2. member-reviews
  3. 1033259530

Review: KAB SL-1200 Fluid Damper Tweak

Category: Accessories

I got my KAB fluid damper kit for the Technics SL-1200 installed yesterday, and I managed to audition one cut twice in close proximity both with and without the damper, by playing it just before I put the silicone in the trough, and again just afterwards. I also replayed a few other things with the damper activated which I had just played the day before without. So these are my very initial impressions, and since I'm writing this after only one day, I'll have to post any further findings another time if need be.

The 1200 is not renowned as an audiophile TT, I know, and it is currently the only piece of equipment in my system which I have not upgraded to something 'better' and more expensive since becoming a real, practicing audiophile several years ago. However, I have never felt it was out of place in my improving system, and I have made a few tweaks to it along the way, which are detailed in the equipment profile below. (There are previously archived threads which address this question of the 1200's bona fides in detail, or just wait for Psychicanimal to respond here :-) In any case, I am certain that the 1200 is a perfectly legitimate test bed on which to base my report concerning the addition of fluid damping to an analog disk playback system.

First of all, let me say that this damper is a very nicely turned-out product, and it doesn't detract in any way from the appearance or operation of my SL-1200, but at half the price I originally paid for my whole TT/'arm new back in the 80's, there's not a lot of perceived value at $150 when you crack open the small foam-lined plastic box and find a little curved machined metal tray (embedded with a set screw for attachment to the 'arm's base, engraved with the KAB logo, and painted silver to match the 1200), a tiny plastic paddle with an integral collar and thumbscrew to tighten onto the 'arm (sourced from SME), a syringe of goopy fluid for filling the trough with (sans replaceable cap for storage, an ommission KAB should rectify), some fairly prefunctory instructions, and a hex key, although I don't doubt that KAB's return is fair on this quite specialized accessory. I was unprepared for just how viscous the 'viscous fluid' really was, never having used this type of damper before - that gunk be seriously thick.

In addition, I noted that the paddle which attaches to the tonearm presented less of a resistive 'face' to the fluid contained by the trough in the directions of motion (horizontal and vertical) than I was expecting might be the case (the KAB website has some good new pictures up of the damper in set-up and operation). Its broad side is a bit curved though, in the opposite direction of the curve about the pivot point made by the trough, and it is oriented at a slight angle to both the 'arm's arcing path of horizontal movement through the trough, and to the vertical component of a record warp, since it's not installed pointing straight down from the 'arm, but is offset about 10 degrees toward the direction of the platter.

I listened to three disks from the 60s, acoustic jazz from the Jazz Crusaders LP Uh-Huh, rock from The Who LP Sell Out, and pop from Gary Lewis & The Playboys LP New Directions, and two from the 70s, acoustic jazz from the McCoy Tyner LP Extensions, and rock from the Richard Lloyd LP Alchemy. The Jazz Crusaders 9 1/2 minute cut entitled "Blue Monday" was the track critically auditioned back-to-back first without and then with the damper. Differences noted with the damper in use were pretty consistent across all the cuts I auditioned.

OK, now to the listening. As a preface, let me say that I wasn't expecting huge changes, and I didn't hear huge changes. After all, everything else is staying the same besides the addition of the damper and paddle, so why shouldn't it sound more similar than dissimilar to the sound I have come to expect? I haven't listened for long yet, but I think I do already have a pretty good handle on what this product is going to do for the sound.

I certainly did look foward to some degree of positive improvements for my investment. However, as is often the case in actual practice, the improvements I got turned out to be not the ones I necessarily had in mind when I ordered my unit. I suppose after years of making step-by-step upgrades to my system, I should be better prepared at this point as to just what to anticipate for the next tweak or change. Yet I still manage somehow to be surprised as often as not, a situation which is funny to me, because there are definite similarities underlying a lot of the fundamental improvements I have experienced in the past - such as the principle Less Is Sometimes More.

