Strange Tonearm Tweak. Long

Thank you Alex, for your succinct description of the pros and cons of the mod, and the importance of matching the application.

In my first paragraph, I meant to say that the "horizontal movement plane is on a vertical axis bearing".

Viridian - I already use the Expressimo Heavyweight, and found that to be a very good improvement also. I did not consult Origin Live about this, and am quite sure that they do not consider it necessary. This would be the typical response from manufacturers. I feel confident that this mass, in the way it is applied, will not compromise the bearing integrity. If anything, I believe that it may enhance the bearing life, due to chatter reduction, because of the increased mass of the bearing axle and lead damping.

Todd - I think that the lead dampening effect on the bearing axle is a benefit of this mod. As I said to Viridian, this added weight and dampening will decrease chatter by raising the chatter-motion threshold above what the cart can put out. Thanks for the offer of lead ribbon, but I already have some. I have not tried it on the arm though.

Dekay - That is correct. The lead weights are like extensions of the tonearm bearing axle and are outside the bearing housing, so it is not affecting the effective tonearm mass/resonance. They also have minimal effect on the vertical movement because they are small diameter, and concentric with the center of the axle. Therefore the moment of vertical inertia is hardly affected at all, but the horizontal moment of inertia is greatly increased. The only change to the loading of the vertical pivot bearing is on the thrust face. The total increase in weight is only 24 grams, but the wide positioning of the weight is the key to increasing the moment of inertia required to move the arm. This is what really stabilizes the arm to the movement of the cartridge. And man, does it work!

Thanks very much, Marty. I enjoy all of my time here with you and the rest. Cheers.

Yes guys, this mod is similar to a damping trough mod, with similar goals. I didn't really lower the center of gravity any with this, because I would have encountered clearance problems with the cueing lever and other stuff. I also wanted to achieve some added weight and lead dampening to the bearing axle(outboard). If I could have lowered the center of gravity, and still achieved the other goals, I would have done it. And azimuth control was not part of the goals, because with my arm this is not a concern.

The arm doesn't really "skip" easier with this arm mod, what happens is that, when it encounters a scratch that is just enough to make it skip, it doesn't jump to the next groove, but "sticks" in the same groove, because of the lateral resistance to quick movement. Perhaps I should have used more accurate terminology.

I think that the silicone trough mod you guys are getting should give similar results, to what I am getting here. It is a totally awesome improvement. Dynamics and information retrieval is staggering. Amazing what you can get out of a cartridge when you allow it to work like it is supposed to!

Zaikes, the Dynavector 507 was addressing this idea, and that is a good observation. My problem with the way they did it was that it introduced a whole other set of bearings, counterweights, and resonances that probably did more harm than good. What I really like about my mod, is the simplicity, and form-follows-function design. No additional complexity at all. And all of the great inherent aspects of the arm are retained, with the addition of the increased lateral stability. I'd be interested in hearing how the fluid damper mod works out for you. You may even be able to try different fluid viscosities to see which works best.

Jvr - Unfortunately I don't have a digital camera, so I can't post pics. But, it just looks like a spike sticking out from each side of the bearing housing. Perfectly concentric with the horizontal tonearm bearing axle. The arm now looks like a cross at the pivot point. That's it.

Zaikesman, I think you are on the right track for calculating the proper mass, but I would throw something else into the mix. The added weight in the case of my modification is at the pivot point. The stylus deflection is occuring about 9 1/2" away, out on the end of the tonearm. This distance causes the force vector to be increased dramatically by the leverage involved. Therefore the weight increase at the pivot must be far greater than equal to the lateral deflection at the stylus. This is the reason that I used long weights, that stick out an inch from each side. I am using the leverage factor to increase moment of inertia on my outriggers, just as the leverage factor increases the moment of inertia of the stylus, with respect to the pivot point. Since the tonearm is about 9 times longer than my outriggers, the outriggers must weigh more to compensate for this distance. In order to have a 1 to 1 ratio of outrigger weight to stylus force, you would have to have outriggers with a weight, in my case, of 2.75 grams(1.375 each)plus the effective mass of the tonearm. If the effective mass of these were the same as the tonearm (11 grams)+ the weight(1.375 grams x 2) then the total mass of each outrigger would be 6.875 grams, or a total weight of 13.75 grams. The lead weights are 12.25 grams each. About 90%. I didn't include the cartridge weight or equal the distance, but I did get the weight 1" outboard of the bearing yoke, so that helped alot, and used the materials at hand. And since there are 2 outriggers, my effective horizontal mass increase is at least 24.5 grams(plus the 1" width increase on each side). This is almost double(180%) the combined tonearm mass and stylus force. So when you add the existing tonearm mass(which also provides lateral stability), there is nearly an effective tripling(280%) of the horizontal stabilization. In addition, since the outriggers are equal weight and equidistant from the pivot, they are inherently counterbalanced. And they add no vertical mass. It may be possible to fine tune this even better, since I did no fine tuning at all. I just put them on, and voila! It worked so well that I didn't need/want to fuss around with it.

Basement, what Zaikesman said about the Vertical Tracking Force is true. However, increase in vertical resistance(mass/inertia) is also bad. The light weight of the arm in the vertical plane ensures good tracking on warped albums. If vertical mass is increased significantly, the arm will leave contact with the groove when it encounters a warp, due to the upward inertia imparted by the warp. Once the high mass is set into motion, it will continue to fly upward by momentum, and leave contact. This is bad. A small increase at the pivot area is not significant in this regard, though. In the case of my Origin Live Silver Tonearm, the bearings are relocated into the yoke, and the weights on my arm do rotate with the axle. This does make a very small increase in the vertical moving mass of my arm. Being that the weights are small diameter, the actual increase in vertical moment of inertia is small. If I had used large diameter discs instead of small shafts, the increase in vertical inertia would have been significant. This is not a good idea in the case of the OL arms. Use the bullet shaped shafts to minimize this. Also using discs would have ruined the advantage of moving the weight as far outboard as possible. The idea is to get the weight as wide as possible, since this increases the moment of inertia(resistance) by a multiplication factor. This allow the use of less weight, and gives a higher factor of resistance. If you make it too wide though, it gets in the way of everything and could get snagged off during use. This one inch long weight seemed like a good size.

