Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

BTW, the key to using the damping trough is to allow the paddle to just barely touch the fluid. Otherwise the sound gets too slow.

Ct, can you be more specific as to what you mean by "damping". It's possible this is a semantics issue, whereby your "damping" is my "controlled". What I hear with the lower compliance in the spring is slightly smaller images, but better separated, better integration of the highs with the midrange, overall better detail with a slightly brighter presentation. Although, the highs are, as I said, better integrated and less "splashy". Perhaps this is what you hear as dampened.

For $15 bucks I am not going to mess around with this - I just ordered a double spring I Beam from Bruce. I warned him to be ready to possibly make a few. :^)

I told Bruce about this thread but he is too busy.

Buying these arms used:

Based on my experience the problem we have here is that when people buy these arms "used" very rarely I think do the arms come in their boxes due to their age and parts go missing. I have bought three of them in total and each time something was missing. I never got 2 I-Beams in three purchases.

Frogman – words describing the music are not my strong point. But I can tell you if it sounds good , better or best to me. So yes “semantics”

You said “Although, the highs are, as I said, better integrated and less "splashy". Perhaps this is what you hear as dampened.” - EXACTLY thank you.

If the sound is less detailed – not as much information I tend use the word “thick” to describe it – which to me is like fog or things not being clear.

Dover said in his post – “I have found any sort of dampening other than the magnet described slugs the sound.”
Looking forward to hearing about this magnet Dover.

Re I beam compliance

I think what Bruce is saying is he is using the decoupling of the balance weights to reduce the effective horizontal mass which allows the use of heavier arm components with their inherent increased stiffness. This seems to imply the use of the single leaf beam to provide the max decoupling, but the best answer is complicated by the compliance of the cartridge you are using.

If I understand correctly the selection of heavier weights close in or smaller weights further out also depends on cartridge compliance and can be verified by measuring the horizontal resonance frequency with a test record.

Changing the compliance of the beam will have a significant effect on the resonance with the stiffer beam increasing the resonant frequency. I may have that backwards but the idea that it changes with the I beam coupling is correct.

The stiffness of the component parts of the arm are physical factors that cannot be changed by anything attached such as I beam and balance weights. The amount of deflection in the arm components however will change with the change in weight and coupling of the I beam assembly. This deflection is however vanishingly small except perhaps at the I beam spring.

For what it's worth, I have used this arm for about twenty two years, and have used more cartridges (of all persuasions) than I can remember. While the effect of lower compliance at the I-beam spring has been most noticeable with low compliance/high rigidity MC's, the effect has been consistent with all types of cartridges, including high compliance MM's. I think it's important to remember that issues involving resonance and resonant frequency can be rather mysterious, and since their effects are audible mainly (but not only) as effects on tonal balance, that system synergy/personal preference re tonal balance are an important part of the equation.

The ears always rule. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

If things always worked as physics suggests then this treck would be much easier.