I decided to acquire this tweak based partly on a set of expectations I had intuited from my deductions about how such a thing must work in operation. I reasoned, if the damper prevents the 'arm from dissapting as unwanted motion energy which should instead be going into forcing the stylus to faithfully transcribe the groove, then I should hear 'more'. More impressive dynamic peaks, more bass slam and weight, more soundstage space, more transient impact, maybe even a little more overall volume. There were a couple of things I was hoping for less of - less surface noise, less HF grain, although I wasn't consciously aware of any objectionable presence of the latter. KAB's inscription on the damper's box promises "deeper bass" and "clearer midrange", as well as "improved tracking", and Kevin A. Barrett (KAB) also mentioned that customers sometimes find more of a sense of 'time slowing down' when listening with the damper fitted, though I don't personally tend to subscribe to such notions myself.

Well, if I had been expecting 'more', in many ways 'less' is what I got, and the things I did get more of were generally not what I had suspected beforehand. In retrospect, everything I heard does make sense given what the damper ought to be doing, but it definitely took my experiencing it to arrive at that conclusion. The very first things I noticed when listening with the damper activated were the cymbals on The Jazz Crusaders cut. They were exhibiting greater HF extension now, and were noticeably smoother. I wasn't expecting that, but I liked it.

I tried to listen for deeper bass, or more explosive transients, but couldn't find them. The soundstage didn't really seem any more expansive than before. The horns did sound a little less foward now, though. When the piano solo came on, I realized that an obsidian-like sort of dark glassiness that had somewhat shrouded the instrument before, had been replaced with a more open, pillowy-natural gentleness as the keys were being purposefully tickled from the outside left rear of the soundstage. When the stand-up bass solo followed, the centered image floated in space just as effectively as before, but had lost a certain talky, PA-like quality to the sound of fingers on strings which had previously rendered it as more of an electronic reproduction of a bass, and instead sounded more naked and true.

I slowly started to realize that although the soundstage wasn't any 'bigger'-seeming, it was effectively deeper, because I could now 'focus my ears', so to speak, more precisely all the way to the backmost reaches and still maintain the sense of clarity and definition. It began to dawn on me that, instead of enhancing the leading edges of transients, what was actually happening was a cleaning-up of their after-effects. Everything within the soundstage was less perturbed by everything else.

Rather than seem incrementally louder, the overall volume, if anything, was actually slightly subdued with the damper doing its thing. But added background texture was reduced even futher, resulting in an apparent universal improvement in S/N ratio. I'm not talking about surface noise as such here, which I didn't notice too much one way or another on these relatively clean disks, but a reduction in what must surely be the artifacts of spurious vibrations and their reflections. The whole presentation sounded tidier, tighter, and clearer, the ever-so-slightly reduced apparent amplitude probably a function of the effective subtraction of reradiated stored energy in the form of ringing. Less is more.

Dynamic events taking place in different areas of the soundstage had less of an effect on one another, permitting the instruments to go about their business without smearing or the imposition of added harshness as compared to before. The result, prehaps paradoxically, was to make gains for my analog reproduction resembling some of the more favorable attributes of CD, for aspects such as separation and contrast, while at the same time actually adding liquidity through the removal of intermodulation. Decays, not the onsets, of transients were the big winners with the damper in place, exhibiting a newfound cleanliness and precision that allowed me follow the flow the music with less guesswork. Image focus became more crystalline-pure and unwaveringly stable, less prone to fluctuate with attacks and crescendos. Although I'm not big on the concept of 'pace', I would actually say that, if anything, the music now seemed to move along at a slightly brisker clip, unencumbered by the dragging disturbance of throwing a larger wake in its trail.

In the big picture, I'd characterize the changes wought by the addition of the fluid damper as being on the order of about 10% or so (quite good), but in the particular areas upon which it has its greatest effects, I'd say they were more like 50%, which I think is excellent. No, I didn't get 'more' bass or dynamics, but I got less of what the presence of such information in the grooves can do to the more fragile parts of the sonic tapestry. In my estimation, what I'm hearing now with the damper is more faithful to the music mastered into the vinyl than what I was extracting previously, mostly through the reduction (if not the outright elimination) of some of the more pernicious effects engendered by the process of attempting to trace microscopic squiggles with a flexibly mounted needle attached to the end of a freely swinging arm.

I have not yet tried to ascertain the improvements wrought, if any, on the trackability of warped records, or the possible effects of the damper on reducing susceptability high-level acoustic feedback, for instance, but I will post updates when/if further developments make themselves known to me. For now I am exploring and enjoying the smoother and cleaner ride through the grooves the KAB damper is affording my cartridge and tonearm.

