2. analog
  3. 161137-245

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:


https://audiotraveler.wordpress.com/tag/townshend/


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?


Thank's in advance.



Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.






Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
12,865 posts
 
Dear @antinn  : Other unexisted " lifeless " I experienced was when I changed the attenuators in my dual mono Essential 3180 phonolinepreamp that original came with Elma discrete true hole resistors in a perfectly matched then I changed by same Elma Swiss attenautors but instead of tue hole discrete resistors now are SMD ones.

When I listened I really was disappointed because that " lifeless " and lower SPLs " feeling ".
Again, I was wrong, I gave to my ears/brain some time and understand it that, again, thhere was no lifeless but a lot lower distortion levels that between other things permits me to listen SPL's way higher than before with out distress or image collapse.

Latetr on I will post some really interesting information on what you posted and that I have .

@lewm  , another way important advantage and true really high improvement using the 20.6s input signal as a high pass filter was that the overall signal quality level had that improves due not only for the better input cap but the extremely way better input resistor where I used/use the Z foil naked  TX2575 with tolerance of 0.01%. Jus great and outstanding high pass filter/input signal resolution in the amps.

R.

antinn
380 posts
 
Dear @rauliruegas,

FWIW - when I tried the Technics 3mm rubber plater mat, I stayed with it for a few months - I know it can take that long before I get over the newness factor and declare it good or otherwise. But, here is what happened - after a while I found myself listening to my digital sources more than my analog. Houston We have Problem. My analog source by design is suppose to be ’better’ than my digital source (I gave-up on investing any $$$ in digital). That’s how profound but subtle was the change. The new change in mat material (now ~4 weeks ago) has changed it back - analog is once again preferred. Like it not, the sub-conscious does have a vote. Who was it - Harry Pearson of the Absolute Sound - who said to the question - What is good sound? You will know it when you hear it.

Stay well,
dronepunk
64 posts
 
Well, since the Sumiko Analog survival Kit is no longer, and Warren Ghel is no longer making the arm wrap, I will share my current secret weapon for tonearm damping wrap.....
Self-Bonding Silicone Wrap or Repair Tape,
also called” Self-amalgamating tape”
there is no adhesive, it sticks to itself...
it comes 1”x 10’,
cut to 1/2” wide and wrapped helically
(half-lapped) and carefully stretching as you go it makes a formidable compression dampening wrap by it SQUEEZING on the tonearm pipe.
It is the closest I have come to a purpose made product. You must try it if you have a troublesome arm such as a Fidelity Research FR-64fx
it is removable but not reusable..
I considered re-packaging and resale but I do not have that kind of time.
though I could use the money for sure!!
It even comes in different colors.....
i am not a wealthy man but like good sound.
good luck
thanks, Johnny
snackeyp's avatar
snackeyp
455 posts
 
I tried some fO.q tape on my Tri-Planar arm and hated it.  I also do not use the damping trough.  My TT is an SME 20/2, which does an excellent job of isolating the plinth on its own.  I know that tonearm resonation is partially caused by the vibrations from the record groove but can't help but believe that a lot of these vibrations come through the plinth on tables that are not well isolated from room vibrations.  
Some resonance in tonearm are good.  I guess it's just a matter of how much is good and at what point do they add artifact to the sound.  The fO.q tape is a tweak that was overkill on my tonearm, but has had benefits in other areas of my system.  
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,243 posts
 
@antinn I reviewed that article. It is unfortunately defective on a number of fronts. They are choosing the data that substantiate their claim instead of the other way around. A good example of this is Fig 23. They show three different situations. A tonearm set up with a resonance freq of 7 Hz, 9.5 Hz and 16 Hz, all using the same cartridge. Only the 16 Hz set up is "damped" (they do not say how). They play a 3 kHz tone through all three and show the trace. From this they are asserting that damping the arm is a good thing to do. 1st of all the 9.5 Hz has the best trace down to - 20 dB. What happens when you play a 20 Hz note? Why did they not show each set up with and without damping? This figure says absolutely nothing!
More to discover