Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

The 6000's relatively low vertical effective mass put its resonant frequency above the ideal 8-12Hz region with moving-coil cartridges of average weight and typically low compliance, causing the bass to begin rolling off prematurely. Andy Payor solved the problem on the System III Sirius arm—see my analogsourcereviews/review in August 2000—by adjusting the mass so that the arm's fundamental resonant frequency would be compatible with a wider range of cartridges.

Hi Dover,

Thank you for taking the time to check!

The above is a quote of MF from his review of the Kuzma Airline. By “adjusting the mass”, I am sure he meant “adding the mass”! Both the 6000 and 7000 also used carbon-fiber armtubes, but not as sophisticated as the one on the Sirius III.

But then, I agree with you that the weight increase of the armtube would definitely be less than 10g, and most likely in the 3-5g range.

Actually, by looking at the photos alone, it is hard to believe the massive armtube clamping system on the Sirius III has the same weight as that on the 6000. But, I have no reason to doubt AP’s claim!

Sirius III

6000

Hi Ct,

While I don’t have any really high compliance MM cartridges, I have no problem, “sound wise”, matching the 6000 to the relatively high compliance VDH Colibri! Yes, the combo is relatively lean in the bass/mid bass, but I consider it the character of the cartridge.

Now, I say “sound wise”, because while the sound was fine, I (and also my friend who had the same combo) found the Colibri’s cantilever slightly off-centered after a period of time. This I took it as the fragile nature of the Colibri’s design.

MF repeatedly stated the 6000 was relatively bass shy compared to the Sirius III and Kuzma Airline; I believe a major reason was that the stock pump just couldn’t supply enough pressure. As I mentioned before, I believe the 6000, 7000 and Sirius III shared the same bearing, but the 6000’s stock pump (probably due to cost constrains) could only supply a max pressure of around 11 psi, and without any surge tank. Once I upgraded it to a June Air compressor with integral surge tank, plus additional pressure regulators, supplying 34psi to the 6000, its bass weight and definition improved considerably! As I understand from the Rockport agent, the Sirius III’s arm also uses around 32-35 psi!

Thanks for that info Thekong and Dover.

Thekong – something doesn’t look right to me with that Sirius III pic ?

Looking at the air tube wiring – how does that tonearm get past the 2nd track?

Isn’t the air tube pushing back at the arm as it makes its way across ? Is there that much friction in the slider to not be affected?

If that was an ET2 just the wires alone in that position would cause it not to work. Sorry for all the questions.

Definitely a very different design. Thanks for the pics.

So the air that comes into the arm is going into to a smaller diameter air tube. This is compressing the air and I assume making higher pressure.
Cheers

The kong,

thanks, pictures are interesting - the stiffness around the arm connection is obvious. The 6000 does look quite flimsy, whereas the Sirius has a tapered armtube to a larger armtube clamp. The energy control should be much better.
Also interesting are the similarities to the ET - the tapered armtube for MC's and the use of a relatively small counterweight quite a long way away from the bearing. Having less mass in the counterweight further out lowers the horizontal effective mass ( clearly a design goal for Payor ) but increases the vertical effective mass ( good for low compliance MC's ). This is exactly the same strategy employed in the ET.
Re the van den hul bent cantilever - I ran a Shure V15Vmr on the ET2 for about 10 years whilst I had a hiatus from audio in the 90's. The Shure is around 20 yrs old, still has the original cantilever & stylus, has only ever been used on the ET2 and the cantilever is as straight as a die; this I think a testament to the ET2's relative light mass and decoupled cantilever and of course the electromagnetic damping discussed earlier in this thread would have helped as well.

Ct,

You have sharp eyes, yes the owner of that Sirius III was complaining on Audiogon that the arm couldn’t track more than 3 cuts into the LP. There are actually 2 black hosts in that photo, one for the air, and one for the signal wire. I believe it was just set up wrongly; it should be like the photo of the 6000, with the signal wire host pull back as much as possible, and both the air-host and signal wire arranged into a hanging n shape!

Dover,

My 6000 came with 4 counterweights of different sizes to match with different cartridges!

Regarding the off-centered cantilever of the VDH, I believe, while great sounding, it is just a very fragile design, and probably not really fit for air-bearing arm including the ET2. After having it fixed, my friend has used it on both the SME V and Graham Phantom with no problem!

I will try to weight the sliding assemble of the 6000 this weekend and report back!

Thekong.

It will be interesting to read about your findings.

Do you have the horizontal effective mass figure for the 6000? Can you please post this if you have it.
My experience with adding weight is that you should be targeting a horiz resonance of 5-6 hz. The formula on the ET site can be used to calculate this and hence how much weight to add. You may need to concurrently adjust the vert mass as well. This I did with the lead shim inside the headshell.
From the photo you posted, it looks like the 6000 has a damping trough? Until recently I have been using the dressing of the lead out wires for damping. This works but goes out all the time, requiring constant tweeking. The oil trough is much better, being consistent and I would now consider it to be manditory in a heavy arm.
thanks