Silicone for Tri-Planer damping trough

Thanks Doug,

Point taken about the Triplanar (adjusting depth as opposed to adding / removing fluid). Upon re-reading my post, I realized that I was a bit unclear.

Also, as far as doubling/halving is concerned, I was trying to refer to successive halvings and doublings and not just a single coarse swipe at the problem - a binary search technique to organize your problem solving approach and hopefully minimize the time to get to a fine adjustment.

Now, there's certainly the possibility that depending on the arm's damping design, there's a non-linear relationship - in the same way that changing the magnet spacing on the Schröder results in non-linear changes (the square of the distance and all that).

So, doubling the amount of silicone might have much more than twice the effect - whatever doubling means in terms of results that is, and for that matter, how you'd measure that.

My hat is indeed off to the "speedy one" for persevering in his damping of the Graham 2.2.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

And persevere I HAVE!!!Regardless of my past comments(of course I still love my 2.2),I cannot stand this business of damping anymore!!Now that I am one week away from being set-up again,whew,I hope to NOT get too nuts with this again.
Actually,a friend has just taken possession(Today/Friday)of a new Transfiguration Orpheus,and I am installing it next Friday(he will do a rough break-in this week).The fluid business,HOPEFULLY,will be in line with what we've come to expect from the Temper-v.PLEASE GOD!Let it be close,and not require alot of "patchkaing"!I really want to enjoy some of the fine Barolo's he has on tap.Yet,he won't allow me to partake,until all is perfect.
I have no audio friends who like damping,to any degree!My friend,Sid,never used it in his Air Tangent.Actually,he is almost "militant" about it's negative effects on vinyl reproduction.What can I say?
I never liked my Triplaner with damping,either.BTW,correct me if I am wrong,but the damping in the 2.2 is NOT the same as the damping in the Triplaner.The 2.2 damps the bearing resonance,whereas in the "Tri",it is for horizontal tracking.Right?Wow,can you imagine an arm not having any bearings to "chatter around"?Hmm!
Though I do like my 2.2,basically because it is a "good" overall product,I admit to being more than a little interested in the Schroeder REF.
I have not heard this,but I trust Cello's intuitive approach to this hobby.He far prefers "it" to the 2.2,which is a "pain in the ass",in terms of voicing accurately."Piccolodium" again!Anyone claiming otherwise has not played with it enough!
I do hope to take Larry's invite(anew),to hear this latest arm,sometime this winter,when I go to Florida,to visit my mom.
In the meantime,and anticipating how good that "REF" must really be,in his set-up,I will be refining my "suck-up" skills. -:)

Best!
Mark

.
Thom,
.
Nice couple of posts...Thanks.
.
Off topic, but I would love to know your top 5 pre-amps with phono stages in order of preference.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

Doug, after all your posts on the subject, I bought a Triplanar from Mehran and mounted it with my ZYX Universe on my Sota Cosmos. I am floored that a tone arm can make that much of an improvement!! (moved from a Well Tempered arm) Easy to set up, but still tweaking a bit.

Particularly astounding is the improvement in bass and micro detail... for the time being, I'm not anxious to fill the damping trough, again based upon the posts here--so far the only times I hear 'shrill or honk' is from the recording as my reference records are absolutely phenomenal through the Triplanar/ZYX.

I tried the VII with very, very little damping fluid, then a bit more, then I adjusted the screw in a few positions and finally I ended using the arm without ANY fluid.
It degraded the speed and the air in the High Frequency area. It made my arm slow. Not really slow, but the way I hear the difference. Has nothing to do with the Cartridges, I tried a few and the Result was always identical.