Dear friends: As I posted in other thread I have mounted 3 of our self design tonearms alond other two ones.
Well, two the ones we designed share the same kind of gimball ABEC9 bearing and the other jewels and I have to tests 6 different build material arm wand and in all wecan use silicon damping for the cartridge or not.
The main arm wands I use are made of: 2 wood, magnesium blend, 3D, and two other blended metal combination with wood.
In all circumstances the 3 tonearms using different arm wands performs really good and the cartridges trcks " splendid " but when in any one of them I use the silicon damping the whole performance change for the better. It's not nigth and day but the changes are easy detected especially at both frequency ranges.
Now, one of the other mounted tonearm is the AT 1503 where been a good tonearm I choosed it to make some tests adding a silicon oil paddle facility ( very hard task but I need to do it and test it. ).
Well, when I switch to the silicon oil damping the differences for the better ar night and day and cartridges with serious problems to track the Telarc 1812 those problems almost disappeared and the same with high velocity recorded high frequency groove modulations.
Several of these kind of tests were made it been at mi place 2-3 different audio friends and obviously through all the test sessions using the same LP tracks.
For me damping tonearm/cartridge subject is the way to go and I know ,because in that way several of you posted, that are more in disagreement with my advise that to agree with.
At the end this thread is for any one can shares his first hand experiences in the whole subject, the objectuive of the thread is not to find out whom is rigth or not.
Dick Olsher posted in 1995 this:
"""
The perfect tonearm:
The role of the tonearm has been compared to that of the enclosure in a loudspeaker. In this analogy, think of the bass driver as representing the cartridge. The first important point is that it is impossible to assess the driver's performance without considering its interaction with the cabinet. The cartridge/arm combination should be viewed in the same light. The arm's effective mass should be compatible with the cartridge compliance to produce an optimal low-frequency resonance. Just as enclosure wall flexure and resonances may color a speaker's reproduction, so can arm resonances influence the overall frequency-response and time-domain behavior. Arm resonances, both lateral and torsional, should be minimal and well-damped.
From the perspective of the cartridge, the arm is essentially a "monkey on the back." As the stylus negotiates delicate groove modulations, the cartridge has to literally drag this monkey, kicking and screaming, down the groove spiral. Bearing friction at the arm pivot, sufficient to impede the motion of the cartridge, gives rise to distortion because frictional forces along the groove wall increase as a result. Thus, low bearing friction is an automatic prerequisite for a good arm. For a magnetic, velocity-characteristic cartridge, the differential velocity between the stylus and cartridge body gives rise to the output signal. Should the arm rattle the cartridge, the signal's amplitude and the system's frequency response will both be affected. This can happen when the arm bearings are loose and "chatter." Unfortunately, for conventional bearings of the gimbal or ball-race design, the requirements for low friction and tightness (no chatter) are contradictory; some compromise must be struck between the two. In other words, the tighter the bearings, the greater the friction.
The dynamic behavior of the arm is critical to overall performance. Real-world records are eccentric and warped. Trying to negotiate such a record subjects the arm to lateral and vertical accelerations. By far the most serious practical problem is that of negotiating a small-radius warp. As the stylus starts to climb the uphill side of the warp, the cantilever is compressed upward, which may significantly increase vertical tracking force. This is bad enough in itself—increased VTF accelerates record wear—but the cantilever may be displaced upward to the extent that the cartridge enters the twilight zone of nonlinearity: either because of suspension overload or operation in the fringe of the magnetic field.
On the downhill side of the warp the cartridge begins to lose contact with the groove. The effective VTF is reduced, which increases distortion, but the ultimate danger is that of complete loss of contact and groove skipping. What's required here is a nimble arm, dynamically able to keep the stylus in the groove while negotiating a roller coaster.
A figure of merit for assessing a tonearm's dynamic performance is the ratio of VTF to effective mass: the greater the better. This (with an important caveat) gives the maximum acceleration in gravitational "g" units that the arm can withstand before leaving the groove.
What we have ignored so far in the dynamical analysis of the arm are the effects of damping fluid and arm-pivot restoring forces. Damping is normally applied at the pivot of the arm in the form of a fluid. Used in moderation, damping is a good thing. It is not a magic potion that will somehow convert a poor arm into a good one, but it does help an already good arm perform even better by reducing the "Q" of any resonances. Used in excess, damping can backfire by reducing the dynamic capability of the arm. """"
As we can read seems to me that damping is welcomed.
R.