You really need to start doing something with your arm. You have a diamond in-the-rough there and it would greatly reward you if you modded it. If you start with the OL end stub and the Heavyweight, you would really be getting somewhere. Be careful to not damage the bearings when you are removing and installing the end stubs. Don't apply any torque to the bearings! Isolate the bearings by holding the arm tube between the pivot and the end stub.

I went to the Dynavector web page, and read the info on the 507, and it was very interesting. They had a very good description of why a tonearm should have high lateral mass and low vertical mass. It is notable that the way record grooves are recorded, the bass information is almost totally lateral in deflection, and are the largest movements for the stylus to trace. This makes the stylus more likely to move the arm laterally away from the center of the groove, thereby losing bass information and dynamics. The Dynavector web site describes the need for greatly increased mass in the lateral plane. This seems to be the major reason for their design of the 507. They called it "bi-axis" design. It appears that my mod gives similar results without having to change the tonearm. If the tonearm is already light enough in the vertical plane for good warp tracking, then all that is needed is to increase the lateral moment of inertia, through this weighted outrigger modification.

Viridian, I agree. They were onto something, but the execution, while being a complex beautifully made machine, lacks certain important things and includes problems, that were not needed. I am sure that my mod is not perfect, but it is a simpler solution than the Dynavector, and does not introduce as many problems as the 507 does. As of this time, I am not noticing any audible problems with the horizontal mass/resonance change. In fact, the sound overall is just great.

Basement, cantilever damage is more likely with higher compliance cartridges than lower ones. Since they flex so much easier, they are more likely to get flexed beyond their limits and break off. The low compliance ones are much stiffer and have a stiff suspension, so that is less likely. Of course you can break off any cantilever if you try hard enough. Lyra carts are relatively low compliance.

Regarding damping, silicone fluid damping for this application is troublesome, because of 2 reasons. The level of the stuff in the trough is critical, and nobody can really say how full to make it for best results. You have to "tune" it to your cartridge compliance, and that is a little "iffy". but it can be done. Second, the viscosity of the damping silicone changes viscosity over time, so the damping will change also. If you are not paying attention, or, don't change the silicone, you may lose the damping. The inertial weight system is a one-time deal that stays the same, once you install it. It could also need tuning to the cart, but once you are higher than the needed level, being somewhat heavier is no big deal. So my way of thinking is to tune it to a real stiff cart, like a DL103, and then it will be more than sufficient for any more compliant cart(which is all of them - the DL103 is the stiffest cart made).

I think that the Dyanavector 507 reduced vertical mass is good for tracking warped records, but it requires that the cartridge be matched to the lower mass for proper resonance function. I also don't really like the short radius arm for the same reasons you guys are talking about, VTA/SRA changes of large magnitude on warps. I believe that this outrigger mod supercedes the Dynavector approach.

I am always up for a good way to lose money. If I produced these, would anybody buy them? What would you be willing to pay for an easy mod that improved your analog rig? Considering for the RB250, I would have to get new bearing dust covers, and the weights, and affix/screw them together, paint, package, and market. And hopefully make a few dollars. :^) Sounds like around $49.95 retail to me. What do you think?

Basement, I have some cats, with plenty of hair. People some times ask me if I own anything without cat hair on it. I would have to say no. Maybe my entire house is well-damped. Just kidding, but I do have some cats.

Regarding your thoughts on damping, the arm should always remain centered over the groove. The arm should never move by stylus deflection. If it does, you lose bass information, possibly other information, and dynamics. The stiffer a cartridge's suspension(compliance)is, the more likely it is to deflect the arm during play. If the arm has sufficient mass in the horizontal plane, the cart cannot deflect it, as the horizontal moment of inertia(of the arm) is higher than the cartridge can overcome. This is the ideal relationship for maximum information retrieval from the groove. However, the arm must be free to traverse the record from start to finish, unimpeded by friction. The high moment of inertia in the horizontal plane, does not increase friction, but merely resists momentary, microscopic "wagging" that would otherwise impede correct pickup function. The fluid damping strives to duplicate this function by applying "shock absorber" type damping, against this "wagging" tendency. Neither of these methods should have a deleterious effect on the integrity of the cantilever, since the cantilever is supposed to be designed to move the distances involved with the velocities involved. Merely stabilizing the tonearm should have no destructive result on the cantilever. To the contrary, it should provide better functioning of the cantilever/stylus to do their intended tasks of groove tracing. Arm wagging has always been a bugaboo for analog rigs. The single minded desire for light weight arms, disregarding the need for lateral stabilization has allowed this modification of mine to become possible. The funny thing is that unipivot designers achieved some of this by striving to keep the azimuth level, but also got some of the benefit of lateral stabilization in the bargain. I think that this is responsible for alot of the improved sound of the high end unipivots recently, espectially the Graham. Gimbal arm designers totally ignored this because their arms were already stable, and didn't think of the lateral stabilization need, with the exception of Dynavector. Unfortunately for them, they did some other things at the same time that caused other problems to surface, and their arm never really caught on. And many people thought it was just a heavy arm, in a world of light arms that were all the rage.

It is interesting that this lateral stabilization is at the heart of turntable design, with aerospace tolerance bearings and heavy platters, and belt drive, being used to ensure that the groove does not wiggle sideways under the stylus. But the same thought escapes tonearm designers who allow their arms to be easily moved around in the groove by the very information that they try to retrieve. So all of this effort by the TT makers to keep that groove stable, is largely lost by the arm moving around. The perfect relationship of arm to platter is perfectly rigid and non moving with respect to the lateral plane. It should only follow the spiral. The bearings are highly-spec'd and tubes are built with great care to reduce vibration, and all kinds of technology is used to make them do everything else. But, still they let the headshell end of the wand get shoved all over the place by the cartridge. Isn't that wierd? Now to be fair, alot of cartridges are high-compliance and don't have much "push" to them, and alot of arms have enough lateral mass to stay fairly well in place. So for many applications they are ok. For the low-compliance crowd, things are not ok. If you have a Koetsu, or a Lyra, or a Shelter, or a DL103, or alot of other really good high end carts, then your arm is very likely not up to the task of getting the best from them. And the more you try to go to a lighter arm, the worse things get. And all these makers are trying to use featherweight materials like titanium and carbon fiber to make things even lighter! And here comes ol' TWL, that wierd-o from outer space, saying that we need to increase mass in the magnitude of ounces, not grams! But only in the horizontal plane, and in the right place. No wonder his TT sounds good. His arm stays in place.

