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 @mijostyn ​@dogberry  and friends : Here what the gentlemans at Cranfield Institute of Technology found out about damping that Townshend decide to took and manufacture with a lot of success.

Same measures with and with out damping and they used a low viscosity at 10K when SME V use 60K and I already tested 100K, 300K and 600 in different ways. Mijos please do not makes a critic as is usual in you and try to enhance the dialogue with real solutions on this cartridge ridding subject that is what we all need. Critic is totally easy and any one can do it but real solutions that's a different history:

 

Raúl (canva.com)

 

R.

 

dogberry
656 posts
 

Thanks, Raul. I need to hear those differences rather than see them on paper to know if they are significant. And SME silicon is 60cS rather than 10, which I assume is a significant difference. I shall have to experiment some more, but it should wait until I finally move cartridges around on the tonearms so that they are in their final places (I'm being influenced by the idea, still, that the Decca will benefit the most from damping, if any of them do.)

Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 

Dear @dogberry  : Of course that you need to hear it.

 

I shared those measures only for we can see that damped vs undamped valuations.

They used 34 different cartridges as the Decca London Gold, Ortofon MC 30, Denon DL103D, Empire 2000, Goldring 900, Nakamichi MC 1000 ( I owned this and was a great performer. ), Shure V15, Sonus Silver and many more with different compliace/weigth, characteristics.

@mijostyn  I know that this gentleman has very good experience levels and very god knowledge levels and  I think that to post something that enhamce the subject dialogue he has to " open " a little his way of thinking.

 

R.

dogberry
656 posts
 

It took two albums this morning for me to change my mind and get up and swap the London Reference and the BM LP-S, moving the former on to the V and the latter on to the IV. Set the VTF, adjusted the overhang, set the anti-skate and rechecked the VTF. Refilled the damping trough with the last of my SME silicon, rechecked the level of the tables and off I went. Naturally everything sounds wonderful, as it always does after such exertions. I’m not sure it sounds different though! It had to be done at some stage, anyway, so no harm done. Maybe prolonged listening will make it all clear.

Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,066 posts
 

@dogberry : Yes, could be that way.

I have several years posting about that analog jitter/mistracking way before I started this thread or that P.Lenderman video and way before I knew about the white papers I mentioned here.

Those white papers are around 250 pages, it’s truly bigger to read it but yesterday for the first time I read there:

 

" this is atributed to cartridge vibration at high frequency upseting the subtle phase effects...."

 

" The name clamp or stabilizer seems more appropiate than damper, as the device only damps over a very narrow frequency range: 8hz-15hz but clamps from 20hz to 50khz. It is the clamping which gives the improvements:

 

a) bass coloration reduced

b) mid band "openess" improves

c)distortions at all frequencies is reduced

d)stereo imagery improved

e) tracking problems " eliminated " and

f) feedback greatly reduced. "

 

Maybe could be a good test with higher viscosity than 60K, at least this is my first hand experiences with different tonearms where I builded its dedicated trays.

 

R.

More to discover