Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Ketchup, thanks for sharing the data. The question then becomes: how do the different flow rates affect the sound when PSI remains the same? Did you notice differences in the sound with different pumps with the regulator allowing the same PSI? Of course, flow rate would not be the only variable. While I don't have any data on this, I am very aware of the beneficial effects of using a surge tank to smooth out the pulses of air; which, presumably, have different characteristics from pump to pump. What were your findings re the sound when using the compressor and higher PSI (and smooth, pulse-less air stream)?

BTW, I have the lighter magnesium wand which may partly account for the positive results that I have gotten with the Acutex 420. I plan on trying the aluminum wand and will report back.

Ketchup – that is interesting data on the pumps. Thanks for sharing. When my ET2 and 2.5 were next to one another in the same room I noticed when unplugging one for the other how the pressure changed on the dial of the regulator. If I remember right the pressure on the dial would go up with the ET2 and down on the ET2.5 showing that the ET2.5 inhales more air with the larger manifold. So I had to adjust the regulator up or down to compensate.

Here is a pic of the heavy magnesium arm wand

I am curious how many prototypes it took Bruce to come up with that length and size of step up.

Here is some more information for you guys regarding the

I Beam compliance

I asked Bruce another question in regards to the I Beam. Single, double, triple.

If I add one or two leaf springs the I beam becomes stiffer - less compliant.
I have 3 of these ready to swap in - single, double, triple I Beams.

I asked him in his opinion, if a stiffer (lower compliance) I Beam would work better with a lower compliance cartridge, and the opposite true for a higher compliance cartridge? Does it not make sense to match up one end (cartridge side) up with the other side (counter weight I Beam) ?

Just as a guideline - I realize all our setups are different and we need to experiment on our own.

This was Bruce’s response.

Chris,

With respect to the i-beams, this is correct: a stiffer (lower compliance) I Beam works better with a lower compliance cartridge.

Hope this helps – brucet

My ET 2.5 runs a low compliance MC I have been using a double leaf. I am going to try the triple on it. I find the Acutex 420 works well with a single and double. With the triple it still works but what can happen is if the record is not ideal (flat) the sound can get – I am not good with words – too aggressive to me. Lets put it this way – if you are a driving a truck with a leaf spring suspension on the back. What happens when you add or take away leaf springs to the suspension. Now take that truck down a rough road (representing by the lp). Are you going to want fewer or more leaf springs for a smoother ride. The Ibeam is like the leaf spring but working in a horizontal instead of vertical way.

Can anyone tell me what other tonearm out there - regardless of design - allows one to tailor the tonearm compliance to that of any cartridge you are using like this one. Does another tonearm exist like this ?

Slaw – I think you should open up a record store. Make it an internet store with an open chat line to help audiophiles. You would probably make a lot of vinyl people happy picking out good sounding albums for them. But make sure you are your own boss, and don’t have a boss, because he would be upset with why he couldn’t get rid of his Nightfly copies; and other LP’s that don’t meet up to your standards. Just joking of course…not

Thanks for the lp recommendations – will search through my lp’s to see if I can find any of them. For someone that has worked in the IT field all his career - my lp cataloguing system really sucks. Its based on my subliminal - I think. I just find what I need.

it seems unless there is some sort of 'reference' established regarding differences in what we're hearing, the whole process is for not.

Well to me references are like opinions – everyone has one. If you asked 10 audiophiles what their reference(opinon) was for something you would get 18 responses. I have heard this many times on public chat forums like this. Just My Opinion of course.

Slaw, thanks for your comments. Likewise, my comments are not intended to be a criticism of anyone's preferences or tastes in either music or sound; which, at the end of the day, need to be respected. IMO, commentary and discussion, even (especially?) if it may get precariously close to instigating arguments, is what makes a forum such as this one worthwhile. So, in keeping with that spirit, I would like to offer some followup comments which may help explain our different reactions to this record.

I very seldom buy a recording based solely on it's sound quality. If I like the music and performance, that is good enough for me to want to buy it, and I do seek out recordings of music/performances that interest me that are known to have excellent sound quality. Also, for me, it is rare the recording (LP or CD) of music that I like that I simply cannot listen to in it's entirety because of it's recording quality. But, I do own many recordings that are recorded poorly or are inferior or damaged pressings that make the listening experience less enjoyable than it could be otherwise. Lastly, I do own some recordings with almost intolerable sound quality; but, "The Nightfly" is certainly not one of them.

I originally suggested this recording for possible use as a "reference" for several reasons:

- The first reason was that it is a recording of music that I felt would appeal to a lot of different musical tastes. It covers a lot of ground, and not being intimately familiar with the musical tastes of possible participants in this thread's "quest for a reference", it seemed like a safe bet.
- It is in a rock vein with strong contemporary jazz elements.
- Compositionally, in typical SD fashion, it is very strong (for a pop
recording), and there are many "layers" to the sound.
- It is very strong rhythmically, with a diverse range of time feels.
- Fagen hired a very diverse group of players, each very well suited for the feel of each individual composition, and with very individual musical personalities.

All of these considerations, I felt, would provide a lot of material for
discussion as they related to the abilities (or not) of the equipment to extract it.

Lastly, and not least(ly?), this recording has been almost universally praised by audiophiles for it's sound quality; to the extent that it was "beaten to death" at audio show demos for years after it's release.

So, what could account for our different reactions to it? I suspect that part of it is system balance. I find it telling that you find Aja to be wonderful sounding while I find it to be dark and somewhat thick sounding. Don't get me wrong, I think Aja is a terrific record with fine sound quality that in no way gets in the way of the music, but if judge it's sound quality we must, it is far from one of my favorites.

What I also find really interesting is that our systems have much in common. You use a VPI HW19 MK4, and I a TNT6 with the same platter as your MK4. Our arms are, obviously, the same. We also use the same phono stage; although mine has been heavily modified, and the changes to the sound (more resolution and clarity, less forgiving) would seem to favor your assessment of the sound of Nightlfy, not mine. I am not familiar with the sound of your speakers nor amp. But I use tube mono blocks (Manley 200/100) which are definitely very full and lush sounding. My speakers (either Paragon Regents or Stax F81's electrostats) are very both open sounding in the highs, but definitely not what many would consider "accurate", being not the least bit exaggerated in that range. So, what might all this say about the reasons for our different and strong opinions of the sound of Nightfly:

- the differences in the sound of our amps and speakers are so strong that they, in the case of your system, exaggerate the admitted digititis of the recording; or, in the case of my system, mask it.
- you are much more sensitive to digital distortions than I am.

Thoughts?

BTW, I continue to feel that in spite of system differences, use of a reference recording to judge a piece of gear (cartridge) can be very useful. I think that the key is to focus more on the musical aspects of the recordings ("bass player A plays a little more on top of the beat than bass player B") and not so much on the "sound"; whatever that means.

Regards.

Ct0517 - I last used my ET2 with a Garrot modified Denon 103. Also used Koetsu Black & Shure V15VMR.
As far as springs go, I really didn't use the spring effect at all. I found that even with low compliance cartridges, when you reduced the horizontal compliance, the bottom end tightened up, but became more and more out of time with the music. TT at the time was a heavily modded Sota Star. The solution I ended up with was leaving the end cap only partially done up, and used teflon wedges partially inserted either side of the "spring" to a point where the initial movement had almost no restriction whatsoever, but the range was limited and ultimately tempered by the teflon. This with the magnetic dampening explained in my earlier post yielded the best results with both high and low compliance cartridges. I guess what I ended up with was virtually a decoupled counterweight assembly with a very gentle progressive dampening via the teflon wedges.