2. analog
  3. 161137-245

TONEARM DAMPING : DAMPED OR NOT ? ? USELESS ? ? WELCOMED ? ?

Dear friends: This tonearm critical subject sometimes can be controversial for say the least. Some audiophiles swear for non damped tonearms as the FR designs or SAEC or even the SME 3012 that is not very well damped in stock original status.

Some other audiophiles likes good damped tonearms.


In other thread a gentleman posted:


"  If a cartridge is properly matched to the tonearm damping is not required. " and even explained all what we know about the ideal resonance frequency range between tonearm and cartridge ( 8hz to 12hz. ). He refered to this when said: " properly matched to the tonearm ".


In that same thread that a Triplanar tonearm owner posted:


" This is the one thing about the Triplanar that I don't like. I never use the damping trough...... I imagine someone might have a use for it; I removed the troughs on my Triplanars; its nice to imagine that it sounds better for doing so. "


At the other side here it's a very well damped tonearm:


https://audiotraveler.wordpress.com/tag/townshend/


Now, after the LP is in the spining TT platter ( everything the same, including well matched cartridge/tonearm.  ) the must critical issue is what happens once the cartridge stylus tip hits/track the LP grooves modulations.

The ideal is that those groove modulations can pass to the cartridge motor with out any additional kind of developed resonances/vibrations and that the transducer makes its job mantaining the delicated and sensible signal integrity that comes in those recorded groove modulations.

 That is the ideal and could be utopic because all over the process/trip of the cartridge signal between the stylus tip ride and the output at the tonearm cable the signal suffers degradation (  resonances/vibrations/feedback ) mainly developed through all that " long trip " .


So, DAMPING IS NEED IT AT THE TONEARM/HEADSHELL SIDE OR NOT?


I'm trying to find out the " true " about and not looking if what we like it or not like it is rigth or not but what should be about and why of that " should be ".


I invite all of you analog lovers audiophiles to share your points of view in this critical analog audio subject. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT?


Thank's in advance.



Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.






Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Post removed 
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
mijostyn , what you call ''asumptions'' is the same as ''assertions''.
We all think in the same way: we start with some assertion as
premise which we think is true and deduce from this assertion
our conclusions. But first logical rule is: ''if the assertions (premise)
is no true than the deductions alo can't be true''. 
For a long time there was no difference between ''auctoritas'' and
''veritas''. That is why Aristoteles dominated western education
for 2000 years. Till Galileo proved his ''physics'' wrong and Frege
his logic and methodology.  So the mentioned  confusion is the
result of bad education. 
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Right nandric, I am not as graceful with the english language as thee but lets see if I can give it a go. Every theory starts with an assumption (two s's.) If I do "X", I will get a certain result "Y". In order to move that theory to scientific fact you have to do an experiment with "repeatable" results that show X indeed leads to Y. Galileo did this. Aristotle belongs in a different subject. Asserting ideas you can not prove to influence others is the reason we have so much mythology in this hobby. "That sounds like it will work" is much different than "This works." It seems the two are always confused. I see no consistent data that proves tonearm damping improves tracking in all circumstances which is what is being assumed and asserted. Certainly in the case of a very compliant cartridge in a heavy arm it might. Otherwise there is no good explanation that it should and no proof that it does otherwise some very brilliant tonearm designers would add it to their best arms. SAT, Reed and Schroder are some examples and there are many more. Reed and Schroder give you instead the option to change the effective mass of the arm, a better approach IMHO. Raul makes assertions based on what he hears. Unfortunately, and we should all know this, hearing is not a repeatable experiment.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
My spelling and grammar are the result of a bad education. When this was being taught I was thinking about flying rockets through the neighbor's windows and being a WW2 fighter ace. Spelling and grammar
held no interest to me and my teachers were incapable of making it so. Nobody (except the neighbors) realized I had a brain until I waltzed away from my peers in math. Today they would label me as having a progressive developmental disorder. 
antinn
407 posts
 
@rauliruegas, et.al, 

Per your request from PM, attached is the link to the Audio March 1981 magazine with the article on VTA/SRA and the effects of both.  https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1981-03.pdf.  While the results are now widely accepted that Shibata and similar contact line shapes are very sensitive to SRA, this other article pivot vs tangential in Audio magazine June 1982 https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1982-06.pdf highlights an associated problem.  The tonearm resonance can cause large changes in VTF which then alters SRA. The Audio 1982 article addresses  "There are two practical ways to stabilize the cantilever deflection'  One is tonearm damping, the other is to reduce the effective mass of the tonearm/cartridge system to change the resonant frequency.  We are now some 40 yrs past when these articles were written, and better materials and manufacturing processes offer a wider range of solutions, but the root of the problem(s) are the same (thankfully, it does not appear that we have created any new one; at least not yet).  Also note that static on the record can also change/increase the VTF, and could cause similar distortion.  
More to discover