The suspense is killing me. Does Peter Ledermann advocate using the enabler? Or what does he advocate after having demonstrated vibration in the cartridge and tonearm? I agree with Ralph. But then I will be chastised for using logic rather than experience. On the other hand I have had 45 years of experience playing LPs. Anyway I wonder what is the possible advantage of absolutely preventing vibration from moving from the cartridge into the tonearm? Especially if the tonearm is properly damped. I suppose it could not hurt to dissipate that energy within the context of the enabler, so in that sense the enabler may be harmless. For undamped tonearms by extension I suppose the enabler might be helpful. In previous discussions of these devices I mentioned that this issue is much bigger for low compliance i.e. moving coil cartridges than it is for high compliance cartridges which can dissipate more energy in their suspensions.
Cartridge ISOLATION; What Say You?
another good read, it does go against my 'instinct' of a rock solid cartridge/arm connection. (non-removable headshell)
Who thinks what?
Who tried what?
https://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/isolator_e.html
btw, has anyone tried a Len Gregory cartridge (with or without the isolator)?
another comment in the article: reviewer mentioned a layer of isolation under the tonearm base (he tried blu-tac). Also against my 'instinct'.
Who thinks what?
Who tried what?
https://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/isolator_e.html
btw, has anyone tried a Len Gregory cartridge (with or without the isolator)?
another comment in the article: reviewer mentioned a layer of isolation under the tonearm base (he tried blu-tac). Also against my 'instinct'.
- ...
- 113 posts total
- 113 posts total