Dover.
Yes "removing the counterweight" would result in a dramatic degradation of the sound!
As to increasing the horizontal mass of my arm by 300%. One needs to specify at what horizontal frequency this measurement is taken.
At 0.55Hz (eccentric record at 33 1/3 rpm) the leaf spring on the ET2 counterweight is stiff. IOW on a standard ET2, at a horizontal excitation of 0.55Hz, the mass of the counterweight assembly must be added to the weight of the spindle, wand and cartridge. This means that when tracing an off centre record, my cartridge sees more or less the same mass as one mounted on a standard ET2. (applies to average weight cartridges and associated counterweights)
BT has confirmed this and I posted his response on the ET thread, maybe you missed this?
Resonance transmissibility theory 101
cheers.
Yes "removing the counterweight" would result in a dramatic degradation of the sound!
As to increasing the horizontal mass of my arm by 300%. One needs to specify at what horizontal frequency this measurement is taken.
At 0.55Hz (eccentric record at 33 1/3 rpm) the leaf spring on the ET2 counterweight is stiff. IOW on a standard ET2, at a horizontal excitation of 0.55Hz, the mass of the counterweight assembly must be added to the weight of the spindle, wand and cartridge. This means that when tracing an off centre record, my cartridge sees more or less the same mass as one mounted on a standard ET2. (applies to average weight cartridges and associated counterweights)
BT has confirmed this and I posted his response on the ET thread, maybe you missed this?
Resonance transmissibility theory 101
cheers.