Zaikesman, agreed. No cause for more weight than necessary for the given application. And I believe that higher compliance carts will need less than my DL103 does. None of my records are visibly off center, so I can't really check out the behavior of that possiblity. The ones I have played work well. Since even off center records would have at least 90 degrees of travel during the runout area, I don't think that the weight would make any difference. The ability of the arm to follow the spiral seems to be completely unaffected by this mod. There is less need for anti-skating though.

About the fluid, are they using something different than what is used in the cueing mechanisms? I know that stuff gets thin over time, and leaks out.

Basement, I don't understand most of the first half of your post. The second half I find alot of agreement with.

IMO, the fluid damping is aiming at the same goal as the horizontal mass increase. If a tonearm is equipped with one, it doesn't need the other. It is 2 ways of attacking the same problem of unwanted lateral movement of the arm, being pushed by the cartridge compliance.

If this goal is accomplished by either of these methods, the cartridge coils will remain centered over the groove, where they should be. This centering effect will allow the stylus/cantilever/coil assembly to retain its "center reference" and achieve maximum dynamics and information retrieval, which is lost when the arm is moved from side-to-side by the stylus tracing action.

The arm damping of ringing frequencies is an entirely different matter altogether, but an important one. No one feature of an arm is going to solve all problems. There must be a combinations of correct aspects to the design to get the best results. And these may vary with the type of cartridge to be used.

I may have to design an entirely new tonearm to fully exploit all of these things, but I lack the resources to do that. So in the meantime, I am simply tweaking, and enjoying it.

KAB is a pretty cool site. That fluid damper rig looks like it will work fine, and it looks real "factory" like. Very clean and professional. It seems to me that they are primarily promoting a vertical damping, but it appears from the photo that the paddle can be rotated to provide a lateral damping effect. I expect that this will make an improvement in sound quality on your 1200. Let us know. I am sending a set of these weights to Nrchy tomorrow, so we can get some feedback on how they work on his Sota/RB900 system. He's got a Benz Glider with a 15cu compliance, so we'll see how this works with a medium compliance cartridge on a Rega arm.

Zaikesman, yes I think that is possible. I have tried to build several tensegrity constructions, and they all have problems with rigidity. It seems that the wires that I used always had some amount of stretch to them, and this always resulted in flex of the structure. Very disappointing. But it is a very cool concept.

Zaikesman, I used poor terminology in my last post regarding the term "run-out". In machine shop lingo, the "run-out" is the amount of eccentricity in a rotating piece, like a rod on a lathe. If there is "run-out on a LP record, that means it is rotating eccentrically(ie, off-center hole). I'll avoid that term since it confuses things with the run-out or lead out groove on the LP.

Ok, now my point was that with both fluid and mass methods, the rotational variations caused by the off center hole, happens relatively slowly over a long arc of the record. Both the fluid and mass methods can trace this movement easily, with no disastrous results. There should be no erratic movement of the stylus in the groove as a result of this. The arm still has relatively free movement in tracing slow arcs with both fluid and mass damping.

Now to move on, I think this discussion is very productive, and with a little care to make sure we are all on the same page, I'll comment on your input, and Basement's.

What you say about the mass staying in motion once it starts is very true. The amount of mass needs to be looked at real hard to make sure we don't get a swinging gate effect. That is important. On the other hand, once the fluid gives way to some movement, the paddle is also resisted from returning to center by the fluid. So this needs to be taken into account also. We have not come upon the perfect solution yet. But, we are making some headway.

I am still of the opinion that using both methods is somewhat redundant. But there may be some middle ground. Perhaps a mass increase, along with a tuned fluid damping could provide high inertial resistance, with the mass being controlled from overshoot by the fluid damping? IMO the mass provides a static increase in the resistance to movement, while the fluid requires at least some small dynamic movement and velocity, to come into play. So with both, there may be better control. Maybe we need to look into this possibility.

Regarding the sophisticated servo-operated control systems you mention, it has been my experience that mechanisms generally muck-up the works. I like to go by the simple route, if possible.

Now, Basement has done some experiments with his Immedia, and had some negative sonic results in some areas. From his description, my feelings are that the weight hung on the paperclips created a vibrating mass on the ends of the thin paperclips, and caused sonic impairments. My belief is that the shafts needed to be very rigid to preclude this problem. My weights are 3/8" solid lead shafts, and they are firmly pressed onto the bearing nuts and glued, so the mechanical connection is secure. There is no thin shaft with a heavy weight on the end. This may have led to Basement's problems. I don't know.

Basement please clarify your points, we need to know more accurately what you mean, so we can discuss intelligently with you.

About your question about the fluid damping with the Rega arms. I don't know if anyone is doing that. The Townshend Rock TT's use an unusual fluid trough that swings across the record, and damps the arm at the headshell end, all the way across the record. When you put on a LP, you have to then swing this long curved trough across the LP, and when you put the tonearm onto the record, the paddle in the headshell dips into the silicone in the long trough. Totally unique. No-one else does it this way, that I've heard of.

While you are on the web, go to the Dynavector site, and look at their description of the 505 and 507 tonearms. They have a very good technical presentation on lateral mass increases. Also, go to some unipivot sites, and read what they say about the silicone damping. Maybe we can combine these two, and get something rolling.

I think you had your weights on shafts that were too flexible. The paper clips are too thin to stabilize the weight that is hanging almost 2" out there. They allow the weight to vibrate, and cancel out some information. I did not experience anything like that in my modifications.

Ok, we have a couple of suppositions here, and I will try to address them as I see them.

First, it seems we all agree that the headshell/arm should position the cartridge directly centered over the groove, and should maintain that position as it plays the entire record.

