• 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

The Official Well Tempered Audio Thread

Vintagear said:
I'm not sure how any of that changes or disputes what I said or agree with. You just seem to be restating what is understood. What has not changed is that the level of damping does not change the effective mass of a tonearm.
Click to expand...

Right the mass of the arm tube is what it is. That is a constant. How the cartridge reacts to the arm is different though. It can mimic a higher mass arm.
 
Vintagear said:
I'm not sure how any of that changes or disputes what I said or agree with. You just seem to be restating what is understood. What has not changed is that the level of damping does not change the true effective mass of a tonearm.
Click to expand...
Vintagear said:
If the arm tubes are made from the same exact material and the arm-tube filling is the same, then the answer is yes from a physics standpoint. The longer arm will have a higher effective mass.
Click to expand...


But if changing the forces acting on the arm by lengthening it (gravity) changes the effective mass, would not immersing it lower in a fluid (affecting gravity as well as other forces) do pretty much the same thing?
 
Mister Pig said:
This certainly is a good discussion to have. Let us look at what the effect of mass is on a tone arm. It is accepted that a low compliance cartridge needs a higher mass to keep the cartridge in control, and we look at the resonant frequency calculation of the arm and cartridge to hit the correct frequency range. But essentially it allows the energy or force the cartridge creates from tracking a musical passage from forcing the arm to resonate and the effect of that resonant frequency on the arm and cartridges ability to keep tracking the record properly. Essentially a feedback loop of energy.

Now in a conventional tone arm fluid damping system there is a trough and pin that is the end point for the energy of the arm and cartridge resonance to be dissipated into. But usually there is a pin that sits in the bath, and it has a minimal effect in the arms ability to move in the horizontal or vertical plane, so it affects effective mass very little. Examples of this can be the fluid baths on a SME V, on the KAB add on for Technics arms, or even the trough used on the Townshend Rock. But this is not the same for the WT arm with the disc in a fluid bath. One arm that is similar in some respects was the early Mission 774, which used different sized paddles in the bath, and you could change the depth of them also. The following qoute was from the Mission product description back in the day:

"The arm employs silicone viscous damping and three different damping paddles are supplied with the 774 to optimize the performance of different cartridges of varying compliance."


The deeper the paddle is the more force is required to get the arm to move in the horizontal or vertical plane. This is very noticeable when you do the drop calculation. The arm is far more resistant to moving, therefore requiring more force to change its position. Now a conventional tone arm has this effect also, or at least in 3 of the 4 directions. The cartridge has to exert more force to move the arm upwards when compared to a lighter mass arm, same for both directions in the horizontal plane. As far as going down, well with conventional bearings its probably going to be faster due to the greater effective mass. So in that regards the WTR design arm is going to be different. One way to look at this is to consider the amount of force needed to push a paddle through water. If you have kayaked you know the width of the paddle blade and how deep you make your stroke ends up requiring a lot more force when you stroke deeper into the water. Just like lowering the WT disc in the bath even deeper.

What does it mean in the practical world? We are not launching rockets to Mars, designing lunar rovers, or diving submarines to the depths of the sea. No we are playing records. The effect is the arm acts like a higher mass arm, and is more capable of playing a lower compliance cartridge than one would expect. Also the arm is loaded with sand, and a carbon fiber tube, so the arm tube does not ring either. Once again the point being its capable of using low compliance cartridges like the early Ikeda, or Denons and get the potential out of them. I have owned high mass arms like the Acos GST 801, I have owned fluid damped arms such as a SME V and the Townshend Rock arrangement with the RB301 installed. The WTR arm acts very differently than those fluid damped arms. Its more like the 801 than anything else is. And when you raise the paddle, its amazing how much more responsive the arm gets. I have it almost all the way out of the bath when I have a ZYX 4D installed, which is a medium compliance cartridge.

Those are my experiences as a user.
Click to expand...

exactly, it may not be affecting the actual mass, but it's definitely affecting its effective mass, so in effect changing its effective masses affect.

Which to me is much better than actually changing the mass of the arm which adds more load on the typical arms bearing.
 
Grenadeslio said:
exactly, it may not be affecting the actual mass, but it's definitely affecting its effective mass, so in effect changing its effective masses affect.

Which to me is much better than actually changing the mass of the arm which adds more load on the typical arms bearing.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you want to believe, fluid damping does NOT change the effective mass of a tonearm. This is not a subjective principle, it's basic universally understood physics.

I like this tonearm too but let's not give it magical properties that do not exist.
 
Last edited:
Vintagear said:
Regardless of what you want to believe, fluid damping does NOT change the effective mass of a tonearm. This is not a subjective principle, it's basic universally understood physics.

I like this tonearm too but let's not give it magical properties that do not exist.
Click to expand...

How the cartridge behaves in regards to the arm was always the point.
 
