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
antinn
381 posts
 
@rauliruegas,

I have both the VPI 10.5i/AL-tube (EL = 266mm) and the 12-3D /printed-tube (EL-313mm). By just a simple balance analysis, the 12-3D tonearm fwd of the pivot is 3X the weight (not effective mass) of the 10.5i tonearm fwd of its pivot. The 12-3D is over-damped and it plays fine and is generally well regarded, but the counterweight I have is a total of about 215-gms. So, at least by observation - I have to agree that you cannot over-damp the tonearm. I would venture to guess that so long as you can balance the tonearm, and the requisite bearing design will not impede motion, that over-damping similar to the 12-3D printed arm pretty much eliminates any sharply defined resonant frequency.

But, the fO.q tape is a piezo-electric damping tape that converts vibration into electricity - and the vendor states not to use on sensitive electrical components. I would think the very minute electrical signal carried by the tonearm wires would make use of the fO.q tape inappropriate for a tonearm.  Also, from military application experience,  there is a science to damping a tube with externally applied damping material. 

Otherwise, for tracking a lot has to be associated with the tonearm length/bearing design - single-pivot, gimble, knife edge, magnetic and all variations thereof. Add to this the cartridge stylus-shape, and cantilever/suspension ’system’ and the benefit of silicone damping has to be variable. There are just too many variables.

Neil
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,259 posts
 
@rauliruegas  So, what is your assessment of resin infused wooden arm tubes such a Reed and Schroder use? 
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
12,894 posts
 
Dear @antinn  : Yes, to many variables to be really precise but in any case damping is welcomed.

I tested silicon oil in diferent viscosity grades from 10K to 1,000K cst and I can tell you that only the 1,000K cst is really an obstacle for cartridge/tonearm tracking.
 We have to test the viscosity grade according the tonearm/cartridge combination and we have to have a tracking test evaluation proccess to be able to make comparisons about.

It's way interesting these kind of tests evaluation. Common sense tell me damping is need it, level of damping is what each one of us have to determine/decide. 
Unfortunatelly audio analog is not really a science and do not exist inviolable rules.

R.
kps25sc
149 posts
 
Here are some recommendations on viscosity for tonearm dampening, came upon this site when i was trying to find a supplier of Townshend "trough fuel" that i have been using for years.
http://www.turntablebasics.com/silicone.html
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
12,894 posts
 
Dear @kps25sc : Thank's for the link. What is the Townshend advise about?

Mainly I use the silicon paddle to damp the cartridge tracking and found out that 100K cst is not " enough " so I gone to 300K cst and works fine with out " any " obstruction ( I can detect. ) to the tonearm movements but each one of us have to test to decide which viscosity level need.

As @antinn  said: to many variables.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
More to discover