Next, we all seem to agree that it is possible for the cartridge compliance to move the arm out of the ideal position, especially if the arm has insufficient lateral mass, or no fluid damping.

Now, our contentions are that with either increased lateral mass, or fluid damping, this problem can be mitigated/eliminated. But, both solutions introduce their own potential problems which need to be dealt with.

It initially seems as though the fluid damping creates less inhererent possiblity of problems, because it does not have a mass that could be set into motion, and thus go out of control. However, the problems introduced with the fluid damping system, as I see them, are these: The paddle must be set into some level of accellerated motion before it can begin to work, therefore it will allow some arm motion to occur before the unwanted movement becomes damped. If the arm does move before damping occurs, then it has to move back, and could be slowed by the damping during its return to the center. This creates a bell-shaped amplitude curve regarding its movement away from center and back to center. Granted, this will be a small amplitude, but it will be there none-the-less, due to the requirement for the arm to laterally accellerate to a certain speed before damping occurs. So therefore I conclude that fluid damping has static/low amplitude limitations, and works best in higher amplitude/ high acceleration conditions. And, in all cases, allows some unwanted movement to occur before coming into play, as it is a dynamic system.

Increased lateral mass has what appears to be more difficult inherent problems associated with its use in this application. This increased lateral mass can be accellerated out of control, if the mass is insufficient to perform its intended task. Momentum would take over and create mayhem. Return to center under these conditions would be out of the question, as the arm would be flying across the record surface. However, there is something here that works in favor of increased lateral mass. It is a static system that raises the "moment of inertia" to a point where the cartridge compliance cannot overcome the static moment of inertia. In this case, the cartridge is stabilized over the groove center, with no movement needed, or allowed, to work. So the stabilization, if sufficient, can be complete, with no lateral accelleration(movement)of the arm needed to bring the stabilizer into play.

So, what we have here, as I see it, are a dynamic control system, and a static control system. The dynamic system requires some movement of the arm to work, but then comes into play very aggressively to limit movement. The static system doesn't require any movement to work, and in fact cannot allow it, or it will spin out of control from momentum. Or at best, create a nasty "swinging door" effect, which we definitely don't want.

Now, my assessment of these systems, is that we really don't want to allow any deviation of the arm from the center of the groove, so that the stylus will do all the moving, not the arm. So, from an absolute performance point-of-view, the static system of increased lateral mass allows no deviation, assuming sufficient mass. But, if the mass is insufficient, or if some unforseen large accelleration enters the system that can overcome the static moment of inertia, it can have a major disruptive effect. The dynamic system, while allowing a small degree of deviation from the ideal, will control any large accelerations very well, and will never get out of control(except at the very low accelerations, which it does not control at all, due to the "damping threshold").

So, where do we want to go with this? Do we allow some movement, and then quickly stop it, or do we allow no motion, and possibly get out of control if a large force enters the system? Or is there another idea, or combination of ideas that would better resolve the problem without causing additional ones?

There are some other issues that enter into this discussion also, and they are, how are the other aspects of arm function affected by these mods? There is no question that the added mass system can cause a change in vibrational modes that may or may not be benign. The fluid damping does not have this characteristic. It has no potential problems in this area, and even may tend to damp some larger vibrational modes. It is less "cartridge dependant" for its correct operation. On the other hand, if the cartridge is selected with all the correct capabilities(low compliance), then the increased mass of the static system, may enhance the vibrational and resonant modes to not need any damping, or need less damping. And if lead is used, especially in the proper locations, damping may occur by the lead material itself. I believe that this is happening on my tonearm, with this mod. Another benefit that I believe I am getting from this is the reduction of bearing chatter, due to the increase of the static "chatter threshold" by placing the lead weights directly on the bearing axle. This greatly increases the mass of the axle, and is much less likely to chatter in the bearing, because it is too heavy for the vibrations to excite/move it in the bearing races. This does not come into play with a unipivot, obviously, since the unipivot has tons of PSI on the pivot tip already. But interestingly, the added mass(PSI) on the tip, is what causes the unipivot to be chatterless.

I could ramble on about this, but please give your comments on what I've said so far.

Thanks, Zaikesman. I agree that with the low bearing friction, there may be some movement allowed with the mass system. I cannot say that absolutely no lateral movement is present over the groove. But I can definitely say that it is much reduced, because of the results of greater dynamics, crisper detail, and bass I got with it. I may not even have the best ratio, because I did not try a bunch of different weights. But by luck, I got a pretty good result on my first try.

I have thought of making the weight on a threaded shaft, so it could be adjusted for distance from the pivot. This would complicate the prototype, but production would be just as easy. You may have caused a price increase :^). It would certainly be more applicable to a wider range of cartridges with a system like that. But the spread would have to be equal on both sides, or you'll be changing the anti-skate force.

What type of arm are you using, Zaikesman? If you have a way to fix these weights onto your arm, I could send you a set for evaluation on your TT. I know that they easily go onto a Rega arm. I would like to get some feedback on this. I am already sending a set to Nrchy, who has a Rega RB900. And if Basement wants some to try out on his RB300, he can have some too. They don't cost much, I just get them at the fishing store. If you think you could somehow get them onto whatever type of arm you've got, just email me your address, and I'll send a set to you.

By the way, I think that there is a sort of "mass threshold". As an example, if I am lifting weights, and I keep increasing the weight, at some point I won't be able to lift it. The static moment of inertia will be too high for me to overcome. That is the "threshold" that I am looking for with this system. If the mass is higher than the cartridge can overcome with its suspension, then the theoretical infinite mass can be approximated. As long as the arm can still move freely to track the groove spiral. Since the spiral tracking occurs over a long arc, the low friction of the bearing should allow this to occur, but on the quick dynamic spikes of the groove info, this mass should be sufficient to virtually eliminate arm deflection, if the mass is calculated correctly. Do you agree with this hypothesis?

Basement, I wish my eyes were as good as yours. Now that I'm over 45, I can't see up close anymore.

