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
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 
Dear @lohanimal : Those white papers are essential to read it for any one in the analog alternative as us.

I tested my 64S using the arm wand tape ( and as always setting VTF through/using the counterweigth. Recomended. ) and improved so you can make both things: use the around tape arm wand and listen after this the silicon oil damping and listen it and even after those you can try only with the silicon oil damping.

I wish I have your alternatives to test it about or any other tonearm.
Yes I know that I need to buy the Townshend and for me is a real temptation.

I will wait for your experiences about.

R.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
Hi @rauliruegas 
i think I will try some silicone o-rings first that’s unless I can get sorbothane o-rings - I think the use of tape is just a bit clumsy. I have various frequency sweeps and methods to measure arm/cartridge resonance - though I’m not sure how I will apply this - happy for suggestions. Using my ear alone is always going to be subjective.
billstevenson
357 posts
 
Raul,
While you seem satisfied with you methodology, I encourage you to try and borrow an "O"scope because I am sure you would like it.  When the arm and cartridge are optimally set up and playing a high velocity groove on a test record right on the edge of the ability to trace the tone, in addition to being able to hear the edginess as the stylus barely maintains contact with the groove, you will be able to see the trace and any mistracking on the scope.  So you have two data points, auditory and visual.  In many cases it is possible to fine tune the set up even further using the trace on the scope even after all seems ok to the ear.  Conversely, in my experience it has never been possible to beat the trace on the scope just using the ear.  But of course you must have access to a scope and spend time experimenting to see what I mean.  Also, the scope saves time in that you will get the optimum result faster and it will always be repeatable.  Try it, you'll like it.  I think, too, that once you have tried this set up method, you would then continue to confirm your results with your current methodology.  Please do not assume that I am finding fault with what you are currently doing.  Not at all.

Bill
lewm
13,070 posts
 
Bill, What does mistracking look like on a 'scope?  Wouldn't you need a positive control, a cartridge that does not mistrack the passage, to know what you are looking at?  Thanks.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,951 posts
 
lewm
... What does mistracking look like on a ’scope? Wouldn’t you need a positive control, a cartridge that does not mistrack the passage, to know what you are looking at?
You use tracks of increasing amplitude from a test record - such as the Ortofon LP - then look for deviation from a smooth sine wave on the ’scope. It is possible to see mistracking before you can hear it.
More to discover