What does that really?

A stylus is not an AI (aritficially intelligent) device, right? I mean, a stylus does not have pop/click sensing circuitry? A stylus does not have a built in compressor, with adjustable knee, that automatically "opens or closes" depending on incoming signal detection, right? A stylus is very simply "a stick" designed to trace a groove and influence a magnetic field more or less in a cartridge (over simplified)? And, that cartridge is charged (no pun intended, or maybe, a little) with transmitting that signal downstream.

If I'm in the ballpark with that description, how can a forgiving stylus/cartridge really be doing it's job better than a less forgiving stylus/cartridge? Since the cartridge does not have the ability to differentiate between a click and a fast transient that's supposed to be there, it stands to reason that a cartridge that is less sensitive to pops/clicks is also less sensitive in other areas, generally. Or, in other words, the said cartridge is not able to retrieve as much detail as a less forgiving stylus simply because it can't move fast enough to capture/transmit faster transients in all of their glorious detail or unglorious ugliness. Glorious or ugly, isn't it the job of the stylus/cartridge to read what's there?

I know I like what I like (which is totally subjective); but, I know I don't everything... far from it. So, help me understand from the objective of cartridges are supposed to transmit everything, as much as possible, contained in the grooves... the good, the bad and the ugly. Because, anything less than that is "leaving something out".

My Shure and Grado could be qualified as "somewhat forgiving" and at the same time I find them far less revealing in the upper mid and higher frequencies especially when compared to my Audio Technica, which is more prone to pass on a pop or click and is noticeably more detailed. Depending on the vinyl involved, I can see the need for a synergistic stylus/cartridge; however, the objective part seems to say "either the cartridge excels at capturing fast transients or it doesn't", comparatively speaking with other cartridges. Are there any real reasons, from a physics standpoint, that support the idea that a stylus quick enough to trace fast transients would somehow also be able to shrug off a pop or a click? This seems incongruous. If it's a matter of the cartridge's output limiting the amplitude of the pop or click, how close is it to the loudest peak from the program material and is it close enough to cause unwanted clipping?

Thoughts?

I think it comes down to the shape of the stylus and condition of the record.

If a record is clean and but has scuffing/light scratches then a microline or he stylus is going to be riding a lot lower in the groove and not come into contact with the scratch damage at the top of the groove.

If the record has dirt in the bottom of the groove then a fine stylus is going to come in contact with the gunk and sound noisier than a conical stylus for example.

Yup, that about equals my experience.

I think it comes down to the shape of the stylus and condition of the record.

If a record is clean and but has scuffing/light scratches then a microline or he stylus is going to be riding a lot lower in the groove and not come into contact with the scratch damage at the top of the groove.

If the record has dirt in the bottom of the groove then a fine stylus is going to come in contact with the gunk and sound noisier than a conical stylus for example.

Yup, that about equals my experience.

:scratch2: I hadn't thought about that. So, what I really need to find is a great cartridge with a "fast" concical, eliptical, microline and shibata stylus. I guess, in a sense, that's what we do with 78 rpm... different stylus for different application. Sometimes, I read reviews or manufacturer claims and they just don't add up; hence, the questions. There seems to be a fear of consumers not being able to handle the pros and cons and choose whichever best suits them. Instead phraseology is used to imply that, in this case, a stylus/cartridge can "do it all". I have rarely found this to be true; more so, it will excel in one area and not so much in another. That's perfectly fine with me. I suck at golf; pretty good at tennis. No foul. I don't lose sleep over it. What's wrong with saying, "This stylus/cartridge excels in detail; but, it'll ride the gunk in the grooves", or "This stylus/cartridge is nice and warm; but, it'll get smacked around by scratches". More, straight talk for audiophiles, please.

Thanks for weighing in!

I use 3 different carts for now. I keep my AT71E for scratched records as it is the cheaper of the 3 but my Realistic/Shure R-27 is good for gunk but bad at scratches. My Stanton 500 is great at Scratches but bad at gunk.

I think bhundu's post was right on the mark!

What bhundu said, "I think it comes down to the shape of the stylus and condition of the record." is absolutely correct!

Think of a groove cut into clay-like earth by a heavy plow. Imagine that groove is smoothed-sided, but a bit wiggly. The sun comes out and bakes it all hard. That is the groove on your record.

