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
13,066 posts
 
Dear @billstevenson  : "  While you seem satisfied with you methodology, I encourage you to try and borrow an "O"scope because I am sure you would like it. "

Yes, maybe I like it.

Bill I don't want and don't need to go so " detailed " on the cartridge tracking issue because could be useless at the end other than " curiosity ".

You can be sure that my whole tests process with all my choosed LP tracks tells me all what I need and if you tested my finding through an " O'scope " you will find out that I'm in the " road ".
The key there/in the process was and is its methodology and those choosed tracks and to know at 100% why choosed those tracks and no others.

Anyway your advise is welcomed but remember that we ( at least I. ) are just audiophiles.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 
Dear @lohanimal  : ""  I had a short listen to the FR64s and thought it sounded perfectly good...""

Good even that the resonance frequency is ouit of the ideal range. Your experience with confirms the benefits of tonearm damping.

Some audiophiles think and post even here that the heavy mass tonearm as the FR provides " damping ", well damping against what is one of the questions but other critical issue with heavy effective mass in tonearms is during the LP play process where the cartridge has to deal with that heavy dynamic mass that complicated more its already hard job.

If I remember in the measured numbers og the MC2000/Technics combination the effective mass ( tonearm/cartridge. ) ( static. ) was 24grs. but the dynamic mass was measured over 31grs. that it's not a good number and that affects what we are listening through.
Maybe if LP were perfect with no off-center, micro/macro waves and the like that dynamic mass could makes lower/less harm but unfortunatelly it's not this way.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
@rauliruegas 

I used the Monster Sigma deliberately because it is a very light 4.5gram cartridge which is medium compliance

I am going to use my Shelter 501 mk 2 next which is both heavier and much lower compliance.

The use of the trough made a significant difference.

When i say 'perfectly good' I was using a very English phrase that may have been a bit lost in translation. Remember that the rest of my audio chain is good, so it's never going to sound that bad...

What i will say that i will do more extensive listening once I've given the headshell, arm and cable a good run in with my burn in disk.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
Can I just add that my logic is that the lower the compliance the heavier the silicone oil must be - It's like car suspension soft springs don't go with low viscosity oil as it will allow rebound and resonance and the 'damping' will not be performing its function
lewm
13,065 posts
 
The Ortofon MC2000 is a high compliance cartridge that would never be paired with an FR64S, at least not by me.  In his original review, J Gordon Holt noted that if one were to try to keep the calculated resonant frequency of the MC2000 cartridge within an acceptable range, it needs a 5-gram tonearm, in fact, because of its high compliance coupled with its own rather heavy weight.  There have only been a very few tonearms ever made that qualify purely on that criterion.  Yet, humans do enjoy the MC2000, somehow.

I, for one, never said that the FR64S might be sufficiently damped by its own high effective mass.  My point was that if you add the B60 and a very massive tonearm mounting apparatus made from materials that transfer energy from the tonearm base, you can achieve some degree of mass damping.  I use a B60 plus about 5 lbs of tonearm mount, none of which adds to the effective mass.  If you then dismiss the heavy FR headshells (20g is typical) and use a lightweight rigid headshell (less than 10g), you can expand the useful range of the tonearm.  Finally, in general I have agreed over and over again that damping is beneficial.
More to discover