About the off-center records, I don't really see this as a problem, because the mass increase is easily moved during the long arc of an off-center record. The shortest arc that it could have to navigate would be 180 degrees, because the hole is only off-center in one direction from the center. That means that the record will start to move one way for 180 degrees, and start moving back for 180 degrees. On the outside of the LP, if there was 1/8" off-center, the stylus would have to adjust only 1/8" over 19 inches of groove travel(the circumference of a record is about 38 inches). This could hardly be called a rapid movement. The low bearing friction could easily handle this. And 1/8" off-center is a hell of a lot. I personally would not even play a record that bad. None of my records are even close to that far off. I do have some warps though.

Adressing your statement about the "speed of the cantilever", the cantilever is designed to operate at the speeds and distances it will encounter in the RIAA curve that is encoded into the groove. These parameters are known and designed-for by the cartridge makers. I see no way that a well-designed cartridge will be caused to mis-track by the proper orientation of the arm over the groove. If you are saying that the damping or horizontal mass increase will cause the arm not to properly track the off-center record, I have already covered that topic. It can track the off-center record. If the record is so far off-center that a damped arm cannot track it, then that record is junk. I cannot consider items like that in my design. A high-performance Ferrari suspension is not made for going "off road". We have to assume at least a decent level of record quality. I will accept the loss of some defective records, in the pursuit of improving the sound of 99.9% of my collection. The slightly off-center records are not affected by this design.

On the next issue, I agree with all 3 of your points regarding increased mass on tonearms. The problem with cantilever breakage on ET arms is generally attributed to the TT not being level. With the low friction air bearing and the lack of anti-skate on linear arms, leveling is crucial on these arms. The other cause of breakage was the "Groove guard" ridge, that caused a rapid accelleration of the stylus into the lead-in groove, as it slid down the side of the "Groove guard" ridge. This is why many recommended the starting of play after the first groove into the first song, with these arms. Fluid damping reduced these hazards. These are cases of "runaway, out of control mass" as we talked about in the previous posts. On pivot arms, this is less problematic since there is usually higher bearing friction in these, as well as an anti-skating mechanism. However the "Groove guard" can be a pain in the ass, at times.

Continuing to address your points. The use of fluid damping in addition to horizontal mass increase is not out of the question. It may be a good combination for reasons previously stated. I have not tried it yet. I have already addressed that I don't think that there is any possibility of damaging the cantilever with any of these systems. We want the cantilever to move as much as needed to retrieve the info off the record, and no more. If the cantilever is stiff enough to not bend under these stresses(no cantilever should bend), then these methods of keeping the cartridge centered should only help matters. It is the mass of the arm moving away from groove-center that may damage the cantilever. None of these systems allow the cartridge to move off groove center, even on off-center records, as previously stated. The entire purpose of these mods is to keep the cartridge groove-centered in all circumstances. I really don't follow your point of saying that these mods will cause/allow the opposite of their intended purpose. They do not impede the long slow movement of the arm during tracing of the groove spiral, or even off-center records. They only stablize the cart/arm during quick movements of the stylus, particularly during dynamic bass activity. If you are seeing your cantilever moving sideways because of an off-center record, then your cartridge is too high compliance for your arm. Or your records are really bad. What kind of cartridge are you using? This may be the reason why you had dead sound when you increased the mass. If you have a med-high compliance cart, your arm may already have enough mass to provide stabilization. If you can see your cantilever moving off groove-center, then something is drastically wrong.

Regarding your last sentence, I am not promoting the idea of preventing the arm from moving with the groove spiral. I want it to move with the groove spiral. I just want the arm/cart to remain centered over the groove while it is moving with the groove spiral. This is the aim and purpose of my mod. Remaining centered with the groove, and still being able to move enough to trace the spiral, is not a mutually exclusive combination. It can do both, and do it quite well. And it does not carry with it any greater danger of breaking the cantilever.

I wanted to offer you some of my weights to put on your RB300, but now I'm not sure if your cartridge can handle them with the records you are playing. Tell us what cartridge you have. If I think you can benefit from these, you are welcome to them. I am a little concerned right now that you might be over-weighted as it is now.

Just to make an announcement, this mod now has an official name. It is called the HI-FI(Horizontal Inertial Force Increaser). Assuming a positive response from Basement, I will begin to look into a market for these products.

Basement, first, if you would like a set of these weights for your RB300, email me. They should make an improvment on the Clavis. That is not a "whippy" cartridge, and the cantilver/suspension should be quite stiff. These weights are easy to apply, and stay put, in just the right place. I really would like your feedback on this.

Next, I think I am beginning to understand what you are saying. One thing that needs clarification is your term "cantilever flexing". Is the cantilever actually flexing, or is it just moving in its rubber suspension? This is an important difference. The cantilever itself is a stiff tube, and should not flex. Flexing loses information, and imparts an unwanted resonance in the system. If the movement you refer to is small, and near the center, then it is actually suspension movement you are seeing. Flex, if it does occur, would only happen at the end of suspension travel.

If I understand you correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are concerned with the very low frequencies that may be caused by warp/wow in the range below 10Hz. You feel that if the cartridge is actually tracking these frequencies, that it may be detrimental to the system, and the cantilever especially. This is because you feel that the large movements that occur at this range may bend or break the cantilever, and these frequencies should be prevented from entering the system anyway. Right? And your concern leads you to believe that the arm should move laterally at these frequencies to relieve the sidewards stress on the cantilever, and to preclude these frequencies from entering the signal chain. Right? Tell me if I understand this the way you mean it.

Now, going on the assumption that I understand correctly, you are actually referring to the matchup of the lateral effective mass/cartridge compliance. If it is minor warp or off center problems, yes the arm should move laterally on the bearing to account for these eccentricities. These problems are slow dynamics compared to the rapid lateral accellerations of the stylus during tracking of low frequency playback dynamics. An object has much more resistance to movement when a rapid accelleration is applied, than when a slow push is applied(Force=Mass x Acceleration). The slow movement of the record groove during warps and off center travel is easily handled by the arm bearing, and the arm moves laterally quite easily in this circumstance. If you are saying that the warp/off center record is causing a quick massive 1/4" or more movement that causes the weight of the arm to stay in place, and makes the cantilever move dramatically sideways because the record movement is too fast for the arm to keep up with it, then that record is a Frisbee, not a record.

