so I'm fairly familiar with it. I purposely described the cantilevered bar that supports the damping trough as RELATIVELY flimsy. Yes, it appears to be rigid, but the type of movement we're talking about can be sonicaly significant if the rest of the system is up to resolving it. Now, if the turntable has its own problems, then removing the trough is a waste of time. The turntable's problems will mask tiny, incremental improvements. This is what my reference to following the turntable hierarchy was about - paying attention to your turntable before considering upgrades to arms and cartridges. This brings up another interesting point. Frequntly, you can make three or four subtle changes that collectively can snap your head to attention. One needs to be cognizant of that as well. The damping trough has been with the design of the arm for ages - I believe with the Mark II version when Herb Papier (its creator) was still with us. This was back when many MC cartridges were fairly poorly behaved (vibrationally), and it served a useful purpose back then. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think it's great that Tri-Planar still provides it. You never know when you'll need it. You're right that many specs and numbers can be meaningless. What I would add to your comments is that when they are taken in a vacuum they have almost no context. IMHO, when someone quotes a wide bandwidth design, the question I would ask is "what were your design goals and how does wide bandwidth help to achieve them?". Surely, we don't hear as well as bats, but there may be a solid rationale behind a wide bandwidth design - not one whose end state is frequency response out to 200K. Here's an example I'm mor familiar with. On the other side of the frequency spectrum, you'll find tube amplifier manufacturers quoting a -3dB point of 3 Hz. You might conclude that "I can't hear anything meaningful (or even feel it) below 20-30 Hz, but you would be missing the point. The whole idea behind a -3dB point of 2-3Hz is that all of the phase shifting resulting from the power supply filters is done and gone, in the 3-4 octaves it takes to reach frequencies where there is audible, musical content. What you'll hear with a design like this is better timing in the music. Welcome aboard. We really don't eat our young, although at any given point in time, we all have our bad days. If you happen to be attending this year's Rocky Mountain Audiofest, drop by in either Suite 1130 or 1030. Ralph at Atma-sphere is always there, and Tri Mai of Tri-Planar always shares a room with him. You'll likely get to meed Doug and Paul as well. It's fun time. Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
Tapping on a Rega to find resonance points is one thing, tapping on a Triplanar is plain foolish and will not reveal the differences in nuance that these tips address. The vibrations created at the cartridge are entirely different from the vibrations you created by tapping on your arm. Your empirical observations are completely irrelevant to what happens in the cart/arm during playback. And let's not forget that the particular cart in use will have an impact on the vibrations the arm sees.
Heretofore, people have just thrown around the term "resonance" without saying exactly what they were talking about. It appears that you are citing a specific resonance: namely, the resonance in the cantilever of the cartridge. This is something that I can work with. From what I understand, concern about cantilever resonance is a legitimate concern. However, the way that you address that concern is to know what you are doing before you buy the cartridge. For example, it is not a true statement that the trough in the Triplanar is "vestigal"; if you use a low compliance cartridge with the Triplanar you can have problems with resonances in the cantilever. That was why the trough was put there - for use with low compliance cartridges; and there are companies (like Clearaudio) who still make low compliance cartridges. The thing to do, then, is to look at the specifications for the cartridge to determine where the resonance is likely to be if you install it on a Triplanar tonearm. As I understand it, you typically want the resonant frequency to fall in the 8-12 Hz range. Now, if there are other sources of resonances to which some here are referring, where the source or potential cause is not articulated, then I can't work with that. But what I do know, is that it appears to me that there is a fair amount of effort involved in removing the trough from the Triplanar. I don't know why I should undertake that effort other than for the fact that I read some comments from people who proclaim that it will make a difference and that, somehow, if I can't tell the difference then the fault lies in my hearing or in my system. I make no personal statement about anyone making such assertions, but the way that I think about things, it's hard for me to work with these kinds of claims if I don't understand the underlying physical phenomenon that I am trying to address. My training is in electrical engineering and not in the arts, so I think about this stuff differently. |
Hi Thom,
Is the "-3dB @ 3Hz" primarily designed into the turntable power supply?
I own an nicely working old radio station Technics SP-10 MKIIA and would like to know if/how I can optimize my table in this regard.
FWIW, I have a Tri-planar arm en route and have found this thread most helpful.
John
Thank you. |
Hi Paperw8,
"But what I do know, is that it appears to me that there is a fair amount of effort involved in removing the trough from the Triplanar."
