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
bukanona
174 posts
 
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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 
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.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Thanx for the credit rauliruegas. The second article explains why lighter arms with resonance frequencies above 8 Hz have improved performance due to lower VTF variations consequently less FM distortion. It specifically mentions low effective mass as the most significant performance parameter and shows very convincing evidence of this in experimental form. It uses this as the most plausible explanation for improved sound with low effective mass straight line trackers. This also explains the poor performance of air bearing and roller bearing types of straight line trackers that have very high horizontal effective mass. The Kuzma airline in particular got iffy reviews. It mentions damping as an afterthought. Thus it asserts that higher compliance cartridges with lower mass tonearms out perform high mass low compliance setups as long as the resonance frequency is kept above 8 Hz. This also explains why turntables with vacuum clamping out perform turntables that do not have vacuum clamping. It would be interesting to perform the same experiment using both reflex and vacuum clamping to see if there is a significant difference. Putting this together it would seem you want a turntable with clamping that will eliminate warps, a lighter tonearm with a more compliant cartridge. This study was done in the 1980s! Maybe moving away from arms like the Infinity Black Widow and cartridges like the Shure V15 was a bad idea. Big arms with stiff cartridges might not be bad as long as the record is kept as flat as possible.
The first article is hard to qualify because the reproduction of the grafts and the explanation of what is going on is rather poor at least for a simpleton like me.  
bukanona
174 posts
 
Raul I can say that you like too much damping and you are losing some signal... so your Micro Seiki is dull. 
So, Raul, for what spring is used? I can help you it was used in Empire tonearm and Ikeda copied it. It was used in Gray Research 103-SL if to look into old times, many old Ortofon tonearms have springs...
Why Ikeda changed from 64 to 64S to 64Fx to current version which is 64S with some tube damping?
Why people pay so much for old SME tonearms with stainless steel tubes, why in Japan they do had R version of SME tonearms. And why Japan ignored SME series V and IV in general? I would like to remind you that Japanese are not deaf and they do go to concerts as at home space is very limited.


mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Bukanona, I honestly believe it is a cultural thing. They like the aesthetic of a large S arm, removable headshell and low compliance cartridges.
They probably think the newer SME arms are ugly.  
More to discover