Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Chris, you are a brave man opening up the proverbial can of analog vs digital worms. Perhaps the relative insulation of the ET thread will keep a discussion from getting out of control. The comments about square waves are very interesting, but it is not clear to me what, exactly, the author is trying to say. While I can't dispute his assertion that analog is unable to "reproduce" a square wave the way that digital can, I don't see that as a liability and take exception to the implication (as I read it) that analog is "warm" compared to digital as a result of some shortcoming or distortion; that it is less accurate. Additionally, the comment about the reason for this being, in part, the length of a cartridge's coil windings just doesn't hold water because, as you know better than most, the "warmth" of analog is found, even more so, in RR playback. It is true that analog is "warm" compared to digital. However, it is warm the way that real, live music CAN BE warm; it is not a distortion. It can also sound nasty and ugly the way live music sometimes is. Someone please tell me what I am missing here, but the author's comment: "Digital, especially MP3s, reproduce square waves like crazy. That actually upsets people! You’re triggering your fear, which also triggers fatigue. It’s unnatural." does not make sense to me. Does he not mean to say that digital "produces" square waves as they are generated by logic circuits in digital processing?

Now, before the arrows start flying, we all know that both analog and digital can sound very very good. But, to these ears, eventhough some digital playback can OVERALL (and depending on one's priorities) sound better that some analog, there is always a certain quality to analog that IN SOME WAYS, for me, brings it closer to the sound of real than even the best digital; and there is a certain quality to digital that, for me, always says DIGITAL (square waves?). Sorry if that offends anyone, but that is simply the way I hear it. It is not because of any bias, delusion or stubbornness, but simply a result of being around the sound of live instruments for hours practically every day; and my set of priorities in stereo playback.

Slaw, your comments about needing to always go "back to the music" and about "Nightfly" are right on and very apropos, but I am not sure what you mean by saying that some may be afraid of that. In fact, I would like to respectfully (and in the spirit of lively debate) take you to task. When I first mentioned "Nightfly" (quite a while ago) you felt that you couldn't listen to it because of its sound quality. To say that I was surprised would be an understatement due to my feeling that (especially for a digital recording) it was very good sounding and "fun" in a heavily-produced studio recording kind of way; a feeling shared by many. I am glad that solving some "room issues" now allows you to enjoy that recording, and I can only assume that recordings that were previously fine sounding are now simply spectacular. But, I guess that what "going back to the music" means to me is being able to enjoy the music even if the recording quality is less than stellar. I am having some trouble accepting the fact that your room was so problematic that it rendered that particular recording unlistenable. I will concede that the recording is clearly digital sounding, but it is not grating and has less of that typically digital quality that I would best describe this way: remember the old "Star Trek" TV show, and how when the crew would be teleported ("beam me up Scotty"), the image of the person being teleported would appear to be separated into molecule size dots before disappearing or reappearing. That's how digital images often times sound to me, there is a lack of completeness to the image density that analog seems to have even when there are deficiencies in other areas. There is also a completeness of rhythmic density (?) that gives music the warmth of human rhythmic expression and interplay that seems to be a challenge for a lot of digital recordings.

Thanks for the update on "Nightlfy", glad you are enjoying it and try to find Wayne Shorter's "Atlantis" for a wonderful analog recording in a contemporary jazz fusion (hate using that term but....) bag from one of the greatest player/composers of all time. Sealed copies are not difficult to find.

02-01-14: Slaw
Wow, when I post, I post!

If this has been addressed in the past, I apologize... I notice some choose to "hang or mount" their counterweights from the top of the I-beam. I choose to hang mine from the bottom.
In the past, (a long time ago), I A-B'd these settings and preferred the way I do it. From my logical standpoint, I would think hanging the counterweights below the center of gravity, from the spindle's point of view, would be the preferred method. Any takers?

Anyone that is an ET2-er for any real length of time; the big question of choice will come to you.

Do I do an IN-e or an OUT-e, with the lead weights ?

An IN'e requires a ton more weight (figuratively speaking) Fully loaded down version baby.

Think teeter totter of childhood days with two friends. One is the same weight as you the other 50 lbs more.
The heavier friend needs to sit inside more to balance out things. The same physics applies here, except the friend has a leaf spring on his side.

Which friend would you prefer to ride with?

This hobby is about free choice, personal choice and enjoyment. If you call Bruce and ask him for an opinion he will say what makes sense as a manufacturer, and as it relates to his business.

SOME FACTS

An OUT-e requires more thought (a certain combination of weights) to get out to the end. Its the stripped down version. Light on its feet.

The ET2 was designed with Adjustable Effective Mass

************************************************************

PAGE 9

The effective mass is adjustable both vertically and horizontally. The arm has low to medium mass vertically. Medium to High mass horizontally. Four counterweights allow the vertical and horizontal mass to be changed. For example: if the user decreases the amount of counterweights used, and moved this position back (higher scale number) the horizontal inertia would go down and the vertical inertia would go up.

************************************************************
PAGE 24

We believe that for a light cartridge. The smallest number of counterweights should be used. This raises the vertial inertia of the arm. (because it is low) and decreases the horizontal inertia (because it is high). bringing the mass of the arm to a more desirable figure. It will always be lower vertically than horizontally which is desirable.

************************************************************

IMO the word "light" should just be deleted as it really applies to "all" cartridges.
My personal experiences have been whenever vertical inertia is increased, bass gets better defined and tuneful.

Hi Frogman

I came across that article while having my Sunday morning coffee.
I am now having Sat Morning coffee.
Same black coffee made from beans.
Package reads 100 % Columbian Premium Whole Bean Coffee.
Company name is Zavida, Purchased at Costco. I prefer it to Tim Hortons :^)

I listen to digital and LP all the time. I can have an all digital listening session and enjoy it.
I have a lot of music on cd that I do not have on vinyl.
But when I switch to vinyl it stays there. it doesn't go back to digital later on. thats just me.

The only part of the article that stands out to me still is the analogy of hitting sticks - near a person ear and at a distance.
No idea if hitting a stick near a persons ear comes close to a square wave.
That article left a lot to personal interpretation, along with saying some things that electronically I don't think are possible.
I threw it out there because it was a little off the wall and different. Why not ?
What better thread to do this on. A heavily moderated one.

I am not very good at describing what I am hearing and you are very eloquent at this.
You have shown this here, as well as other threads at Audiogon.

Assuming you have a copy of the same recording on both CD and LP.
Assuming this is a recording that you would consider "very average" from an sound engineering perspective.
Not focusing on how the actual performances in the recording are.
Can you tell us what you hear - differences - between the two when you play the CD and LP?
I would be very interested in hearing how you describe this.
It would carry a lot more weight than the article to me.
Cheers.

Hi Chris, I would be glad to share some thoughts about that. I am on tour in Asia for a couple of weeks with limited internet access and will post when I have a window of opportunity. Regards.

Richardkrebs: I'm using the air regulator I previously posted... the Motronix knock-off, Schrader , model 35501030,
it does expel air, this is to keep any pulsing action to a minimum as the arm sees it. However, with the M-30, this is a non-issue.

My feeling is that when I receive my Jun-Air 6-25 back from repair, although it does cut off after building up pressure in it's tank/s, I'll be pleasantly surprised if there is any at all, sonic benefit, from this arrangement. I say this because I'm SO confident in the M-30 and it's filtering properties!!