Associated gear
Benz-Micro Glider M2 .8mv MC cartridge > Technics SL-1200 TT and 'arm (modified with: Symposium shelf underneath sitting on Focalpods soft footers, Michell delrin record clamp, MusicDirect polymer tonearm wrap, and Sorbothane replacement mat) > Camelot Technologies Lancelot battery-powered op-amp phonostage with 54dB gain (modified with 392-ohm Vishay VHS loading resistors and resting on Audioquest Sorbothane pucks) > Cardas Cross 1m RCA IC > InnerSound FET preamp (with Synergistic Research Master A/C Coupler PC) > Harmonic Technology Magic One 1.5m RCA IC > VTL MB-185 Signature circa-200w all-tube monoblocks (with Shunyata PowerSnakes Sidewinder PCs) > Cardas Cross 8ft speaker cable > Thiel CS2.2 3-way floorstanding full-range speakers > and all electronics fed from Audio Power Industries PowerWedge Ultra 116 PLC (balanced AC to front-end components) and supported on a Salamander Synergy Twin 40 rack. Everything is set up a comfortable distance away from walls in a medium-sized living room, with the listening distance being about 10ft.

Similar products
None
zaikesman
sean
6,229 posts
 
Thanks for taking the time to write this and share your experience.

I have noticed that many "tweaks" don't necessarily give you "more", they simply give you "less" of things that one might find undesirable. By lowering your noise floor and removing "clutter", in effect, you have gained dynamic range while increasing contrasts from note to note and instrument to instrument. I would call these "negative gains" because they are not giving you more of anything, they simply "take away" negative aspects of a given product and / or refine what you already have. These are all good things yet some would tend to overlook such changes as they are both subtle and require a keen ear.

On the other hand, getting "more" of any given quantity is typically easier to notice as it tends to stand out in an "over the top" manner. I tend to call these "positive gains" as they've given you "more" or "added" to what you already had. Many of these type of changes can seem quite positive initially but turn out to be TOO dramatic and / or un-natural over extended periods of time.

As to comments regarding gear / cables / tweaks that result in greater sense of time / space between notes, be careful. While this can become appealing in a "hi-fi" sort of way, you can back yourself into a corner. I am talking about a system that is very high in resolution but lacks the pace, prat and dynamics that give music the "drive" that we initially were drawn into it for. Slower is not always "more resolving" and faster does not always offer "more pace". There is a fine line between what sounds detailed and resolving while achieving a good sense of musicality in a natural manner. It sounds like you are doing your best to achieve those goals that so many of us are working towards. Sean
>
zaikesman OP
3,017 posts
 
Twl and Sean, I think you both pick up on the gist of what I am talking about. The funny thing is that there definitely exists, at least for me, this unstated expectation - maybe even unconcious - that better should somehow = more. That if I don't get 'more' in an obvious way, I initially feel a little let down. And this persists, even though I've educated myself more than a few times to the contrary. I like the way you've catagorized the phenomenon, Sean. I think sometimes it's too easy to forget the reality of the situation is that gear can only have a destructive effect upon the signal, and all we can try to do is to minimize this. We get so accustomed to speaking in terms of what our gear 'gives' us, we lose sight of the fact the high end is really in large part about gear that simply is *less destructive* than equipment not as carefully designed and made.

I do want to make note of another quality I have heard with the damper. Even though high frequency range sounds, like the cymbals I mentioned in the review, sound more extended on top, the soundstage as a whole actually sounds a bit less airy. This reminds a lot of what I heard as I underwent the process of determining how to resistively load my cartridge at the phonostage. When I finally arrived at the value of around 400 ohms after many substitution trials, I knew I had found the most accurate response (to my ear) and the best combination of focus and liveliness, yet there was also a reduction in apparent soundstage airiness vs. running unloaded at 47k ohms. I concluded then, as I do again now, that a good part of this superficially pleasing quality is in reality spurious in nature, probably produced by unchecked resonances (the result of too little electrical damping in the case of the cart loading, and too little mechanical damping in the case of the arm without the fluid damper). This makes it clear that 'air' and 'HF extension' are not always necessarily the same thing, the difference being the distinction between something that's supposed to be a part of the signal, and something else that may be added to the signal by the system.