It took me 1 minute to remove the trough. Simple, easy 2 small screws. 30 seconds with the needle in the grove and you won't look back.
Of course my table allows me pretty easy access to the bottom of the arm. Other's may not have this. Such as I have a friend who was about to remove his arm, instead we took a pair of vice grips to a $1.00 jewelers screw driver and put a 90 degree angle in on the tool. So for him, 1 min with the vice grips, 1 min with the (now 90 degree bend) screw driver. Lifetime of better sound...
If you can give this a try, maybe via this bent screw drive method, we'd all be curious to your thoughts afterwards...Thanks |
Here is an equation that I found to estimate the resonant frequency of the cartridge cantilever:
rf-c=159/sqrt((eff_mass-t+mass-c+mass-f)*(compliance-c))
rf-c: resonant frequency of cartridge cantilever (Hz);
eff_mass-t: effective mass of tonearm (g) (11g for Triplanar);
mass-c: mass of cartridge (g);
mass-f: mass of fasteners to attach cartridge to tonearm (g) (I use 0.5g as a guess);
compliance-c: compliance of cartridge (10-6 cm/dyne).
As an example, I have a Lyra Delos cartridge so for me:
mass-c: 7.3g;
compliance-c: 12;
so I end up with rf-c=10.6 Hz.
I treat this as an estimate, but it is well within the 8-12 Hz range. |
Hi JB0194,
While the example I gave was for power amplifiers, the same does indeed hold true for any conventional (non-digital) power supply design.
Since my turntables are batterey driven, I haven't had to chase down power supply filter issues. I'm sorry that I can't point you toward a theoretically optimum number.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Paperw8 ,
Since it takes so little time (less than the duration of a cut on an LP), remove the trough and try a practical observation. It's pretty simple to do. It certainly takes less time than the posting that has been done.
Who knows? Your Lyra and TriPlanar 'may' respond favorably. If not in your particular case, put it back and call it a day. This seems like a logical solution for all..
Dre |
Since it takes so little time (less than the duration of a cut on an LP), remove the trough and try a practical observation. It's pretty simple to do.
The trough is attached to an arm. The arm attaches to the tonearm by a screw that is not accessible from above. Whether it is easy to remove depends on the armboard. For some turntables, the removal is easy, for others not so. I'm in the latter category. I would have to remove the tonearm from the armboard to access the screw. But, yeah, if it's easy to remove, then it's probably worth a try on a "what the heck" basis. |
"Since it takes so little time (less than the duration of a cut on an LP), remove the trough and try a practical observation. It's pretty simple to do. It certainly takes less time than the posting that has been done."
Oh no, it seem to go against his principle. :D
Look, there are millions of things in audio that can not be logically and thoroughly explained, and we are all doing our part to find out more each day(thus the internet forums). For someone who "claimed" he does not have he time to tinker with audio and is seeking for quick answers, sure has plenty of time posting to crack sculls. |
Paperw8, while you're experimenting with removing the trough, here is something for you to ponder about. The equation you cited for estimating the resonant frequency of the system formed by the arm/cart is just that. An estimate. Real measurements of a given arm/cart often give different results. This equation should be taken as nothing more than a sanity check of the particular arm/cart pairing being considered. If the numbers are close you are probably ok but nothing more. If the numbers are off you need to find another combination.
You are on the right track with this tonearm resonance issue. It is very much a result of the amount of energy a cart is allowed to impart back into the arm. This is not only a function of the compliance, but also the damping of the cartridge itself. Some cartridges are notorious for transferring relatively significant amounts of energy into the arm. At that point it becomes the problem of the arm designer to deal with these vibrations. Again, we're talking about the small (small to us, but potentially devastating to our delicate arm/cart system) amount of energy generated in the cantilever and cartridge body. I hope from this that you can see why tapping is akin to driving an amp into saturation. It really doesn't say much at all about what happens during normal playback.
I have no formal arts training either, but do have degrees in EE and CS, so maybe we can find a common line of reasoning. |
You are on the right track with this tonearm resonance issue. It is very much a result of the amount of energy a cart is allowed to impart back into the arm. This is not only a function of the compliance, but also the damping of the cartridge itself. Some cartridges are notorious for transferring relatively significant amounts of energy into the arm.
