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
lohanimal
659 posts
 
Well @rauliruegas 

I tried the FR64s with the trough.
My audio chain:
1. Modified Townshend Rock Elite
2. FR64s arm
3. Monster Sigma Genesis 2000MC
4. Cardas Golden Reference phono cable
5. Lavardin IT amp
6. DNM speaker cables
7. Roksan Darius S1 speakers

I have this in a nearfield set up.

I used 10,000 cst silicone oil which i understand is lighter than the standard oil weight. 

I had a short listen to the FR64s and thought it sounded perfectly good - though I must say the image precision was a tad lacking but it had plenty of gusto.

I stuck it in the trough and the transformation was very clear. At first you think images are smaller - in fact they are far more precise and occupy spaces much better. In addition to this surface noise comes down and bass was more preisee to my ears
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 
Dear @billstevenson  : "  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. "

Yes, maybe I like it.

Bill I don't want and don't need to go so " detailed " on the cartridge tracking issue because could be useless at the end other than " curiosity ".

You can be sure that my whole tests process with all my choosed LP tracks tells me all what I need and if you tested my finding through an " O'scope " you will find out that I'm in the " road ".
The key there/in the process was and is its methodology and those choosed tracks and to know at 100% why choosed those tracks and no others.

Anyway your advise is welcomed but remember that we ( at least I. ) are just audiophiles.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 
Dear @lohanimal  : ""  I had a short listen to the FR64s and thought it sounded perfectly good...""

Good even that the resonance frequency is ouit of the ideal range. Your experience with confirms the benefits of tonearm damping.

Some audiophiles think and post even here that the heavy mass tonearm as the FR provides " damping ", well damping against what is one of the questions but other critical issue with heavy effective mass in tonearms is during the LP play process where the cartridge has to deal with that heavy dynamic mass that complicated more its already hard job.

If I remember in the measured numbers og the MC2000/Technics combination the effective mass ( tonearm/cartridge. ) ( static. ) was 24grs. but the dynamic mass was measured over 31grs. that it's not a good number and that affects what we are listening through.
Maybe if LP were perfect with no off-center, micro/macro waves and the like that dynamic mass could makes lower/less harm but unfortunatelly it's not this way.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
@rauliruegas 

I used the Monster Sigma deliberately because it is a very light 4.5gram cartridge which is medium compliance

I am going to use my Shelter 501 mk 2 next which is both heavier and much lower compliance.

The use of the trough made a significant difference.

When i say 'perfectly good' I was using a very English phrase that may have been a bit lost in translation. Remember that the rest of my audio chain is good, so it's never going to sound that bad...

What i will say that i will do more extensive listening once I've given the headshell, arm and cable a good run in with my burn in disk.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
Can I just add that my logic is that the lower the compliance the heavier the silicone oil must be - It's like car suspension soft springs don't go with low viscosity oil as it will allow rebound and resonance and the 'damping' will not be performing its function
More to discover