This observation jibes well with my sense of what live music actually sounds like. Indeed, I had the occasion a few months ago to hire a live string trio to play at a gathering in the very living room that my system is set up in (I think everyone ought to try this at home sometime). If I were to critique the sonics of this event as I might a hi-fi system, I would've said that it lacked a little for weightiness in the cello, attack in the violins, and detail and air in the soundstage. Ha! You know what? Music doesn't really sound like that, it just is.
twl
3,251 posts
 
Zaikesman, I would suggest trying different levels of fluid in the trough, and different angles on the paddle. This system seems as though it can be "tuned", and you may find an "ideal" setting for your particular needs by doing this. I know that you are already thinking about this, or doing it, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
basement
245 posts
 
I wanted to ring in so I could keep track of this, as I read this with much interest, and have continuing interest. Your description and assesment were great, so much so that it evan helped me to describe to myself what I hear when I damp.
If you do as twl mentions above I would love to hear that. I hear differences when I do, and I often still go back and forth with damping, laoding, and evan vta, for the above reasons discussed by you and twl.
243700
1 posts
 
Unlike others who use the TD-1200 Fluid dampener, I am not an audiophile, but a DJ who plays at various nightclubs, and rents sound equipment for events at a variety of different locations and setup configurations.

Here's my recent experience with the TD-1200.

First installing the dampeners to my Technics SL-1200M3D's a couple of weeks ago, I immediately went to work to see what improvements they would offer to the rigerous enviornment of the DJ.

Using Shure M44-7's, with a 23 degree inward turn (basically turning my "S" style tonearm into a strait tonearm), I proceded to configure my turntable setup as normal. Leveling the tables, adjusting the height, and applying 2.5 grams of weight using the Shure SFG, and adjusting the anti-skate.

From here, I do what many of you would cringe over...

and proceded to "scratch" with the record, vigerously moving the record back and forth while the stylus tip is in the groove. My previous normal responce, when too much speed or vibration is caused, is immediate skipping, where with some play on the anti-skate, I can get improvements, but not necessisarely fix the mis-cue problems. Where other DJ's an I disagree, adding more weight doesn't fix the problem, but just gives the tonearm more mass behind it's inertia to cause even further skipping.

Back to the Dampeners... Well, small adjustments with the anti-skate halted the tracking errors, and I was able to scratch faster, and harder than ever before. So, I proceded to lower the weight in .25 gram incriments. By the time I got to 1 gram, I couldn't stop laughing. The tracking improvements were increadable. So, the scratching test went very well.

Now to the Live Enviornment.

Having gone to a show at a venue I was scheduled to do an event at the next day, I noted the power configurations of the system, and the level settings of the crossover, eq, and compressors. The total power of the system was 4,500 watts, with 2,750 watts being powered to 4 18" subs, between 35-90Hz. During the breakdowns of the tracks, I could immediately hear LF feedback, and noted that even with the eq settings pulling down at 63Hz by 5dB, there was no solution for them to fix the problem.

The next day, I set up for a show at the same venue... only with more power, and the dampeners. 14,650 watts, with 6,000 watts powering 4 18" subs between 30-80Hz, with a 2dB per octive crossover. Using a spectrum analyser, I was able to power up the system to RMS, and peak out at over 14,000 watts, but the difference between the show before, and mine, was that I only decreased 63Hz by .5dB. Not once during the show, during a breakdown in the track did I hear even the slightest hint of LF feedback. Also, with the venue having wood floors, a wood stage, and the turntables set-up on top of this, I never even heard a single skip.

Just last week, we showcased the dampeners at a show for 1500 people, on a sound system that peaked out at over 45,000 watts, with almost 15,000 watts of power on the stage, and 4,000 watts to the monitors, which were only inches away from the turntables. Again, no LF feedback, and nothing but praises from the DJ's who performed that night, as only 1 DJ had a single skip, while trying to see how well the dampeners could perform during vigerous scratching. (With a small adjustment to the antiskate, and still only using 2.5 grams, he never had another skip during the show.)

So, as much as i'm in a different enviornment as many of you, I hope that you understand that in a more dramatic setting, the benefits of the dampeners becomes more apparent.

Mr. Barret, I praise you for your contributation to the Dance Music Industry.

Sincerely,

DJ Donovan
More to discover