Mister Pig said:
How the cartridge behaves in regards to the arm was always the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, but words matter. "Effective Mass" is a very specific term. As mentioned earlier I believe you should correct your post in question for the sake of future readers to avoid misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Mister Pig said:
This is why audio boards are tedious at best. Everyone else understand the point being made. The ignore feature solves this issue.
Click to expand...

Really?? The "ignore" when you're wrong routine?

Clearly based on some of the replies on this post, some seem to have been misguided as well. IMO, we should base comments pertaining to physical properties only on fact (and physics) so that we can all have a better understanding of how mechanical objects actually work.

I also own a WT Classic and your post made me think I missed something with regard to the Effective Mass settings of the tonearm? Why is it so hard to admit you misspoke?
 
Last edited:
Vintagear said:
Regardless of what you want to believe, fluid damping does NOT change the effective mass of a tonearm. This is not a subjective principle, it's basic universally understood physics.

I like this tonearm too but let's not give it magical properties that do not exist.
Click to expand...

never said it changed the effective mass only that it affected the effective mass so changing the effective masses affect, hope that clears things up.
 
Vintagear said:
Really??
I own a WT Classic and your post made me think I missed something? Why is it so hard to admit you misspoke?
Click to expand...

But you seem to be the only one that read it that way. I also own the table and never thought anything in his post meant the arm's mass changed, effective or otherwise. And knowing the table's attributes I was completely aware of his meaning so never thought anything was misleading, I would think you also having a WTL would also be aware.
 
Last edited:
Grenadeslio said:
But you seem to be the only one that read it that way. I also own the table and never thought anything in his post meant the arm's mass changed. And knowing the table's attributes I was completely aware of his meaning so never thought anything was misleading, I would think you also having a WTL would also be aware.
Click to expand...

Because I know better...
It's what others (less knowledgeable) would think from his post that I was referencing. Even some of your responses made it clear that you did not understand the meaning of effective mass.

If he would simply correct his post for the sake of this thread it would go a long way.
Why say "effective mass' when you meant resonant frequency? Not all readers are as informed with the minutiae of tonearms so I think the "Official" WT Thread should be here to educate, not obfuscate.
 
Last edited:
Vintagear said:
Because I know better...
It's what others (less knowledgeable) would think from his post that I was referencing. Even some of you're responses made it clear that you did not understand the meaning of effective mass.

If he would simply correct his post for the sake of this thread it would go a long way.
Why say "effective mass' when you meant resonant frequency? Not all readers are as informed with the minutiae of tonearms so I think the "Official" WT Thread should be here to educate, not obfuscate.
Click to expand...
Well it’s not like theirs a whole flock of WT table owners like the AR or Thorens threads . WT owners on AK are a very small crowd and those that are on here I am sure understand what Mister Pig is/was saying and seems like you’re the only one with the issue :dunno:

Audiofreak71
 
Vintagear said:
Because I know better...
It's what others (less knowledgeable) would think from his post that I was referencing. Even some of your responses made it clear that you did not understand the meaning of effective mass.

If he would simply correct his post for the sake of this thread it would go a long way.
Why say "effective mass' when you meant resonant frequency? Not all readers are as informed with the minutiae of tonearms so I think the "Official" WT Thread should be here to educate, not obfuscate.
Click to expand...

if you thought from my posts I don't understand effective mass then you're sadly mistaken.

and no there wasn't a WTL that used a sliding weight on the arm to change its "effective" mass, it doesn't need one, this is effected by changing the level of the damping fluid.
 
Audiofreak71 said:
Well it’s not like theirs a whole flock of WT table owners like the AR or Thorens threads . WT owners on AK are a very small crowd and those that are on here I am sure understand what Mister Pig is/was saying and seems like you’re the only one with the issue :dunno:

Audiofreak71
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I've learned from posts that are decades old.
Why is everyone so ardently defending an incorrect statement?? Damping does NOT change the EM of a tonearm. Period.

If I ever sold my WT table I would hate to have to explain to the buyer that they will NOT not be able to change the effective mass of the WT tonearm regardless of what they read on a forum...
 
Last edited:
Vintagear said:
Maybe, but I've learned from posts that are decades old.
Why is everyone so ardently defending an incorrect statement?? Damping does NOT change the EF of a tonearm. Period.

If I ever sold my WT table I would hate to have to explain to the buyer that they will NOT not be able to change the effective mass of the WT tonearm regardless of what they read on a forum...
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, if they're interested in the table enough to purchase one they most likely researched the table and already understand what you're attempting to obfuscate, or don't understand yourself.
 
Grenadeslio said:
if you thought from my posts I don't understand effective mass then you're sadly mistaken.

and no there wasn't a WTL that used a sliding weight on the arm to change its "effective" mass, it doesn't need one, this is effected by changing the level of the damping fluid.
Click to expand...

You prove my point. I'm sorry but Effective Mass is not "effected by changing the level of the damping fluid". Maybe if you hear it from Firebaugh himself you'll be convinced...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom