Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

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

Thekong ....the owner of that Sirius III was complaining on Audiogon that the arm couldn’t track more than 3 cuts into the LP.....

Hi Thekong – thx for that info.

Well imo whatever it was able to play ...it would have been a subpar performance from the start of the first track anyway from what is capable. Hopefully the wires have since been fixed up.

What I don’t get...how does a high profile, statement item like that get into that condition; especially when the wires and also the air tubing in this case represent an Achilles Heel if not set up properly. Not a question per say just a little dis-belief on my part considering the dollars involved.
Cheers

Hi Richard,

Yes, the 6000, and all other Rockport arms, has damping trough. The “paddle” is fixed, so unlike the Walker, you have to adjust the amount of damping oil you put in!

However, I and a couple of my friends who had the 6000, prefer it without damping; it just sounds more lively, or more PRAT! I may revisit this topic later!