• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

A beneficial Technics tonearm mod that only costs $2.50...

Heat shrink is the best option for damping.One of my friend and AK member has done this and he is happy with the results.I have seen many threads on AK by Paul aka the Dalihaus and I am sure it works.
You may need to remove collet and internal wiring as tonearm wires are very thin and could get meted by heat applied.

Regards,
Sachin
 
For best performance, the tonearm and cartridge must be matched. All cartridges will not work with all tonearms, and vice versa. To insure a proper match, one must be aware of the mechanical specifications of both the arm and phono cartridge. To see how these characteristics interact and determine compatibility, we must first understand the dynamics of the relationship.

Any cartridge/tonearm combination will exhibit resonance at a specific frequency (or frequencies). This resonance is due to the interaction of the cartridge (acting as a spring), and the weight of the arm (acting as a mass). The "springiness" of the phono cartridge is described as compliance, the weight of the arm is specified in mass. As an example, a heavy weight on a light spring would obviously over-flex the spring, conversely, a light weight on a strong spring would not allow sufficient flexion.

At resonance, the arm/cartridge combination produces a dramatic rise in output. An increase of 3 to 6dB or more is common. This tremendous boost can cause severe problems if it occurs in the region of recorded music (above 2OHz), or in the area where record warps and rumble are problematic (below 5Hz). A cartridge/arm whose resonance occurs in the region above 2OHz can be influenced by music on the record. At this frequency a significant jump in output (resulting in a "bloated" or "tubby" sound) will be experienced. In extreme cases, the stylus may actually jump out of the groove. Similarly, a cartridge/arm combination that exhibits a resonance below the desired range will exaggerate the effects of record warps, or rumble produced by the turntable.

The goal in matching a specific cartridge and arm is to achieve a resonance in the 10 to 14Hz range. Some feel that limiting this range even further, to 9 to 11hZ, is best.

I've seen the following formula for calculating the resonant frequency of an arm/cartridge:
Resonant Frequency = 1000/[6.28*square root (M*C)]. Where M is the mass of the arm and cartridge and C is the compliance of the cartridge. As an example, if we had an arm/cartridge with a combined mass of 14g, and a cartridge with a compliance of 20, the resonant frequency would be 9.535.

This simple equation doesn't take into account all factors, including tonearm damping and, internal cartridge damping, but it will give you general idea of compatibility.

A decade ago, high-compliance cartridges were the rage and these needed to mate with very low mass tonearms. However, today’s heavier, lower-compliance phono cartridges (especially moving coils) have required tonearm designers/manufacturers to reorient themselves in the direction of medium to high-mass arms. Further, some of the currently available MC cartridges put back a tremendous amount of energy into the arm. This reflected energy takes the form of standing waves, which travel up and down the length of the tonearm, potentially creating mis-tracking problems and/or frequency dependent cancellation. A well designed tonearm will dissipate this energy, rather than reflecting it back to the cartridge. The ability of the arm to accomplish this will be dependent upon bearing design, internal damping and rigidity.

In a situation where a higher compliance cartridge is employed in a medium to high mass tonearm, the ill-effects of the match can be mitigated to some degree if the tonearm offers fluid damping. Here, a small paddle connected to the arm rests in a reservoir filled with viscous silicone fluid. This design feature restricts small, rapid motions of the arm (like the small undulations that would occur in a high-compliance cartridge), while providing unrestricted progress to the arm as it slowly traces across the record. This system also may improve the sound of some phono cartridges that offer little internal damping of their own.

The only way to accurately measure system resonance is with a calibrated low frequency test record and a chart recorder, or other sophisticated test equipment. Since most of us do not possess this capability, it is wise to do some preliminary homework in assessing the compatibility of any potential arm/cartridge combination. There are a few general "rules of thumb" that we need to consider:

* A tonearm whose effective mass is rated at 10 grams or below is considered low mass (e.g. early SME’s, Grace 747 etc.). A tonearm whose effective mass is rated between 11 and 25 grams is considered moderate mass (e.g. SME 309, IV, IV-Vi, V, Triplanar, Graham). Arms above 25 grams of mass are high mass in nature (Eminent Technology, Dynavector).

