[TheChairGuy]

I was reading a comparo of some 80 cartridges from 1979 or so (HIFi News And Record Review in UK did it, I think - I have re-print of it).

It's quite a tell-all report - that type of reporting just isn't done anymore...and maybe never done as broadly here in the US.

For most of the MM/MI's in the study, fluid arm damping was recommended.  For most of the MC's, it was not recommended.  I had always thought arm damping was beneficial - so I applied it according to my turntables owners manual for the past year - equal to the tracking force of each cartridge.  My arm is oil filled and it has controls for both horizontal and vertical arm damping - so I can really tailor the amount of damping to each cartridge.

It's a whole world of tweeky crap I hadn't wanted to know about  , but there it is all the same. Lately, I've been experimenting with it.

The effect ranges from sublime (Grace F-9) to astounding (both Grado's).  I keep finding the same result as the magazine does...the Denon DL-160vdH benefits from it and the Ortofon X5-MC and woodsyi's Benz MC-3 don't.  In fact, in a twist, the MC-3 is notably worse off with damping...it sounds overdamped with any damping.  The Ortofon sounds about the same either way.  The Denon is slightly better with it.

Has anyone else with fluid damping found anything like this, as well?

[Daygloworange]

TCG, you are tenacious. Gotta give you props for your efforts, man.

Cheers 

[TheChairGuy]

DgoDenny,

I work from home and my system is in my office - often quite busy, but when I'm not, I tinker.  I have a habit of focusing on a subject and exhausting it's every nuance. 

I think vinyl is my latest addiction subset within the larger addiction of audio-phooldom.

Dratz 

John

[Toka]

Most interesting! Did the article give any rationale behind why they didn't recommend damping for MC's? Could it be a compliance issue?

[lcrim]

The purpose of fluid damping is to eliminate resonance when the stylus encounters shock from warped or out of round records.  The type of suspension in the cartridge has nothing to do with it, MC or MM.  It is simple physics.  Think of a car without shock absorbers, the rebound effect would make for a bumpy ride.
I actually called Kevin to ask whether your article made any sense and there was a similar question on the Asylum recently (which got pulled by their admins).  Your tests notwihstanding, manufacturers such as SME also utilize fluid damping in their present products for its ability to improve playback.

[TheChairGuy]

I didn't read it in AudioAsylum - came up with the post concurrently all by my lonesome 

Here's the article....good comparo to have around for vintage cartridges and general learning. http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2224

Larry/lcrim - a vehicle will respond to different shock damping rates based on may factors - including it's mechanical rigidity.  Today's vehicles can use much stiffer suspensions than vehicles of old as stiffness to mass ratio has improved.  It could be nothing more than that the MC's are built to a higher price point (with more rigid, non-replaceable assemblies as a rule) and more substantially take mechanical stability into play...while the cheaper MM/MI cartridges built to a lesser price point have less mechanical stiffness to their structure.

A car/truck has to have shock absorbers - there are occupants inside - not an issue for a phono cartridge. Keep an open mind on this....VPI, who knows a thing or two about vinyl, have recommendations on what cartridges respond well to damping and which do not.  Not surprisingly, I know they recommend it for Clearaudio (MM units) and Grado's. 

Having the ability to employ fluid arm damping is great.....but there are a few cases where it might not be beneficial to apply it.