Eminent technology et2 on Linn Lp12
Lewm Lewm, et al Bruce Thigpen has done extensive resonant frequency testing and offers different armwands, I beam setups, to best match up to the cartridge that someone is using. As MC carts became more popular Bruce introduced the larger 2.5 version manifold/air bearing spindle which is better suited to low compliance MC's. The Vinyl Issue as we know it. There can be a 3 - 6 db output increase at the specific resonant frequency for any specific tonearm/cartridge marriage. If this resonance happens in the music range that we hear above 20 hz, it can result in well ...lets call it too much bass - a tubby sound. If the tonearm/cartridge resonant frequency happens below 5 hz, which is where turntable rumble and record warps live; then the cartridge/arm combo will exaggerate these phenomena i.e. Woofer pumping. So this is why it is important to match the Cartridge and Tonearm resonances, so that together, they resonate above 5hz and below 20 hz. ************************************************ This link is to a Yellow Sticky on the ET2 thread that contains the cartridge guidelines. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/eminent-technology-et-2-tonearm-owners/post?postid=1693347#16... ***************************************** On this thread the OP pkvintage has a Denon DL103 Denon DL103 - 5x10-6cm/dyne (100Hz) Very low compliance. 8.5 gms Its on the medium to heavy side. Looking at the link it would work best on a Carbon Fiber or Magnesium Armwand, and set up with a double or triple leaf spring on the I beam. And if given a choice the ET 2.5 version is a better choice. I suspect, (as we did not hear back from pkvintage yet) that his friend who owns the ET2, has a 2.0 version, with aluminum armwand, and single leaf spring on the I beam. These are the most common and usually the ones that come for sale on auctions. pkvintage - pls correct me if I am wrong. If this is the case he would need to invest in at least another armwand, and have Bruce send him I Beams with double and triple leaf springs to match up better to the Denon DL103. If anyone is interested in the actual resonant frequencies of the particular armwands, air bearing spindles, I beam leaf springs, and how they work together, we have this info too, and can discuss it. Maybe ask this on the ET2 thread. Cheers |
As most experienced audiophiles know, the “theory” does not always jibe with what is heard. In the case of the ET2/Denon 103 combo I can confirm what ct0517 describes. My first experience with the 103(D) was many years ago when I only had the aluminum armwand and before I upgraded to the High Pressure manifold/bearing (not the 2.5). I did have single and double leaf springs. The double leaf spring improved matters significantly. No bloated mid bass and diffuse images compared to the single leaf spring; and, somewhat surprisingly, an annoying band of unnatural brightness in the lower highs. Upgrading to the high pressure manifold/bearing improved matters significantly with greatly improved clarity and linearity and perceived “speed”. The magnesium arm wand was the icing on the cake and finally showed, for me, what all the fuss re the 103 was about. No Monster SG2000 (my favorite on the ET2), but very nice in a “vintage” kind of way. A gross generalization to be sure, but a sound reminiscent of classic tube gear. |
It’s been decades since I have seen any version of an ET tonearm in the flesh, so the talk about leaf springs etc. leaves me in the dark. However, thanks CT and everyone else for clarifying the issue. So clearly there is an issue mating a DL 103 to the ET tonearm, but it can be overcome with the proper selection of arm wands and Accoutrements. Something for the OP to consider, if he were going to go ahead with the ET/DL103 combination. But it appears he has decided not to. Now he only has to consider the effective mass of the Audionote tonearm arm that he has selected. |