* A phono cartridge whose compliance is rated at 12 x l0ˉ6 or below, is considered low compliance. A cartridge whose compliance is rated between 13 x l0ˉ6 and 25 x l0ˉ6 is considered high to very high. Note: Another way of expressing compliance is um/mN. Here a rating of 5 to 10 is considered very low, 10 to 20 is moderate and above 35 is very high.

* Low mass arms mate well with both moderately high and very high compliance phono cartridges.

* Moderate mass tonearms are good companions for moderate to low compliance cartridges.

* If a low compliance cartridge is used with a low mass tonearm, undesirable resonances can occur in the audible range. Mistracking may also be a problem.

* When a high compliance cartridge is mated with a moderate mass tonearm, resonances in the infrasonic range may occur in addition to some unwanted high frequency damping.

It may not be possible in every case to accurately determine whether a particular cartridge is suited to a given tonearm by a simple glance at the specifications. This is especially true in border-line situations. However, poor combinations can be easily identified and avoided.

Several variables can influence our ability to accurately predict a match using the manufacturers supplied specifications. Some of these are: 1) The manufacturers specifications themselves can vary in accuracy due to differences in measurement techniques. 2) Sample to sample variation of the cartridge. 3) Differing amounts of internal damping of the cartridge or tonearm and 4) the age of the cartridge. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we should calculate both vertical and horizontal resonance points.

Happily, most of the popular, modem-day moving coil (and many moving magnet) cartridges and the current crop of medium mass tonearms represent a fairly good match. Exceptions do exist however, and we should be aware of the sonic pitfalls. An improperly matched cartridge and tonearm will not only sound poorly, it may even cause irreparable damage to records and stylus. So, it is well worth the effort in preliminary comparisons to determine the compatibility of the proposed cartridge and tonearm
 
The only way to accurately measure system resonance is with a calibrated low frequency test record and a chart recorder, or other sophisticated test equipment.
Not anymore. You can measure it pretty accurately just by recording the output digitally and looking at the spectral content (which can be done with free software). Even regular old music.
 
For best performance, the tonearm and cartridge must be matched. (...) Any cartridge/tonearm combination will exhibit resonance at a specific frequency (or frequencies). This resonance is due to the interaction of the cartridge (acting as a spring), and the weight of the arm (acting as a mass). (...)

There is a confusion there. The "damping" and "resonances" we're talking about when referring to wrapping the arm-tube with shrink wrap have nothing to do with the 7-12Hz resonant frequency of the combination of the stylus' compliance rubber and the arm mass (which is what you're describing), nor with the "damping" that can be applied to tame this resonance using silicone fluid or the Shure stabilizer brush.

In this case we're talking about the resonances that are within the audible spectrum, that are introduced because of the arm tube itself as a resonant body. "Damping" in this case is reducing said resonances.
 
For best performance, the tonearm and cartridge must be matched. All cartridges will not work with all tonearms, and vice versa. To insure a proper match, one must be aware of the mechanical specifications of both the arm and phono cartridge. To see how these characteristics interact and determine compatibility, we must first understand the dynamics of the relationship.

Any cartridge/tonearm combination will exhibit resonance at a specific frequency (or frequencies). This resonance is due to the interaction of the cartridge (acting as a spring), and the weight of the arm (acting as a mass). The "springiness" of the phono cartridge is described as compliance, the weight of the arm is specified in mass. As an example, a heavy weight on a light spring would obviously over-flex the spring, conversely, a light weight on a strong spring would not allow sufficient flexion.

