Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Thekong - yes you are correct. That "rebound" as you call it has a resonance. The idea behind the variable spring rate and shifting the position of the lead counterweight is to place that resonance below the horizontal resonance of the arm so that the 2 resonances ( arm and beam ) do not couple together to produce a large peak at the arms resonant frequency.
All tonearms will have a lift or peak in response at their natural frequency. The tuning with the I beam ( decoupled ) is designed to reduce this natural bass peak at the resonant frequency of the arm to produce a flat bass response. This is illustrated in the graphs on Bruce Thigpen's website where he has published some of his test results.
The idea behind loosening the I beam that I outlined in my earlier posts is to lower this "rebound" resonance, by allowing the I beam to swing freely and also keep the horizontal arm mass low. Some wag above says you get no response below 30hz but that is not correct. You get a low fall off in bass below 30hz.
Rigidly coupling the I beam will increase the bass, adding more bass lift at the resonant frequency and beyond. If you run 30 year old Acoustat 2+2's in a room barely 10ft x12ft, listening position 5 feet from the panels and you like humpa humpa one note bass, then that is your ideal solution.

Hi Dover,

Thanks for the explanation, will certainly try all different set ups and see the difference myself!

Hi theKong – answer to your question from Bruce. Thanks for that info as well Dover. Acoustats ? won't go there.

03-27-13: Thekong
As we have been discussing the pros and cons of the decoupled counterweight on the ET,
I have this question on my mind (admittedly a non-technical one) for a long time!

The ET uses leaf springs to decouple the counterweight so the arm doesn’t “see” the additional weight!
To my thinking, this can only be possible if the counterweight actually doesn’t move during the initial movement (milliseconds?) of the arm,
due to the compliance of the leaf spring.
Then, after the arm has moved for a certain range, the counterweight would need to start “rebounding” to follow the arm.

If that is true, then would it create some delayed effect that could be detrimental to the tracking?

Or is my reasoning totally false?
Thekong (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

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

Answer from Bruce.

Chris,

The counterweight is decoupled in the horizontal plane so it only affects lateral motion of the tonearm. The counterweight always moves if the spindle is moving, it does not move at the same rate, the time constant is about 300 milliseconds. If the weight is coupled the system resonant frequency would be extremely low, a resonant frequency at 3Hz with a significant rise in response (6-12dB) results, which would affect tracking slightly because of the asymmetric position of the cantilever, we opt for splitting the horizontal resonance frequency into two points and lowering the "Q" which improves tracking. The motion of the weight is damped so that it has a low "Q" resonance with a rise in response of about 3-4dB at 3hz and 2dB at 10-11Hz, these frequencies do not coincide with the vertical resonance.
More important than tracking, the intent was to reduce the modulation effects of low frequency energy (FM and AM) that increase distortion in the cartridge, amplification chain, and especially in the speakers woofer at a few Hz. I hope this helps.

brucet

Boy I wish I had someone like Bruce for when I go into these board meetings trying to sell services to CEO’s and CFO’s. You know the ones where they bring their own in house techies to the meetings to ask questions.

Cheers

Chris, your diligent follow up with Bruce Thigpen is much appreciated:

If the weight is coupled the system resonant frequency would be extremely low, a resonant frequency at 3Hz with a significant rise in response (6-12dB) results, which would affect tracking slightly because of the asymmetric position of the cantilever, we opt for splitting the horizontal resonance frequency into two points and lowering the "Q" which improves tracking.

More important than tracking, the intent was to reduce the modulation effects of low frequency energy (FM and AM) that increase distortion in the cartridge,

Bruce Thigpen’s contribution affirm my statements over the past 7-8 weeks that Richardkrebs fixation with adding lead mass to the arm and coupling the I beam will increase distortion, affect tracking and produce an unnatural bass lift in response. My own analysis has long been based on a thorough understanding of the design principles and physics involved.

It is disappointing that those who disagree, and clearly do not grasp the principles involved in this arm, have resorted to denial and personal attacks

03-04-13: Richardkrebs
Dover
Your scaremongering

03-17-13: Richardkrebs
Dover.
Hasn't this discussion run its course.

03-18-13: John47
Mr Dover’s bombastic contentions.

03-21-13: John47
Put on your knitwear cardy so don't catch a cold, your thick lensed glasses so you don't fall, then pop out and replenish your Prozac.

03-23-13: Gnnett
As a New Zealander I would like to apologies for the behavior of Dover. It is a narrow country and this breeds narrow mindedness.

All too often denial and personal abuse is the last refuge of the desperate.

Sadly those posters who are fixated with the idea of adding lead mass and removing the decoupling will continue to deny the science and exhaustive testing and measurements that underpin Bruce Thigpen’s design.

If they prefer the sound of the arm set up incorrectly, there are clearly fundamental flaws in their system and they should look at the rest of their components and set up. This includes the environment in which they are listening.

03-04-13: Richardkrebs
Dover
I am the only person here who can speak with any authority on the subject.

Richardkrebs, the ET2 is a brilliant design and deserves to be treated with respect.

Frogman/theKong, others – regarding lowering the position of the lead weights.

Based on my own experiences, positioning the lead to be lower is not something imo, that any ET2, ET 2.5 owner is going to do naturally or instinctively. The reason being it is not as ergonomic. When you try it you will see it is easy to touch/scrap the plinth/armboard with the end of the I Beam, when you lift the arm at the end of a record. That is, if you have developed a habit like I have, of lifting the arm tube higher than required in protection of the stylus. This was an easy habit to break.

I talked to Bruce about it and he said multiple parameters get changed when doing this and that in general he's for an adjustment that results in an increase in VTF requiring the lead being moved further out on the I Beam. But we need to try it out in our rooms/gear. Look forward to both of your impressions when you get a chance to try it. I’ve had two positive listening sessions with now.
Cheers