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
 
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
lewm
13,045 posts
 
The Ortofon MC2000 is a high compliance cartridge that would never be paired with an FR64S, at least not by me.  In his original review, J Gordon Holt noted that if one were to try to keep the calculated resonant frequency of the MC2000 cartridge within an acceptable range, it needs a 5-gram tonearm, in fact, because of its high compliance coupled with its own rather heavy weight.  There have only been a very few tonearms ever made that qualify purely on that criterion.  Yet, humans do enjoy the MC2000, somehow.

I, for one, never said that the FR64S might be sufficiently damped by its own high effective mass.  My point was that if you add the B60 and a very massive tonearm mounting apparatus made from materials that transfer energy from the tonearm base, you can achieve some degree of mass damping.  I use a B60 plus about 5 lbs of tonearm mount, none of which adds to the effective mass.  If you then dismiss the heavy FR headshells (20g is typical) and use a lightweight rigid headshell (less than 10g), you can expand the useful range of the tonearm.  Finally, in general I have agreed over and over again that damping is beneficial.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,060 posts
 
Dear @lohanimal : " 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 "

That’s what you stated with the Sigma2000 and that’s preccisely ( more or less other than improved tracking. ) what makes the silicon oil damping even with a tonearm/combination out of the ideal resonance frequency.

All kind of improvements are important for us but for me the main and most critical improvement in both kind of damping: directly on arm wand or the trough is the improved quality level of the bass range and this improvement permits per sé that all the other frequency ranges really shines too. Btw, I mentioned " arm wand " because there are good tonearms with damped arm wands and with out trough and performs fine as the : Cobra or the VPI Fatboy. Other tonearms use a blended materials in the arm wand to take advantage of its damping characteristics of those materials.

Any thing that helps to improve the cartridge signal quality of the bass range always will be welcomed because it’s the frame of the whole " picture " we are listening and as better the bass range as better our MUSIC/sounds enjoyment no matters what.

R.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,060 posts
 
@lohanimal  : The great Townshend characteristic is that the damping happens where everything start: rigth at the LP surface/cartridge and this is it's unquestionable advantage.

About silicon viscosity I think that 10cst is to low and you wil try higher. I posted this statement from Dr. A.J. van den Hul:

""  The higher the viscosity figure in centistokes, the stronger the damping effect ( his advise is no more than 500cst. )  ""

I tested as higher as 500cst and you will need to test 100-200-300cst with low/medium compliance and even with high compliance and after your self experiences you will know and can decide about.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
@rauliruegas I agree with everything you said

@lewm I wish i had the means to check the resonance of the arm tube alone

I'm pretty certain that there ought to be a relationship of arm resonance/ cartridge compliance/Oil weight.

My own theory FWIW stems largely from racing radio controlled cars (don't laugh) they have miniaturised suspension with coil over shocks. You can use progressive or linear rate springs. It's not always a hard and fast rule because other factors such as roll centre, camber etc come into play. In general when one increases the spring rate/poundage you normally increase the oil viscosity. I've always likened a cartridge cantilever to a suspension arm. All said and done the cartridge/stylus only travels a tiny amount and it may explain why such high viscosity tends to be used.

I hope to conduct experiments with the Shelter 501 and as I said I will remit back to this thread.

My other arm is a moerch DP6 - that can have silicone added (near the pivot)- I did add a bit. The effect on the silicone being added to that is nothing like the townshend which has the silicone at the headshell.

I spoke to Max Townshend and he says the effect of the silicone trough is thee same for any cartridge. I don't doubt him - but curiosity makes me want to explore this :)

@bdp24 

The Maplenoll Ariadne also had a silicone trough at the headshell end. It used a parallel arm. I am told it was brilliant but there were problems with the pump. Unless I am to be corrected it is a partial inspiration for the Walker Proscenium.

@yeti42 
I would like to get the bellows feet - what was the improvement?

On another point - there are other motor options - PM me as i have a massively modified drive on the Rock Elite.
More to discover