At resonance, the arm/cartridge combination produces a dramatic rise in output. An increase of 3 to 6dB or more is common. This tremendous boost can cause severe problems if it occurs in the region of recorded music (above 2OHz), or in the area where record warps and rumble are problematic (below 5Hz). A cartridge/arm whose resonance occurs in the region above 2OHz can be influenced by music on the record. At this frequency a significant jump in output (resulting in a "bloated" or "tubby" sound) will be experienced. In extreme cases, the stylus may actually jump out of the groove. Similarly, a cartridge/arm combination that exhibits a resonance below the desired range will exaggerate the effects of record warps, or rumble produced by the turntable.

The goal in matching a specific cartridge and arm is to achieve a resonance in the 10 to 14Hz range. Some feel that limiting this range even further, to 9 to 11hZ, is best.

I've seen the following formula for calculating the resonant frequency of an arm/cartridge:
Resonant Frequency = 1000/[6.28*square root (M*C)]. Where M is the mass of the arm and cartridge and C is the compliance of the cartridge. As an example, if we had an arm/cartridge with a combined mass of 14g, and a cartridge with a compliance of 20, the resonant frequency would be 9.535.

This simple equation doesn't take into account all factors, including tonearm damping and, internal cartridge damping, but it will give you general idea of compatibility.

A decade ago, high-compliance cartridges were the rage and these needed to mate with very low mass tonearms. However, today’s heavier, lower-compliance phono cartridges (especially moving coils) have required tonearm designers/manufacturers to reorient themselves in the direction of medium to high-mass arms. Further, some of the currently available MC cartridges put back a tremendous amount of energy into the arm. This reflected energy takes the form of standing waves, which travel up and down the length of the tonearm, potentially creating mis-tracking problems and/or frequency dependent cancellation. A well designed tonearm will dissipate this energy, rather than reflecting it back to the cartridge. The ability of the arm to accomplish this will be dependent upon bearing design, internal damping and rigidity.

In a situation where a higher compliance cartridge is employed in a medium to high mass tonearm, the ill-effects of the match can be mitigated to some degree if the tonearm offers fluid damping. Here, a small paddle connected to the arm rests in a reservoir filled with viscous silicone fluid. This design feature restricts small, rapid motions of the arm (like the small undulations that would occur in a high-compliance cartridge), while providing unrestricted progress to the arm as it slowly traces across the record. This system also may improve the sound of some phono cartridges that offer little internal damping of their own.

The only way to accurately measure system resonance is with a calibrated low frequency test record and a chart recorder, or other sophisticated test equipment. Since most of us do not possess this capability, it is wise to do some preliminary homework in assessing the compatibility of any potential arm/cartridge combination. There are a few general "rules of thumb" that we need to consider:

* A tonearm whose effective mass is rated at 10 grams or below is considered low mass (e.g. early SME’s, Grace 747 etc.). A tonearm whose effective mass is rated between 11 and 25 grams is considered moderate mass (e.g. SME 309, IV, IV-Vi, V, Triplanar, Graham). Arms above 25 grams of mass are high mass in nature (Eminent Technology, Dynavector).

* A phono cartridge whose compliance is rated at 12 x l0ˉ6 or below, is considered low compliance. A cartridge whose compliance is rated between 13 x l0ˉ6 and 25 x l0ˉ6 is considered high to very high. Note: Another way of expressing compliance is um/mN. Here a rating of 5 to 10 is considered very low, 10 to 20 is moderate and above 35 is very high.

* Low mass arms mate well with both moderately high and very high compliance phono cartridges.

* Moderate mass tonearms are good companions for moderate to low compliance cartridges.

* If a low compliance cartridge is used with a low mass tonearm, undesirable resonances can occur in the audible range. Mistracking may also be a problem.

* When a high compliance cartridge is mated with a moderate mass tonearm, resonances in the infrasonic range may occur in addition to some unwanted high frequency damping.