Now imagine you come along with a bunch of different-shaped sticks you want to drag along that groove (those are your styli). The first stick you try is a big, fat, rounded one. Let's call that a "conical". It wiggles along, riding high in the groove and following it nicely, but gradually wearing off some of the sharper edges where it contacts the sides of the groove. The more you drag it in the groove, the worse the sound gets, as it wears out much of the wiggly detail where it rides along the groove. To make things worse, one day you are tired and drag your feet across the grooves (a scratch!). Now every time you drag that stick, it gets knocked around by the "scratch" in a big way, too!

Now you try a much thinner stick; it goes right down along the bottom of the groove. The problem here is that some of the bits that were worn off by the first stick --and some that were knocked off when the scratch was made-- have fallen down there and got "stuck", along with some leaves and gunk that have blown in (airborne dust). So the thin stick sounds terrible; it is following not just the groove pattern, but also bouncing all over all that gunk at the bottom.

So now you try a middle-sized one with angles cut on its sides that just match the angles of the groove walls. This may have different names, but this time let's call it a "microline". Since this one will pick up the undamaged sides walls below where the conical one rode, yet won't quite hit the rubble at the bottom, you can get a nice, clear sound from it, as it follows all the original wiggles the plow made.

Lets say you get a broom and a bit of water (an RCM and brush) and clean all the gunk out of the bottom of the groove. Now your thin stick will also sound good!

But let's say you over-use the thin stick until it cuts a deep groove of its own at the bottom of the plow's groove. Oops! Now the thin stick won't sound good any more. Maybe now the only one that still sounds good is the Microline. Eventually, it will wear out the section of the groove wall it rides along, but if you are careful to keep it lined up just right and drag it along at just the right angle and speed, maybe that won't be soon. When it eventually happens and the groove is no good at the top, the middle AND the bottom, then that record is completely "worn out", and no longer playable.


Your neighbor has a groove of his own (= a different record). He used a stick from day one that rode along the middle of the groove. But one day his stick got damaged. He kept using it, anyway, and wrecked the middle part of the groove. Now that stylus sounds terrrible on his groove. But your big, fat conical one sounds great on his groove, because it rides above the level where the damage is. If he cleans the gunk out of the bottom of his groove, then a very thin stick will sound good on his, too. :yes: But eventually, years in the future, all levels will be too worn out, and his groove will be unplayable, too.

Note that every time you drag the groove with a stick that is split or bent, or angled weirdly, you dig into and damage the sides of the groove. And every time you drag along a bunch of gunk with your stick, the gunk may damage the sides of the groove, too. So to make your grooves last the longest possible time, you want to use undamaged sticks (unworn styli) dragged straight along the axes of the groove (stylus/cart alignment), which itself is clean and free of gunk.

Which stylus shape will sound best on any given record depends on what kind of damage/noise it suffers from:

1. Changing the stylus shape to avoid areas of wear caused by a differently-shaped stylus can yield great improvement, because a different shape of stylus will ride in a different part of the groove.

2. Using a narrower stylus that rides lower than the areas of wear, and below the depth of any surface scratches, can yield great improvement, UNLESS there is gunk lower down in the grooves.

3.Using a wider stylus that rides above "gunk" in the groove can yield great improvement, when the records aren't clean enough. Gunk (mold release compound from the original manufacturing process; dust; bits of vinyl; fingerprint oils; detergent residues; ANYTHING other than the original vinyl = gunk!) is bad, so cleaning records very, very well --such as with a good RCM-- is a very good idea!

We cannot see the tiny scratches, worn edges and gunk in the grooves with our eyes, or even with most microscopes, so the easiest way to be sure of which stylus will give the best sound with a given record is simply to have a number of different styli, and try them all. See which stylus type sounds best on each given record. Making this easier is one reason why some audiophiles like to have multiple turntables, and/or multiple tonearms on a table. Devise a simple system for keeping track of your stylus-swapping experiments, and you can play each of your favorite records with the particular stylus that makes it sound the best!

Arkay that is really a brilliant dscription of the vinil reality.
Just to confirm the this explanation i just received my new At 440mla cart and my lps sound better than ever.
The biggest test was playing my 30 years old "Deep purple in rock" that was played many times on a difficult track like "Child in time" very high notes came out perfect better than 1st time it played because the cart is better and the new 1200mkII is of another league + 4 new jbl towers.
The end result is that if i compare the new/old situation i now hear music before i heard a lot of noise!!!!!!!!!

