et-2 damping trough-good idea or not?

Heed ct0517’s advice on all things ET2.  I would add that using the trough with the magnesium or carbon fiber warms may actually do more harm than simply negate the need for it by overdamping.  In my particular setup it caused the music to sound overly covered and lacking hf air.  With the aluminum wand (and my cartridges) it was a definite improvement.

Dear @frogman : I’m not an expert with the ET-2 that I owned many many years ago.

""" need for it by overdamping.... """

overdamping?, why overdamping?. If that " damping " does not affects the normal and " free tonearm/cartridge movements from where could came that overdamping " ?

Feedback of resonances/vibrations in the cartridge ridding the LP surface are the ones that affect/degrades the more the quality of recorded signal. The " ideal " is that those resonances/vibrations and generated distortions can disappear and if the " damping " helps in some " quantity " to that " disappears " that is a good thing.

"" music to sound overly covered and lacking hf air. "

I can’t " see " the existence of overdamping but more that what you are listening is what is in the recording.

What we need is that the cantilever movements ridding the LP recorded modulations stays that way: whit only those modulations with out that " terrible " and always existent feedback that the cartridge takes as " modulations movements ".

Have you a different explanation that that non existent overdamping?

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

**** If that " damping " does not affects the normal and " free tonearm/cartridge movements ****

It does.

**** what you are listening is what is in the recording ****

Is it not obvious that my comment was about comparisons of the sound on the same recordings without and then with the damping trough?

**** I’m not an expert with the ET-2 ****

On that point, we agree.

Regards.

.

Dear @frogman  : " it does ": that could explain that " overdamping " you named but what I can't understand yet because ( again ) I'm not an ET2 expert is:

"""  With the aluminum wand (and my cartridges) it was a definite improvement. """

Could that means that the ET2 with aluminum has a different overall design other than the aluminum build material down there?

because if it's the same overall design but the aluminum wand build material then : why an improvement when the damping affects ( " it does ". ) the normal and free tonearm/cartridge movements? which could your explanation about?


R.

Raul,

First, let’s establish that “overdamping” is necessarily a subjective term; well, at least the results are. Personally, I am not interested in convincing anyone of what “neutral” is. I know what I consider that to be and my observations and comments reflect that. Someone may prefer a sound that to me is covered and lacking hf air; or, one that, as I often hear, too bright and thin. Moreover, in the context of a system that is thin and bright sounding overall the result of overdamping at the tonearm/cartridge may APPEAR to bring the tonal balance closer to a particular user’s idea of what “neutral” sound is. Of course, overdamping can cause other sonic problems that may or may not be important to that listener.

**** Could that means that the ET2 with aluminum has a different overall design other than the aluminum build material down there? ****

I don’t know what you mean by “down there”, but if you are suggesting that the different materials would not, by themselves, have different sonic signatures then I would have to disagree. There are three different arm wand materials available each also having a different weight and necessarily different resonance characteristics. The magnesium arm wand is the heaviest and recommended for low compliance MC cartridges. All this is very analogous 😉 to what is being discussed currently in the “Diamond cantilever” thread and I think that a lot of the same principles apply. Re my comment:

**** With the aluminum wand (and my cartridges) it was a definite improvement. ****

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Please note that I wrote “was”. That suggests that I no longer use the damping trough since I have been using high compliance MM cartridges of late and the use of the trough robs too much hf air from the sound. This is what I referred to as “overdamping”. When I used the aluminum wand with MC’s the trough was beneficial; it helped control the high frequencies. When I acquired the heavier magnesium wand (not recommended for MM’s) the result with low compliance MC’s was much better than when used with MM’s, but when using the trough the result was also the reduction of hf air and detail. It all seems obvious to me. 

I hope that clarifies things for you. Perhaps Chris can chime in; I’m sure he can do a better job than I explaining all this.