Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

@pegasus 
I agree, there is likely to be a small reduction in air pressure entering the  capillaries due deltaP across the wool and filter paper. Easily sorted by increasing the input pressure slightly.  The arm can be operated with and without the wool/paper to test its efficacy.
Much has been written in this thread  about the need for a stable air supply. It seems that the ET is very sensitive to any perturbations in the air stream. This design is simply taking this trait and seeking to ameliorate it further. Look inside the manifold at the small hole which connects the air supply to the manifold cavity. Air entering thru this hole jets across the small gap and hits the sleeve then circulates around the boundary between the manifold ID and the sleeve OD. This design change is an effort to deliver smooth air to all of the capillaries. It may not be of benefit, but I intend to find out.

Cheers 

Bruce's second run, long I-Beam delivered yesterday.  Much better fit for the weight clamp.  Sounding good. 
Cheers

Gentlemen,
I recently picked up a Van den Hul MC One Special.  Specs say static compliance is 28 micron/mN.  I don't have a clue what this means in terms of high, low or medium compliance.  Can some of you with a better engineering/physics background than I tell me which of Bruce's arm wands would be best suited to this cartridge.
Thanks,
Harry

I don't know your degree, so I don't tell you mine... ;-)Except that you will find the formulas if you feel the need.It's a rather elevated compliance in these days, not Shure-high but probably, relating to ct517 experiences, it better fits a ET 2 and not a ET 2.5, as the mass of the ET 2 is lower. However, I think it's mainly a question of the arm wand, ie. using the original alu wand.
With this cartridge it's more about experimenting with vertical inertia, starting at the lower side, starting with more counterweights close to the bearing.
You always can increase vertical inertia by trying less counterweights in the middle and then a low count at the outer end.
I suspect that still the long i-beam with counterweights out and starting with a single spring might be best, as the high compliance / low resonance frequency of the cartridge might be better controlled by an I-beam that is set to the lowest most resonance.

Thanks Pegasus,
I started college (1961) majoring in engineering.  At the end of my sophomore year intermediate calculus drove me to change major to political science.

I have an ET 2 that has not been upgraded to the high pressure manifold but I'm am running it with a pump that gives me @ 8 psi.  I've been running the VDH with an extra magnesium arm I picked up.  I'll try the original al arm.  Thanks for the info.
Harry