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

@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.  

antinn, thanx for the articles. Article #2 is really great and I think important for any turntable jockey to read. It demonstrates the effects of varying tonearm effective mass brilliantly. It argues that if radial trackers sound better it is only because they are lighter (they are talking about servo driven units.)  It also makes a sound argument as to why a shorter arm is better than a longer one. And why a pivoted arm should sound better than a radial tracker with a very high horizontal mass. The graphs of this are very provocative.  

Dear @antinn and friends : Thanks for your asking help to link that article and for the other one too.

Both articles along the other ones linked in this thread confirms with facts not only what some gentlemans posted here including the M.Townshend design but what I posted in this forum for at least 15+ years and that almost all Agoner’s diminished for say the least about tonearm/cartridges/TT mat.

The best example about the tonearm issue are the SAEC 560/8000 and FR 66/64 undamped and heavy mass models pivoted designs that I owned and that several past and today owners touted and tout as " great tonearms " almost ever designs.

Through all those years I always posted that what we like it’s not important in the overall issue but the important and critical subject is what is rigth or wrong and why and I said to all those gentlemans that all of them are/were listening way higher distortions ( no matters what ) and that I’m not questioning what they like but ( again ) what should be and why ( this thread has all the " why " facts about. ).

Along those I said to them that exist 3 problems to any one of them can understand that " should be " against their wrong practice.
One is that we have to have a high quality resolution room/system and the other is to be experienced with live MUSIC seated at near field position that’s where the recording microphones are positioned.
The true is that some of those audiophiles not even attend to enjoy live MUSIC very often.

Second other issue ( no pun intented please. ) is that around 70% of those gentlemans own tube electronics that per sé impedes that high resolution need it for.

Third, to have a bullet proof evaluation/test proved process that can be repeated as many times we need it and using the same LP tracks.

Even in this same thread a gentleman loves its Acutex very high compliance and ligth weigth cartridge mated with the over 30grs FR64 undamped tonearm design ( the FR66 is over 40grs on EM, go figure. ! ) and that’s what he like it and it’s fine with me but he is listening with very high developed distortions.

Those SAEC and the FR66 are over 12" EL, really long tonearms: another mistake they do it and when I posted about and as I said all of them just think I has no " ears ".

Way wrong, not only I have very good ears ( not sayed by me but for Agoners and some friends at my town. ) but a room/system quality high resolution that several of them not even can imagine.

I already said here ( and said it for years ) that the well damped tonearm designs goes in specific to fulfill the cartridge needs not the tonearm it self even that helps to the tonearm too but the main subject are those cartridge needs.
Tonearm is a slave of the cartridge.

I explained in deep and step by step all what the cartridge must pass before the signal stays at its output pin connectors: where almost no one cares about because they are entiltled only in what they like no matters what, they don’t want and are not willing to improve their MUSIC home experiences.

I hope that after read this thread they can do something in favor of they.

The two examples I posted in the OP thread comes from two gentlemans that think to know everything on these thread issues ( and in other audio/music topics. ) when their knowledge levels and true experiences are really poor with low knowledge about.

The CARTRIDGE needs to be well damped and not only by the tonearm but by the mat, clamp and silicon damping.

In one of the linked articles we can read:

"" There are two practical ways to stabilize the cantilever deflection. One is to use a damping mechanism such as the brush supplied with Shure and Stanton/Pickering cartridges, a DiscTraker or Zerostat Z -track device, the silicone damping supplied with some tonearms, o ""

So, there is no doubt about.

I owned/used all but the Zerostat Z.

Something interesting I have to say is that way before this thread and even in this thread but before the linked articles I posted the advantages that offers to the cartridge the silicon damping through a paddle:

- that the stylus tip stays the more time in touch with the grooves.

- that changes in VTA/SRA/VTF due to micro and macro LP surface waves been in more gentle way for those cantilever deflections stays at minimum.

- that the antiskating need through the use of cartridge silicon damping will goes down that the normal needs with.

- as me other gentleman here posted that silicon damping improves cartridge tracking levels ( no matters what. ). Means way lower developed distortions.

All those and other issues already confirmed with facts in this thread and this was and is what I was looking for when I started it.

Btw, other that the example I posted in the OP about the silicon damping paddle in tonearms at least two other gentlemans in the thread posted that the paddle on their tonearm are used empty.

I don’t want to change the way of thinking of any one or change what they like it but only put the facts and through that all of them have a " new " oppotunity " to at least think on it.

I forgot. The cartridge FM mentioned in one of those links is something that we don't care about and if I recall only Ortofon gives the cartridge specs on it. I can't remember of other cartridge manufacturer, maybe Allaerts.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Btw, the moniker of one of the OP examples is: the great " keep walking " gentleman. Go figure ! ! the one with the Triplanar is other person.

I do remmember many years ago I have read that Thomas Shick removed spring from FR64 and it was claimed as tuning.
Raul said that FR 64 is crap, especially FR66  as it is completely wrong.

It’s interesting how chaotic variables can make system in the mind - if you can’t understand it - destroy it.

Dear @bukanona : I can twell you that with or with out the spring the FR64/66 are a " natural enemy " of any cartridge.

I have several advantages over other gentlemans/audiophiles down here because I own/owned/listened through my room systems over 40+ diferent tonearms maybe way more and were mated with over 150+ diferent cartridges: LOMC, MM, MI, HOMC, Electret, Strain Gauge, etc.

So I had the opportunity to compare in between well damped tonearms and bad damped tonearms and differences in between can be heard even for a " deaf " audiophile.

I know why the bad damped FR tonearm likes to so many gentlemans and I remember very well when I bougth the 66 along the SAECS, Audiocraft and Micro Seiki MAXs tonearms that I did it through Japanese Stereo importer in USA ( I live in México city. ) and that was in Wilshire Boulevard in LA area. I bougth there too several cartridges.

The Japanese Stereo people told me and gave me a writed information that the japanese audiophiles always prefered the sound of FR/SAEC non-damped tonearm to the very well damped ( and way superior overall design. ) MAX 282 because the FR/SAEC one were more dynamic and alive tonearm where the Micro Seiki was to soft, dark and even dullness performer.

Yes the japanese gentlemans like the heavy distortions exactly as our today non-japanese audiophiles. Good for all them.

This is what an audiophile that owns the FR64 posted in this thread:

" especially if you use it with its B60 accessory which adds a lot of mass to the base of the pivot.... "

My common sense obligates me to think/ask my self: how that B60 helps to lower the cartridge tracking developed distortions during the groove modulations job?

that same gentleman today just posted in other thread speaking of the FR64:

" because in my opinion the tonearm is that good. "

Those confirm what I posted here:

" they don’t want and are not willing to improve their MUSIC home experiences. "

Pity and a shame that even today with all the true facts in this thread we read that kind of wrong opinions/advises. How that could helps any one? why follows spreading false information?. No sense at all.

R.