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
 
@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.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
@rauliruegas 
BTW I used 10,000 CST - I did various tests and I think this is similar to what Max uses - that said he is understandably guarded about the viscosity he uses/sells and even if I knew the exact viscosity he uses i won't share it out of respect and goodwill.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,055 posts
 
Dear @lohanimal  : well, the VDH advise and my self experiences that even that advise can helps with any tonearm with trough/paddle that normally has it at the tonearm pivot distance and this fact makes things different with the Townshend that does exactly at the source/cartridge and here it does not need it so high viscosity.

Anyway, at the ends test it is a must with. Appreciated that you share in the thread your coming experiences, thank's.
R.
lohanimal
659 posts
 
@rauliruegas 

I must say that I don’t think I understand fluids and thermodynamics like professor Jack Dinsdale who was responsible for the trough - and viscosity... 

but I will fiddle - it is a hobby at the end of the day 
kps25sc
149 posts
 
After mixing different viscosity silicone oil, and comparing it to the oil Townshend sells as " Trough fuel" i think his oil is somewhere in the 50,000 CST range. 100,000 CST is much thicker than his oil, and 10,000 CST is much thiner. The Maplenoll Ariadne Signature that i use was copied and modified by Walker when he made his first TT’s, he did move the silicone trough to the back of the arm, some people are not comfortable with the oil filled trough hanging over their records, and the extra step that using it entails.
And yes the original pumps used on the Maplenoll TT,s where noisy and smelly, they where modified refrigerators pumps. My arm runs best with about 45 PSI and the bearing uses about 5 PSI, i use a oil-free shop compressor with a 100 L tank, its starts up and runs 1 min every half hour, and is noisy as hell, but is in its own isolated room far away from the listening room. 
More to discover