I'm not understanding the distinction that you are making between "compliance" and "damping". In fact, I'm not sure that I understand how you are modeling the system. I will tell you how I conceive the system model and then you can comment on where I might be incorrect or leaving out relevant information. The cantilever is attached to suspension within the body of the cartridge. That suspension can effectively be modeled as a spring. The total of the effective mass of the tonearm and the mass of the cartridge can be modeled as a mass that is attached to the spring. In a spring system, energy can get trapped within the spring when you excite the spring at a resonant frequency for the spring. That's what causes the spring to vibrate out of control. In the cartridge context, the excitation for the spring comes by way of the stylus. The source of the excitation is any energy source that couples through the stylus, this includes the groove of the record, vibrations from footsteps, etc. Under normal circumstances, the kinetic energy from the excitation is passed through to the attached mass (cartridge body and tonearm). Maybe this is what you are referring to by "damping", but that occurs outside of the cantilever. So, if you want to test the ability of the tonearm to dampen vibrations, you can do that test separately from the cantilever. That was the "tap" test that I described earlier - it was a test to see how well the tonearm could dampen vibrations. As Atmasphere stated, the Triplanar is made using vibration dampening material (I don't personally know that to be the fact, but it seems reasonable to me). In the case of a resonance in the cantilever, kinetic energy gets trapped in the cantilever suspension and the spring vibrates in an out of control fashion. At a resonance, significant amounts of kinetic energy are transferred to the tonearm. So now you have a situation where there is a lot of energy being transferred from the stylus (which is vibrating) to the cantilever and from the mass (cartridge/tonearm), which is also vibrating. So energy is being transferred into the cantilever (spring) from both ends. When the frequency of energy transfer is just right (i.e. at the resonant frequency) this creates an unstable condition called a resonance. This is the physical mechanism by which the resonance in the cartridge cantilever operates. A resonance that originates within the tonearm would be a different mechanism. I no reason to presume that such a resonance would, per force, trigger a resonance in the cartridge cantilever, but I would expect the cartridge to pick up the energy from this resonance. If the resonance is within the audible spectrum, I would expect that you would be able to hear it. Apparently some here believe that the Triplanar has such resonant properties. I don't know; I've told you the sum total of my testing on the matter. But for my part, I'm probably at least as interested in understanding how all this stuff works together than I am seeking the "ultimate" sonic experience. When I got my turntable system, my attitude about it was to get a system that I expected would sound pretty good (it was replacing a Technics SL-BD20D turntable that I had had for a decade). While I ended up with a turntable system that sounded pretty good to me, what I did not like about the process was the large number of unknowns. There are 5 components that work together in a turntable system: the turntable, the tonearm, the cartridge, the phono stage and the tonearm cable. There seems to be a belief that some turntables work better with certain tonearms. I could never get a good explanation as to how these determinations were made other than they were the result of trial and error. I have since gained a better understanding (through my own efforts) of the relationship between the tonearm and cartridge, and between the cartridge, tonearm cable and phono stage. I engage in discussion like this because my primary interest is understanding how stuff works and to that end, I've learned quite a bit in discussions like this. In some ways, you can learn more when you disagree with a person than when you agree. |
I not only removed the trough assy from my TP. But if you haven't removed the anti skate devise also you haven't heard what superior sound a Triplaner can retrieve from a vinyl record no joke. |
Doug, please make a call on this. This is turning into a much deeper, and much more intelligent, discussion on this topic of arm/cart resonances. While it is relevant to the thread topic it will venture in other directions. We can discuss here, or take it to another thread. |
Dan,
Thank you for asking, I appreciate it. You'll find the answer in my last post, dated 08/27/10. I haven't posted since as it would be fatuous to contribute to a discussion after explicitly asking that it stop.
If the next post on this thread were a new tip or a practical question/report regarding an old tip, it would serve the purposes of this thread. Anything else probably wouldn't.
It needs two to argue, but only one to stop.
|
Just a FWIW: although the Triplanar arm is damped, its not a good idea to go tapping on it and especially other arms to ascertain the damping qualities!
The reason is that most arms have very fragile bearings, especially if they use cones or points. The Triplanar bearings are the most durable/hardest in the world; Herb found that lesser bearings failed too easily until he started using the type found in the Triplanar. Triplanar was recently investigated by the Department of Homeland Security, because he is using more of these bearings than the military is :)
I suspect that if you put damping materials in the damping trough (and then did not use it), you would eliminate any signature that it has. |
