2. analog
  3. 1325551242

Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners


Where are you? What mods have you done ?

I have been using these ET2's for over 9 years now.
I am still figuring them out and learning from them. They can be modified in so many ways. Bruce Thigpen laid down the GENIUS behind this tonearm over 20 years ago. Some of you have owned them for over 20 years !

Tell us your secrets.

New owners – what questions do you have ?

We may even be able to coax Bruce to post here. :^)

There are so many modifications that can be done.

Dressing of the wire with this arm is critical to get optimum sonics along with proper counterweight setup.

Let me start it off.

Please tell us what you have found to be the best wire for the ET-2 tonearm ? One that is pliable/doesn’t crink or curl. Whats the best way of dressing it so it doesn’t impact the arm. Through the spindle - Over the manifold - Below manifold ? What have you come up with ?
128x128ct0517
ketchup
688 posts
 
it needs to be as light as possible for low mass, however, making the arm too light sacrifices rigidity.

I think what he's talking about here is the construction of the arm itself. If you make the arm too light by making the spindle wall thinner and the arm wand thinner, for example, the arm will loose rigidity. I do not believe the comment has anything to do with the position and number of counterweights, but I need to read the manual again to fully understand what is discussed in that section.

Are any of you able to update your virtual system now? I want to add my new air compressor, but when I log in to my account it says there is no system saved, even though I can view the thread.
ketchup
688 posts
 
The whole paragraph from page 9 of the manual:

"The effective mass of the arm horizontally is equal to the sum of its component parts. (It does not pivot) It needs to be as light as possible for low mass, however, making the arm too light sacrifices rigidity. By decoupling the counterweight system horizontally, but not vertically, the mass of the counterweight is not seen by the cartridge above a certain frequency and is lowered. This allows the use of heavier (more rigid) components in the tonearm design without increasing the effective mass."

He is, indeed, talking about the rigidity of the tonearm parts. Throwing weight at the I-beam near the spindle pivot does not increase the arms rigidity.
frogman
7,352 posts
 
Ct, as I quoted before, moving the weight further out on the I-beam improved (in my set-up) the bass performance. By "improved" I mean better control, and weight; two things that don't always go hand in hand. I will say that the best results where always with the less compliant (double leaf spring) I-beam. I think the manual is clear about the benefits of doing this, and my results bear that out. I suspect that with the higher compliance spring (and a higher compliance cartridge/Empire) which you are using the results could be different. I strongly urge you to contact Bruce and get an I-beam with the less compliant double spring. In my set-up the difference is anything but subtle with much better air, detail and refinement.
ct0517's avatar
ct0517 OP
2,041 posts
 
Frogman - thx - yes I agree - I will contact Bruce and get this less compliant double spring before I do anything next.

Daniel - do you recall which I-Beam version you were using in your testing.

Cheers
frogman
7,352 posts
 
****Throwing weight at the I-beam near the spindle pivot does not increase the arms rigidity.****

Exactly.

BTW, there is a (not particularly elegant) way to experiment with lowering the I-beam compliance without use of the double spring. You can wedge (carefully, of course) a very thin piece of some very rigid material cut to fit that space, into the cavity between the spring and outer end of the counterweight cap/clamp. This will effectively allow LESS horizontal movement of the I-beam. I think you will all be very surprised at the
difference in sound.

Ain't this fun?
More to discover