Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Chris,
Thanks.

The results concur with both my own testing and the correct application of the laws of physics and sound engineering practice when setting up the ET2. The use of decoupling is an essential element to optimize the performance. To remove the decoupling and add mass is an ill conceived notion not supported by the laws of physics and cannot be recommended.

The removal of the decoupling mechanism and adding mass will result in an unnatural hump in the low bass as explained in the ET2 manual.

Chris.

I also thank you for your insightful testing of the ET2.5.
It confirms that adding too much mass, by way of locking the counterweight is not a good idea, if it takes the arm out of the appropriate resonant frequency range. I did say earlier that in my testing of the ET2, I added too much weight and had to backtrack. The key point being where does the arm in standard form sit relative to the optimum.

Adding additional weight to an ET2.5 would be inadvisable since it is already in the Goldilocks zone I mentioned. Namely its horizontal resonant frequency is in the range of 2-3hz, when using a decoupled counterweight and a low to med compliance cart.
Now bringing the ET2 down to this optimal range, that would be interesting. Are you able to fit 3 leaf springs to an ET2 carrying a low to med compliance cartridge?
Another question please. How stiff is the beam with the 3 leaf springs? As I mentioned earlier, the arm is very sensitive to any resonance at this point. I would urge caution if the resultant assembly rings in the audio band.

Richardkrebs

Readers of this thread will now see that you are contradicting yourself.

Adding additional weight to an ET2.5 would be inadvisable since it is already in the Goldilocks zone I mentioned. Namely its horizontal resonant frequency is in the range of 2-3hz, when using a decoupled counterweight and a low to med compliance cart.

Richardkrebs - this comment is unbelievable. This completely contradicts your earlier posts.

You encouraged Thekong to add horizontal mass to his ET2.5 and I quote;

03-12-13: Richardkrebs
Thekong
I don't know how long patents last, but would suggest the reason that Lloyd does not decouple the counterweight is simple.

It sounds better.

03-12-13: Richardkrebs
Thekong

We look forward to reading your comments.

03-13-13: Richardkrebs
Thekong.

Thanks for posting the photo of the counterweight arm. One suggestion is that you need to be very carefull with the stiffness of this. Any shake rattle and roll here is bad since it is no longer free to pivot about the leaf spring. I experimneted with the rod carrying the weight and finished up with an aluminium rod with a M10 thread for adjustment. Smaller diameters were quite flexable.

I repeat, you have now opined that it is inadvisable to add mass to an ET2.5, whilst you have been encouraging Thekong to add mass to his ET2.5 by coupling his counterweight and furthermore, stiffening the counterweight assembly with an M10 bolt no less.

Your advice on adding mass and coupling the counterweight has been wrong.

Earlier I advised readers to be aware of the pitfalls and possible deleterious consequences. In a response you hysterically claimed that I was scaring people off from trying your suggested modifications and accused me of being a scaremonger.
Richardkrebs - readers of this thread are quite capable of evaluating the arguments put forward for and against. I have a higher respect for the intelligence of the readers of this thread.

Your refusal to acknowledge the recommendations outlined in the ET manual, your continual refusal to acknowledge the laws of physics, and now a complete reversal on the advice given Thekong on his ET2.5 suggest that readers should disregard your advice completely.

Dover.

Mea culpa. Although it is blindingly obvious that Thekong will be using a ET2.5, since he states same several times, I completely overlooked that fact, thinking that he was working on a ET2. My mistake.

It would still be informative if Thekong is interested since the rigidity of the counterweight arm is critical in non decoupled applications. While I would expect similar results to Chris, there would likley be some material differences which would be well shared with the rest of us.

ALL of my comments re weight and the ET2 stand. Its resonant frequency tells us that it is a completely different animal.

Hi Ct,

I am using the Apogee Fullrange, so should be able to tell the bass difference between the different setup. However, I will need to order the extra left springs from Bruce.

As I got my original ET2 secondhand, I am missing the lead counter weight. I remember asking Bruce a couple of years back but the price was really high, due to some special reasons (high cost to machine lead as it is hazardous to health ?).

So, I would like to check with other users whether using other substitutes would cause a big difference?