My theory on this issue is this. The transducer should respond all the way down to DC. All frequencies begin at DC at the beginning of the attack, and quickly rise to the fundamental tone, and then decay back down to DC again. This is the structure of all notes. If we avoid the reproduction of the lowest octave, then we change the structure of the note, as we hear it. Even if the rest of the system cannot reproduce this, it has its effect on the sound. It is an attack, sustain, decay, timing issue. The resonant frequencies in the cartridge/tonearm cannot be avoided, but can be tuned out of the most offensive areas.

So, IMO to purposely allow the tonearm to move laterally at these frequencies, for the purpose of avoiding their reproduction, as a preventative of cantilever stress, is a counterproductive measure. It is my view that all frequencies from DC and up, should be included in the information chain of the source transducer, regardless if the other elements in the signal chain can reproduce them or not. If not, the natural structure of the tones, and the PRaT will suffer.

So, to sum up on this subject, I feel that the cantilever should be subjected to all these forces, but should remain in its properly centered relationship with the groove at all times, if possible. This may not be entirely possible, but it is a goal that we should try to attain with the improvements we are considering.

If the record is defective or warp damaged to the point of causing extraneous peaks in the frequency response at very low frequencies,or causing undue stress to the cantilever, that is a problem with the record, not the playback system. The playback system should track all the information on the record, if we are to even hope to get the best reproduction.

Regarding my unconventional thinking, it may be somewhat unconventional, but it is not original, or new. Others, such as Dynavector have addressed this directly, with an entire design(the 505-507 series) with this idea as the goal. And Graham, as well as other unipivot makers are using some form of this also. The Transcriptors Vestigal arm, addressed inertia and had 35 times more lateral inertia than vertical inertia. And the Vestigal was made in the 70's.

Hopefully, I have understood your idea, and have addressed some of the points you raised. If not, please re-explain, and I will try again.

Yes, there is a difference in cantilver speed, depending on the frequency of the "bumps" in the groove that it is trying to trace. Larger amplitude bumps, in the lower frequencies, require faster velocity than the smaller "bumps" in the high frequencies, because there is more lateral deflection and return, for a given amount of rotation of the record. Also, the speed differs at the outside of the record, and the inside. The record is larger diameter at the outside, and therefore has different speed at those grooves, than the inside.
Also, I feel that the warp excitation of the mass/resonance is far less critical in the horizontal plane, because the warp movement is primarily in the vertical plane, and that is not being changed by this mod.

As an experiment last night, I played an extremely good recording by John Klemmer, recorded direct-to-disk on virgin vinyl. This beautiful record suffers from some of the most complex warping of any record in my collection. It has a dish warp, and several varying radius warps all around the perimeter(a real shame). However, I played this record on my TT(with the weight mod on the arm) and I found that the arm tracked the warps very well, and also the slight out-of-round that was there. The only noticeable thing was the woofer cones were bouncing, like would normally happen on a large warp anyway. Believe it or not, even with the intermod that this woofer bounce makes, the sound of this recording is unbelievably good, and the cartridge tracked even the most difficult dynamics like a train on a track. So as far as I can see, this does not hinder the vertical performance of the arm at all. And it shouldn't, because the design is only applied on the horizontal performance parameters. This arm with my mod, was able to track the most difficult warped record I have, and provide awesome audiophile sound quality and tracking while doing it. Just for fun, I turned on the CD player, and played one of my CD's, while I was making a cup of coffee, and it sounded like the system was broke! The sound of this TT, makes a very good CD player sound like something is wrong with it. A good record on this TT absolutely destroys a CD player, even with my best CD. Like I said, the Sony 9000ES CD player sounds like it has something wrong with it, in comparison to this TT setup. If anyone ever came over here, and listened to that comparison, they would laugh out loud.

Yes, Basement I am beginning to get your drift. The stylus/cantilever must move in order for a signal to be generated. Simply having the cantilever out of line, doesn't necessarily generate a signal. But if it is out of line, then when a signal is traced, the coils will be out of center and a channel balance problem will be heard. Also the maximum deflection ability of the cart will be impaired in the direction of the side that it is off-center towards. This is a bad condition, and should be avoided. It will also cause increased record wear on one side of the groove.

The warped record I played had mostly vertical movement, and so I'm sure it was the vertical play that caused the woofer movement. I didn't try to see if the cartridge riding the warps coincided exactly with the woofer movement, although I am sure that is what was causing it. The record sounded terriffic, even though the warps were pretty bad.

The "thing that the cantilever sticks through" is called the suspension ring or donut. It is a rubber ring that is set to flex at a particular rate for the cartridge design. Butyl rubber is considered on of the best, but many types of rubber are used.

Don't forget to email me your shipping address, or I can't send you these weights.

Well Basement, that sounds like the yoke, which would be the piece that holds the suspension donut.

About reproducing the warp, if the cartridge is held properly in place, and is doing what it is supposed to do, it will reproduce anything that excites the stylus. If that happens to be a warp, then that's what you'll get. If the cartridge is allowed to do anything else, then you will lose additional information than what you are trying to preclude from entering the system.

About the RIAA curve, the things Zaikesman said are accurate, although the bass info is still the largest bumps in the groove from what I have heard on the subject.

There is some disagreement on my "all notes start at DC" theory, but I think that is a subject for another thread.

Zaikesman, Good luck with the stuff you're doing with KAB. I hope you can get some good stuff going with them for your TT.

That is an interesting concept Zaikesman. I would attack that in a high rigidity approach. Possibly like a wishbone suspension arm made of carbon fiber and wide spacing at the pivot area, and coming to a "V" at the forward area, where the bearing set for the vertically moving arm would be. The counterweight could then be located between the "V" arms, since there would be much less offset angle. In fact, if you could adjust the bearings close enough, you could use 2 unequal length vertically moving arms, and achieve a "automobile suspension" method of keeping the headshell level, even while tracking a warp. Eliminating VTA changes as it rides the warp. This increases complexity, but sounds like a cool idea.

Now if we could only come up with an idea that would allow us to play scratched records without clicking or skipping, we would really make a million.

Still no word from the Beta testers.

