Did Technics make any anti-resonance counterweights?
- Thread starter bobspets
- Start date
KAB sells an anti-resonance end cap that screws into the back of the tonearm.
http://www.kabusa.com/frameset.htm?/1200bld.htm
http://www.kabusa.com/frameset.htm?/1200bld.htm
Thanks for the link. I guess Technics didn't make any anti-resonance weights?
gusten
Addicted Member
Thanks for that. Would those arms be interchangeable on most Technics tables?
Not that I know of...
Best solution I am aware of is KABUSA fluid damper for the Mk2 arms.... I also prefer the fluid damper solution to the anti-resonance counterweight alternative, as the CW alternative replaces a single large resonance with two smaller ones - which is less objectionable - but the fluid damper is more effective.....
Best solution I am aware of is KABUSA fluid damper for the Mk2 arms.... I also prefer the fluid damper solution to the anti-resonance counterweight alternative, as the CW alternative replaces a single large resonance with two smaller ones - which is less objectionable - but the fluid damper is more effective.....
pdm4606
Super Member
c'weight
The resonance caused by the cart. can transmit itself up the tonearm and make the tonearm resonate and that is bad.
The solid non isolated counterweight being a solid integral part of the tonearm will also resonate and that is bad.
Isolate the c'weight and there will/may be a difference in total arm resonance.
Isolation usually requires the c'weight to have a soft lining at the adjustment.
Maybe included it the c'weight like my Empire 598III I used to have or may be an non OEM upgrade.
Paul
The resonance caused by the cart. can transmit itself up the tonearm and make the tonearm resonate and that is bad.
The solid non isolated counterweight being a solid integral part of the tonearm will also resonate and that is bad.
Isolate the c'weight and there will/may be a difference in total arm resonance.
Isolation usually requires the c'weight to have a soft lining at the adjustment.
Maybe included it the c'weight like my Empire 598III I used to have or may be an non OEM upgrade.
Paul
Would that work on the SLQD series tables?
SLQD - I don't think so - but best to contact Kevin at KAB and ask...
The CW damping method is the same as is used to control cantilever resonance in the Shure V15IV...
(described in some detail in the shure technical seminar paper http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4072)
The energy of the main resonance causes the CW to move and to generate its own resonance - which is carefully calculated to be a resonance that cancels out the main resonance - very nice! - but it leaves the CW resonating - and measurements of this approach show two smaller resonant peaks where previously there was one.
In the Shure cantilever version of the same, the CW is seperated from the cantilever by specially designed damping materials (elastomers) so the difference in motion between CW and cantilever results not only in cancellation but also in conversion to heat and therefore absorbing energy out of the system.
This was also used by a number of other brands in their CW's eg: Dual.
It is worth reading Pierre Lurne's comments on his tonearm designs ... he is deadset against any form of isolation/seperation of the arm from the CW, and in fact designs the CW in his arms to bolt to the arm in a manner that makes it a single piece.
He points out that any form of seperation / isolation here results in multiple vibrations rather than a single one, and that the more vibrations you have floating around in your system, the harder it is to design a solution that eliminates them.... (it is impossible to totally isolate the CW while still having it execute its function as a counter-weight.... and therefore the damped connection still involves transfer of energy in both directions....)
So even the standard CW mountings - which usually use some form of plastic as the inner surface up against the metal of the armtube, are a negative as they do in fact provide a degree of isolation and therefore an environment that generates additional seperate resonances (albeit at a very low level).
Anyway the short version of all this, is that semi-isolated anti-resonant CW's do work, and work well, but they are also a compromise solution, and perfectionist high end arms don't appear to use this method.
bye for now
David
The CW damping method is the same as is used to control cantilever resonance in the Shure V15IV...
(described in some detail in the shure technical seminar paper http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4072)
The energy of the main resonance causes the CW to move and to generate its own resonance - which is carefully calculated to be a resonance that cancels out the main resonance - very nice! - but it leaves the CW resonating - and measurements of this approach show two smaller resonant peaks where previously there was one.
In the Shure cantilever version of the same, the CW is seperated from the cantilever by specially designed damping materials (elastomers) so the difference in motion between CW and cantilever results not only in cancellation but also in conversion to heat and therefore absorbing energy out of the system.
This was also used by a number of other brands in their CW's eg: Dual.
It is worth reading Pierre Lurne's comments on his tonearm designs ... he is deadset against any form of isolation/seperation of the arm from the CW, and in fact designs the CW in his arms to bolt to the arm in a manner that makes it a single piece.
He points out that any form of seperation / isolation here results in multiple vibrations rather than a single one, and that the more vibrations you have floating around in your system, the harder it is to design a solution that eliminates them.... (it is impossible to totally isolate the CW while still having it execute its function as a counter-weight.... and therefore the damped connection still involves transfer of energy in both directions....)
So even the standard CW mountings - which usually use some form of plastic as the inner surface up against the metal of the armtube, are a negative as they do in fact provide a degree of isolation and therefore an environment that generates additional seperate resonances (albeit at a very low level).
Anyway the short version of all this, is that semi-isolated anti-resonant CW's do work, and work well, but they are also a compromise solution, and perfectionist high end arms don't appear to use this method.
bye for now
David
Wow thanks for the well thought out response. Gives me more to think about. Sounds like the best solution for my lower end tables might be the simple aftermarket cap. I truly appreciate the insight.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Not viable for SL-QD turntables.
Way to crush a guys hopes. Another solution?
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Upgrade the SL-QD to something earlier.
Yep there is that, but budget won't allow it. If it did what would be your choice for a Technics full auto in the $150 range be?
Wow that would be nice, but I don't think I could touch one for even close to $150
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
SL-D3 would be good or SL-Q3 would be doable at your price with hunting.
Thanks when I get a little better financial situation I'll take a look. Are the arms upgradeable on those?
