I haven't given this subject thought for a while, but Jimbo3's new development prompts me to wonder whether it will be problematic in any way to add the weight unevenly (or maybe 'in a statically unbalanced fashion' would be a more accurate description) about the vertical axis (i.e., in the horizontal plane). With the Rega 'arm, the added weight (at least with the lead fishing-weight method) will necessarily be kept concentric with the vertical-bearing axis, since it will be attached to extensions of the axle itself, and the two weights will be added in symmetric, statically-balanced (180-degree opposition) distribution between the two bearing-ends.
If I remember correctly, one reason I never tried this tweak with my SL-1200 tonearm (besides me already having added the KAB dynamic fluid damper, and also not being sure that the bearing-end configuration would be amenable to hosting a fishing-weight attachment anyway) was that the 'arm suspension design features a left-hand horizontal-bearing tower that would preclude adding weight to that side, due to there being no clearance available. In other words, I knew that even if I could get a fishing-weight attached to the bearing-axle end, the only place I could do so would be on the right-hand (one) side, leaving the added weight unevenly distributed about the vertical axis.
But now, thinking about how one would go about adding the maleable 'plastic' weight Jimbo tells us about, and still keep things perfectly symmetrical, has made me reevaluate the importance of this concern. And I seem not to be able to think of a reason why, with a gimballed 'arm, this would be a big deal. After all, I highly doubt that my S-shaped tonearm is statically balanced in the horizontal plane, but dynamically, this doesn't matter.
So it would seem that if I use this product to glom-on some additional weight anywhere I can get it stuck onto the vertical-bearing carriage - statically 'balanced' or not (i.e., without concern for symmetric distribution) - it would produce the desired effect of increasing rotating mass in the horizontal plane only. And indeed, it would be very easy for me to add mass this way with the stuff Jimbo used. Anybody agree/disagree with this conclusion?
If I remember correctly, one reason I never tried this tweak with my SL-1200 tonearm (besides me already having added the KAB dynamic fluid damper, and also not being sure that the bearing-end configuration would be amenable to hosting a fishing-weight attachment anyway) was that the 'arm suspension design features a left-hand horizontal-bearing tower that would preclude adding weight to that side, due to there being no clearance available. In other words, I knew that even if I could get a fishing-weight attached to the bearing-axle end, the only place I could do so would be on the right-hand (one) side, leaving the added weight unevenly distributed about the vertical axis.
But now, thinking about how one would go about adding the maleable 'plastic' weight Jimbo tells us about, and still keep things perfectly symmetrical, has made me reevaluate the importance of this concern. And I seem not to be able to think of a reason why, with a gimballed 'arm, this would be a big deal. After all, I highly doubt that my S-shaped tonearm is statically balanced in the horizontal plane, but dynamically, this doesn't matter.
So it would seem that if I use this product to glom-on some additional weight anywhere I can get it stuck onto the vertical-bearing carriage - statically 'balanced' or not (i.e., without concern for symmetric distribution) - it would produce the desired effect of increasing rotating mass in the horizontal plane only. And indeed, it would be very easy for me to add mass this way with the stuff Jimbo used. Anybody agree/disagree with this conclusion?