Nate, I'm very happy the mod was effective for your application. This lets me know that the mod is applicable for different compliance ranges, and that is good. My initial assessment of your results compared with mine, is that your compliance is higher, so the bass dynamics were not as affected as mine(lower compliance)was,but the general information pickup was improved. With my stiff compliance, the arm is more likely to be pushed around by the stiff suspension on the cantilever. But the fine detail, air, and authority of piano,bell-sounds, and such, is also improved on my arm with the mod. So now we know that it works on an OL Silver with DL103, and RB900 with Benz Glider. Basement's rig is a RB300 with a Lyra Clavis, so we'll see how that one does.

See, sometimes being a "guinea-pig" Beta tester can be very advantageous. You are presently the only other person in the world with this mod, besides me. Basement is the next victim, and his test units are going out in the mail today. I couldn't go down to the store to get more weights until yesterday. :^)

Zaikesman, the articulated arm you referred to was the Garrard Zero-100 Zero Tracking Error system. I had one of those in the early 70's. The main problems were cheap construction and implementation. The system itself could work with modern materials like carbon fiber and a quality implementation.

I would agree with your assessment that the fluid damping and the horizontal mass modification seem to have different characteristics, even though we speculated that they might have similar ones. Perhaps a combo of these two might prove to be beneficial.

Yes, I knew that a 4-8 bearing setup on a double wishbone for the headshell would be overly complicated, but I was just dreaming about the exotic. I also dreamed about using a Buckminster Fuller tensegrity column for the arm, in which all forces would be resolved in the tension/compression design. Way too complex, but fun to think about, if you are "strange" like me.

Glad you guys are enjoying the mod. I emailed Basement and suggested a VTA change to restore the tonal balance. With the added authority of the bass info provided with the HiFi mod, it is concievable that a VTA change could be in order. I speculate that a slight rise in VTA will give him the mids and highs that he wants, and more detail will be shown there too. With his VTA previously adjusted for the tonal balance of the unmodded arm, this mod just may require that VTA adjustment. I needed to adjust mine also.

Nate, if you didn't notice as much bass improvement as you may have liked, you might try lowering your VTA a slight amount, and see how you like that.

I am very happy that this has been an improvement for both of you, as well as for myself. I think that this is absolutely a Kick-Ass mod.

I am looking into the packaging and marketing aspects of this right now.

So far, a grand total of 5 beta-users. All very happy.

Thanks, Tim.

Sure David. This mod was originally designed for the OL Silver tonearm, and can just as easily be applied to any Rega tonearm. There may be others that could benefit, but I haven't actually tried any others. The key factor is that they must have a bearing yoke arrangement where the weights can be attached to the bearing axle locations without interfering with anything else in the mechanism. Some arms have an enclosure or housing surrounding the bearing yokes, and this is something that would preclude the use of this mod. The Rega and OL Silver arms have very open architecture in this area, and are easy to mod with these weights. At this time, I have not tried to use this on any unipivot arms, and I am hesitant to recommend its use for unipivots, because generally the result would have negative results on the vertical behavior of the arm. It is critical for this mod to be directly concentric with the bearing axle that controls vertical movement, so that it has no effect in that plane of motion. With a unipivot, that location is very difficult to achieve.

I'm real happy that you like the mod, Ron. Thanks for your great descriptions about the sonic improvements. I've even been getting some more interest from others in the HiFi mod now. Maybe it will actually "catch on" after all. I just like to improve my system, and thought others would like the nice benefits of something I figured out. Everybody seems to have the same reaction. Usually they just say, "WOW!", like you did earlier.

Ted, the needed lateral mass is relative to the compliance of the cartridge suspension. The lower the compliance(stiffer), the more lateral mass is needed for proper stabilization of the arm.

Eldartford, any spindle centering problems cause quite slow moving variations in the tracking of the groove by the tonearm. This mod handles that with no trouble whatever. Any relatively slow movement of the arm in a side-to-side direction, can easily be managed, and are managed by a tonearm with this mod. A record with even 1/8" off-center hole punch will only vary by 1/4" over a full rotation, and it is spread out over the whole rotation. This is nothing that would cause a modded arm to have any trouble. The arm moves with the groove as it tracks toward the center of the record quite accurately, manages off-center records as well as that arm ever did without the mod, and makes sound better. I'd consider that a successful result. If the arm has a wildly off-center hole punch, I'd consider that a defective record, and I don't design my arms to handle defective records, to the detriment of their ability to play normal records better. You could also say that if a record has a warp like a potato chip, then an arm wouldn't handle it, but is that the fault of the record or the arm? Even so, my modded arm tracks off-center records like a champ.

Jimbo, you can do what you are proposing, and it will improve the sound to some degree.

The improvements, however, will come from the lowering of the center of gravity of the counterweight, and not from increasing the horizontal mass component of the tonearm. This is because when you increase the mass of the counterweight by adding the lead tape, you will have to move the counterweight closer to the pivot in order to balance the cartridge. As such, the mass components as the cartridge sees them, will remain the same, or at least very similar. But lowering the center of gravity of the counterweight by adding the lead tape will improve the tracking of the cartridge and I suspect the improvement will be audible.

Due to the things I mentioned above, I think that adding the lead tape at the very bottom of the counterweight would be the most productive place to put it, in terms of making the most sonic improvements. If you have to make several layers on top of each other, to get the desired effect, then that is what you should do. Bringing the majority of the counterweight mass down near the level of the platter is known to improve the tracking performance.

However, I don't think that it will do anything for increasing the horizontal mass component. But hey, any improvement is worth doing, right? It's innovative, and cool to do your own tonearm mods.

Jim, there would be no problems, as long as you don't make the mass of the counterweight so high as to not be able to move it close enough to the pivot to allow counterbalancing of the cartridge. The heavier you make the counterweight, the closer it must be positioned to the pivot, in order to balance the arm. At some point, you can make it so heavy that you run out of room to move it forward on the arm, because you run into the bearing housing. That's the limit. Put the additional weight at the bottom where it will do the most good for lowering the center of mass.