It may not be possible in every case to accurately determine whether a particular cartridge is suited to a given tonearm by a simple glance at the specifications. This is especially true in border-line situations. However, poor combinations can be easily identified and avoided.

Several variables can influence our ability to accurately predict a match using the manufacturers supplied specifications. Some of these are: 1) The manufacturers specifications themselves can vary in accuracy due to differences in measurement techniques. 2) Sample to sample variation of the cartridge. 3) Differing amounts of internal damping of the cartridge or tonearm and 4) the age of the cartridge. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we should calculate both vertical and horizontal resonance points.

Happily, most of the popular, modem-day moving coil (and many moving magnet) cartridges and the current crop of medium mass tonearms represent a fairly good match. Exceptions do exist however, and we should be aware of the sonic pitfalls. An improperly matched cartridge and tonearm will not only sound poorly, it may even cause irreparable damage to records and stylus. So, it is well worth the effort in preliminary comparisons to determine the compatibility of the proposed cartridge and tonearm

This has nothing to do with the discussion and why not just provide the link to where you lifted it verbatim?

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/tonearmcartridge.html
 
Here's an alternative to the o-rings: 1/4" spiral cable wrap. It grasps the arm tightly, weighs very little (not a huge consideration for me as I used it on my Mitsu LT-640 vertical turntable, where a little extra arm weight doesn't translate into extra VTF) and definitely can tame a ringy arm. Not too easy to find this size but Home Depot sells a bag of 1/4" and 1/2" in their electrical section. Kinda monochrome barber pole looking but a lot nicer to look at than teflon tape.
 
Gusten,

Try this:

Take a hollow pipe and strike it on something hard. Then take the pipe, wrap it in tape, and repeat.

Or, take a bell and ring it. Then wrap the bell in tape, or paint it with that rubber tool grip (comes in spray cans too, and is easily peeled off). Then ring it.

Audioquest uses a sleeve on the complete length of the outside of their arms. I've had a few late model Sumikos with the same external treatment. Sumiko also uses foam in the center of the tube for damping. All the early sumiko "S" shaped arms have this foam insert that runs the full length of the arm tube.

I feel this alone is a big reason folk prefer a stock Sumiko over a stock hollow arm tube technics.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that the early aluminum tubed Infinity arms were aluminum with a black coating over them, the coating to act as a dampening agent. The tube is also "stepped" (see below). Later models utilized tubes that were tapered carbon fiber.

EDIT #2: Alphason also used an internal foam to dampen their tube. Forgot that one.

Sorry, I expressed myself not so good. I didn´t mean that properly applied shrink tube has no effect, it has IMO.
But in my experience it´s the flexing at the joints that are the real problems, but it´s of course possible to address these also, which I have done on my 1200II.
gusten
 
There is a confusion there. The "damping" and "resonances" we're talking about when referring to wrapping the arm-tube with shrink wrap have nothing to do with the 7-12Hz resonant frequency of the combination of the stylus' compliance rubber and the arm mass (which is what you're describing), nor with the "damping" that can be applied to tame this resonance using silicone fluid or the Shure stabilizer brush.

In this case we're talking about the resonances that are within the audible spectrum, that are introduced because of the arm tube itself as a resonant body. "Damping" in this case is reducing said resonances.

All true. Furthermore, the copied article refers to damping of the arm and damping in the cartridge affecting the LF resonance. It gives the impression that the frequency of the resonance is affected. It is not. damping only affects the Q, or the height and narrowness of the resonant peak. the frequency is not affected. Also the article should state the units of the compliance number in the equation instead of just saying '20'. There are several ways to state compliance. Additionally, compliance of a particular cartridge may vary from the stated spec due to age, wear, production variations, replacement stylus or just plain optimism on the part of marketing people. It's also difficult to determine the effective mass of a tonearm accurately. Most arms have a stated effective mass and the system effective mass can be estimated by adding the cart weight and any +/- for headshell changes, but it's also affected by the position of the counterweight.