Arkay... fantastic "word pictures".

Not too long ago I saw a photo of someone's turntable which had a ridiculous number of cartridges sitting atop the platter. My initial thought was... "dude's crazy... and rich" (full well, ignoring the fact that I keep 5 to 6 cartridges on hand). It's not so crazy after all. Next time I shop for another cartridge I'll be keeping in mind what type of record I want to play with it as much as what stylus shape and brand I want to try.

I have three carts and if I rated them on surface noise and pops and clicks it would be like this:

Grado Blue = Minimal surface noise and pops and clicks

Denon DL-110 = Slightly higher than the Grado Blue but usually very quiet

Grado Gold = Doesn't like worn albums at all, I keep it for my better sounding ones.

The Grado Blue is less detailed in the top end, rolled off I suspect so maybe that's why it's so quiet.

Arkay, truly outstanding description. That's why I have two turntables in my main system : Lenco L75 with Decca Tonearm and AT 440 mla cartridge and Rega P3 with a Denon DL 103. I figure with two completely different turntable drive systems (idler drive vs belt) , two completely different tonearms (unipivot vs standard bearings) and two completely different cartridges (MM microline vs low output MC with a conical stylus) I ought to have the variations covered (within my budget level anyway).

This works most of the time as you pointed out with worn or scratchy records. The amazing thing to me is that with good records, both systems sound very good and musical and surprisingly not all that different.

What does that really?

A stylus is not an AI (aritficially intelligent) device, right? I mean, a stylus does not have pop/click sensing circuitry? A stylus does not have a built in compressor, with adjustable knee, that automatically "opens or closes" depending on incoming signal detection, right? A stylus is very simply "a stick" designed to trace a groove and influence a magnetic field more or less in a cartridge (over simplified)? And, that cartridge is charged (no pun intended, or maybe, a little) with transmitting that signal downstream.

If I'm in the ballpark with that description, how can a forgiving stylus/cartridge really be doing it's job better than a less forgiving stylus/cartridge? Since the cartridge does not have the ability to differentiate between a click and a fast transient that's supposed to be there, it stands to reason that a cartridge that is less sensitive to pops/clicks is also less sensitive in other areas, generally. Or, in other words, the said cartridge is not able to retrieve as much detail as a less forgiving stylus simply because it can't move fast enough to capture/transmit faster transients in all of their glorious detail or unglorious ugliness. Glorious or ugly, isn't it the job of the stylus/cartridge to read what's there?

I know I like what I like (which is totally subjective); but, I know I don't everything... far from it. So, help me understand from the objective of cartridges are supposed to transmit everything, as much as possible, contained in the grooves... the good, the bad and the ugly. Because, anything less than that is "leaving something out".

My Shure and Grado could be qualified as "somewhat forgiving" and at the same time I find them far less revealing in the upper mid and higher frequencies especially when compared to my Audio Technica, which is more prone to pass on a pop or click and is noticeably more detailed. Depending on the vinyl involved, I can see the need for a synergistic stylus/cartridge; however, the objective part seems to say "either the cartridge excels at capturing fast transients or it doesn't", comparatively speaking with other cartridges. Are there any real reasons, from a physics standpoint, that support the idea that a stylus quick enough to trace fast transients would somehow also be able to shrug off a pop or a click? This seems incongruous. If it's a matter of the cartridge's output limiting the amplitude of the pop or click, how close is it to the loudest peak from the program material and is it close enough to cause unwanted clipping?

Thoughts?


just remember that analog is not a perfect medium....no medium is. we're talking about a tiny piece of diamond sliding and gliding in a groove pressed into a thin slab of vinyl. the stylus does not differentiate what is musical signal and what is not, so essentially the stylus is going to "play" whatever is in the groove...be it music signal or be it something that will produce a "click" or "pop".

Fantastic description Arkay!

A forgiving needle can be a needle that doesn´t have the ability to reproduce a high frequency, or at least reproduce the high frequency at a lower level.

Another thing (if it´s not been mentioned) that is very important and were erlier tested, is the dampening of the needle. I.e. how much the needle is ringing after a transient. A high quality needle with a low effective tip mass will, after a square wave,(which the click could be considered as) have a much shorter ringing time, and thus be less audible in respect to clicks and pops.
gusten

Edit: So a very high resolution and a low level of clicks and pops will go hand in hand.