Basement, regarding your thoughts on counterweight mass and absorbing vibrations, I have developed a new hanging counterweight for my arm that totally de-couples the mass from the arm, and the only thing that contacts the end-stub is a short length of fishing line. The counterweight is a lead bar that hangs under the end-stub like a swing, at the height of the platter surface. I have found that this beats the holy hell out of the Expressimo Heavyweight on my arm, and I am using it exclusively now. The sound is way more open and unencumbered, and really kicks ass. In my case, I found that getting the mass of the counterweight off the tonearm shaft entirely, really opened up the sound. With this counterweight and the HiFi mod, I am really in the top league with this tonearm now.

Jim, the hanging counterweight is good on my arm, but I don't know how it will affect the Well-Tempered. If the turntable doesn't bounce around much, it may be ok. It is not too good on Linns and tables that have springy suspensions. Also, if you are going to try it, I'd recommend using a rubber O-ring slid onto your end-stub at the correct place, and using that to stop the string from sliding backwards when you cue the tonearm. I found that without the O-ring as a "stop", the string wants to ride backward on the tonearm when you cue it, and then you lose your VTF setting, and it is a pain in the butt. The O-ring placed behind the string, at the correct point for the proper VTF setting, keeps the string from sliding and will retain your VTF setting, and is much more pleasant to use.

It is worth a try to use the hanging counterweight. It's cheap and easy to fabricate. If it doesn't do well in your application, it's no big loss. You can always go back to adding weight to your existing counterweight, like you were going to do.

The main idea is to hang it like a swing, with the string going across the arm tube, and holding the counterweight cross-wise, so it doesn't rotate around. Just hook the string to both ends of the lead bar. This works in my application, and the rubber O-ring keeps it in place on the end stub. It takes a little fiddling to find the exact place on the end-stub for the O-ring to be, but a few minutes with the VTF scale, and some very fine placement adjustment of the ring, will give you the proper spot. Once this is done, you can even totally remove the counterweight, and then replace it with the string against the front edge of the O-ring, and you have the same VTF setting. It is like a place holder. It just stops the string from sliding backwards. It isn't a clamp for the string, just a slide-stop.

Make the lead bar the same, or slightly heavier than your existing counterweight. Make the string the right length, so that when you hang the weight on your end-stub, the lead bar is about at the same level as the platter surface. Then slide the O-ring onto the end-stub, adjust the position until you get correct VTF with the string right up against the front edge of the O-ring. That's it.

Hopefully, there will be no parts of the tonearm housing that will be in the way of this during use. If there is, then you have to modify, or go back to Plan A.

You mean damping in the turntable, or arm, or what?

The Well-Tempered Arm is already pretty well damped. There is sand in the arm tube, and a big glob of silicone under the bottom of the stabilization disc. If anything, it may even be over damped. I strongly doubt that you are getting any ringing from that arm.

Perhaps as Basement states, you might get some benefit from doing something to the support housing for the arm. I don't know about that. I never tried doing any Well-Tempered mods.

Colitas, yes, I drilled the bases of the lead weights to fit the cap-nuts on the bearing axle. You have to use a 1/4" drill to do the depth of the rounded part of the cap nut, and 5/16" to fit over the flats of the nut. It is really 23/32", but if you use 5/16" and ream it a little bit, then it fits over nicely. I recommend super glue because it sets fast, but if you want to make it easily removeable, you can use clear silicone seal. It takes overnight to dry with silicone seal, so you need to make sure that you have the weights securely positioned during the glue-drying process.

For those that have been following this thread, I have just conducted a listening comparison with the OL Encounter against my HiFi Modded Silver arm. Basically, the Encounter has about the same effect as having the HiFi added to the Silver arm. The Encounter had an improved wiring loom, and has some other things like a tapered arm tube, that may have contributed to a slightly more refined presentation than my modded Silver arm. The Encounter sounded just a touch better overall. But the HiFi mod brings the Silver up to about even with the Encounter, with only very small difference in the refinement areas. That's the latest information available at this time. If you like the Encounter but can't afford it, then the modded Silver is a very good substitute for alot less money.

Jimbo, that just might be the ticket to use the same concept on many different arms. Thanks for sharing the tip with us.

Doug, they can go on halfway, and that is the normal position. But they can go on all the way by reaming them a little deeper, if you like the look better that way. I sent you an email about it. I hope you got it. You're right, they shouldn't touch the bearings at all, if you seat them deeper. So be careful.

Thanks Doug. I thought it would come around to that. Since the mod simply stablizes the arm laterally and cannot add anything, the cartridge will have excursion only to the extent that the recording modulates it. I knew the anomalies were in the recording.

I'm very glad that you are enjoying it. Of course, on your rig everything will show, and if there was something bad, you'd know it immediately. Nothing is totally perfect, but for $20, this has to be one of the world's best bang for the buck things ever. As the inventor I may be biased about it, but it does kick some major butt.

The voting is still unanimous. Every single person that ever used the HiFi Mod is very well pleased with the results.

Bill, thanks for your impressions. I was wondering if you had the chance to install it yet. Really glad that it is performing well in your system. Now you and the others are really getting the max out of your arms. It makes a difference to get all the performance the arm can do, instead of just some of it. The thing I like about it is that it doesn't really change the arm, it just lets the arm do what it can in a better way. You hear all of it instead of a portion. And of course, it also does the same thing for the cartridge because the arm's job is to hold it stable so it can pick up the maximum information.

Thanks for your kind words also. I feel very happy to have been able to help all of you with the sound quality of your analog rigs for such a reasonable price. I never really made any money off this mod because by the time I went and bought the stuff and worked on it and drove to the post office, it was a wash for me. But my reward was in the satisfaction that I got from helping all of you. That is why I was always so concerned about whether you got the desired results. It was worth the effort just to read the emails and posts from happy audiophiles. There is no price that can be placed on that. Those responses were worth more to me than any money. It made me feel good, and always brought a smile to my face. Money comes and goes, but happy experiences and friendship will give a lifetime of good memories. Money can't buy that.

I thank each and every one of you HiFi Mod users for your faith in getting my mod. There probably won't be many more now that they have changed the OL arm to the new type. But this has been a great experience for me, and it has truly been my pleasure to have met(by email) and worked with each of you. Keep in touch.

Tom