Anyway, that's not what this post was about. he was discussing arm resonances in the audio band affecting the sound. I like the O-ring experiment. anything that I can get at the hardware store and easily fool with looks good to me.
 
Care to share, post pics? :D

Sorry no pics. One has to choose if one wants an arm that can be taken apart, or an arm that is more rigid, but not possible to take apart. Every joint can be epoxy glued, including the headshell and the counterweight stub, both inside and outside, outside using a constrained layer.
Also the counterweight can be fixed better to the stub with a screw, as some other arm´s are using.
The whole arm is inside full with E.A.R. foam dampers.
gusten
 
All true. Furthermore, the copied article refers to damping of the arm and damping in the cartridge affecting the LF resonance. It gives the impression that the frequency of the resonance is affected. It is not. damping only affects the Q, or the height and narrowness of the resonant peak. the frequency is not affected. Also the article should state the units of the compliance number in the equation instead of just saying '20'. There are several ways to state compliance. Additionally, compliance of a particular cartridge may vary from the stated spec due to age, wear, production variations, replacement stylus or just plain optimism on the part of marketing people. It's also difficult to determine the effective mass of a tonearm accurately. Most arms have a stated effective mass and the system effective mass can be estimated by adding the cart weight and any +/- for headshell changes, but it's also affected by the position of the counterweight.

Anyway, that's not what this post was about. he was discussing arm resonances in the audio band affecting the sound. I like the O-ring experiment. anything that I can get at the hardware store and easily fool with looks good to me.

If one examines the resonance frequency with little tonearm damping, or with a higher amount of damping, it is in fact so that the res.frequency will be higher with damping. Not that it matters that much, but it is so.
One advantage with damping is also that the res. freq. is much less critical. (tonearm damping is here damping the motion of the arm, not the arm itself)
gusten
 
Last edited:
There seems to be some confusion between low frequency resonance and "ringing" -- the frequency at which the arm sounds when tapped. A bell-like resonance, which the shrink tube or o-rings are intended to damp.

But damping of any kind simply lowers the resonant frequency, so you still need to measure the effect and decide if it is what you intended.
 
There seems to be some confusion between low frequency resonance and "ringing" -- the frequency at which the arm sounds when tapped. A bell-like resonance, which the shrink tube or o-rings are intended to damp.

But damping of any kind simply lowers the resonant frequency, so you still need to measure the effect and decide if it is what you intended.

No, we sorted that out. It's understood that the LF mechanical resonance of the arm/cartridge system (around 10 hz) is different from audio band vibrations imparted to the tonearm by stylus movement.

You say that damping lowers resonant frequency*. This would be true of the AVERAGE resonant frequency of audio band vibrations, as damping is generally more effective in stopping high frequency vibrations. But the distribution of vibration modes should be the same. Their relative levels would be affected by damping, lowering the average FWIW.

Gusten says that damping raises the resonant frequency. I assume that he's talking about the ~10 HZ LF arm resonance*. I'd like to see a reference for this, because if the mass and spring rate are unchanged the frequency should be unchanged. Damping should change only the Q, though in a generally beneficial way.

* we really should be clear on which one we're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Arm tube damping shouldn't do anything to the cartridge+tonearm resonance frequency (7-12Hz typical)

As for the cartridge+tonearm resonance, gusten says that damping raises the res.freq. He is right. In theory the frequency goes up, but the energy of the resonant peak is way, way, lower. So the resonant frequency goes up but the peak dissapears so much that one can say that for practical purposes that there's no resonance anymore.
 
There seems to be some confusion between low frequency resonance and "ringing" -- the frequency at which the arm sounds when tapped. A bell-like resonance, which the shrink tube or o-rings are intended to damp.

But damping of any kind simply lowers the resonant frequency, so you still need to measure the effect and decide if it is what you intended.

I guess You mean lowers the amplitude at the res freq.?
gusten
 
Back
Top Bottom