(heavier?)cartridge/stylus for worn records

hello

just wanted an opinion regarding what cartridge/stylus combo would be the most effective to play records that are pretty scratched i.e. to pick less pops and clicks.

i was looking on the net, and one recurring idea was that a cartridge that permits adding tracking force above the usual 2-2.5 g limit would make the stylus more stable on the grooves.

someone gave a pretty good review to the numark groove tool, which takes about 3-3.5 g tracking force. i looked up at some comments on amazon.com from people who bought this cartridge/stylus combo and it seemed that it was quite appreciated when used with more damaged records. dj's did not like it, but since i want to play rock music, dj-ing is not something that interests me.

just wondering whether the numark groove tool is good or not, and if there are other alternatives which permit a heavier tracking force.

i should also add that i use an ortofon cartridge at the moment, om5e. which i use on my main turntable, for good quality records.

i would like to fit my second turntable with a cartridge and stylus that is not too expensive and can take more tracking force, to play more damaged records.

it would be much appreciated to hear some opinions.

thanks!

snkechrm said:

hello

just wanted an opinion regarding what cartridge/stylus combo would be the most effective to play records that are pretty scratched i.e. to pick less pops and clicks.

i was looking on the net, and one recurring idea was that a cartridge that permits adding tracking force above the usual 2-2.5 g limit would make the stylus more stable on the grooves.

someone gave a pretty good review to the numark groove tool, which takes about 3-3.5 g tracking force. i looked up at some comments on amazon.com from people who bought this cartridge/stylus combo and it seemed that it was quite appreciated when used with more damaged records. dj's did not like it, but since i want to play rock music, dj-ing is not something that interests me.

just wondering whether the numark groove tool is good or not, and if there are other alternatives which permit a heavier tracking force.

i should also add that i use an ortofon cartridge at the moment, om5e. which i use on my main turntable, for good quality records.

i would like to fit my second turntable with a cartridge and stylus that is not too expensive and can take more tracking force, to play more damaged records.

it would be much appreciated to hear some opinions.

thanks!

Click to expand...

A cartridge for high VTF doesn´t track better than a one for normal VTF. Nor does it reduce the audibility of clicks and pops. It´s much more complicated than that, but generally a Shibata or ML would do what You want.
gusten

Most less than perfect records do better with less revealing pickups. ML and Shibatas are revealing and really for superior grade records well pressed. I use a broadcast cartridge for my worn records and older mono and early stereo discs unless mint. Also, with older records with less than full range response, they benefit from a cartridge which has no more than 18 Khz response.

I've also found that a cartridge tracking at higher vertical tracking force can help with less than pristine albums. I haven't tried the Groove Tool, but I have enjoyed the basic Stanton 500.V3 and the older 500AL cartridges equipped with .7 mil conical styli that track from 2-5 grams (on my arm, 3.25 grams proved optimal).

Unlike Gusten, I've found line contact styli to generally emphasize groove damage. Stereophile included this footnote on page eight of an article on "Tweaking your Record-Player."

Footnote 12: Changing to a different cartridge can sometime work sonic wonders with old records, due to the new stylus riding on a different, relatively undamaged part of the groove wall. On the other hand, changing to a cartridge with a long-contact profile, Microridge or van den Hul, for example, can often increase surface noise and the reading of groove damage due to the stylus's being in contact with more of the groove wall.—JA

In their ads and sales literature, there was a time when Decca lauded the spherical stylus over the elliptical and recommended that tracking force be no lower than 3-4 grams. I'll be redundant and re-post what I wrote a few years back:

While perusing some back issues of audio magazines at the library recently, I ran across a review of the Decca Mk V. Without going into any details, the reviewer mentioned that Decca listed specific reasons why they eschewed light tracking forces and elliptical styli (of course, they later changed their minds about that). It's been a while since I've had any Decca cartridge literature around, but I seem to recall one argument in favor of a heavier-tracking spherical being its ability to "polish" or "burnish" the record grooves, actually resulting in better-than-new sound after a play or two. A couple of recent incidents got me thinking about that:

1. Using an LP12/Ittok/Grado Green, a copy of Beecham Bon-Bons broke up and distorted badly on Saint-Saens's Samson et Dalila near the end of the record side, but it played marvelously on my Stanton STR8-80/500AL (spherical stylus tracking at 3.25 grams). Putting it back on the Linn a few days later, there was no trace of break-up on that same cut.

2. A Time-Life set of the music of Robert Schumann had a variety of strange buurrpp and blaatting noises here and there on various album sides, as well as an overall noisy presentation. I played the entire set on the Stanton without hearing any of those anomolies, and, once again, they then played just fine with the Grado.

If you're curious about the Groove Tool, or some other heavy-tracking conical, go ahead and try one. They're cheap enough. And record wear is not a problem, either. Studies I've read show that a .7 mil conical tracking at 3 grams wears a record at about the same rate as a .2 X .7 mil elliptical tracking at 1.5 grams. None of the records I own were damaged by the Stanton tracking at 3.25 grams; rather, they were improved!

this is some interesting stuff to hear, guys...

i decided to give the groove tool a go on my second turntable at this stage. just ordered one.

would still be interested to hear opinions though.

cheers heaps!

This thread is getting very interesting. Anecdotically i'm right now using a conical at 2.5g on a Philips cartridge and once i had the slight impression that records were getting quieter with each play. But i may be completely wrong.

But i have read about heavier VTFs playing quieter (which has sense, since this increases the indentation on the vinyl and thus this makes the stylus read less of the surface imperfections --- at the expense of potentially wiping out the highest frequencies (15KHz+) ).

jrtrent said:

A couple of recent incidents got me thinking about that:

1. Using an LP12/Ittok/Grado Green, a copy of Beecham Bon-Bons broke up and distorted badly on Saint-Saens's Samson et Dalila near the end of the record side, but it played marvelously on my Stanton STR8-80/500AL (spherical stylus tracking at 3.25 grams). Putting it back on the Linn a few days later, there was no trace of break-up on that same cut.

2. A Time-Life set of the music of Robert Schumann had a variety of strange buurrpp and blaatting noises here and there on various album sides, as well as an overall noisy presentation. I played the entire set on the Stanton without hearing any of those anomolies, and, once again, they then played just fine with the Grado.

If you're curious about the Groove Tool, or some other heavy-tracking conical, go ahead and try one. They're cheap enough. And record wear is not a problem, either. Studies I've read show that a .7 mil conical tracking at 3 grams wears a record at about the same rate as a .2 X .7 mil elliptical tracking at 1.5 grams. None of the records I own were damaged by the Stanton tracking at 3.25 grams; rather, they were improved!

Click to expand...

Very, very interesting.

Just out of curiosity. Were those two once-problematic records CLEANED thoroughly with some cleaning fluid? Because this can also be dirtiness that was then pushed aside by the heavier tracking stylus.

Agree with you on the record wear paragraph too.

Couple of options: Shure M97Xe with the brush down and the highest recomended TF. Should track over everything but the Grand Canyon. Same for an original Stanton/Pickering factory brush. The aftermarket brushes do not always add tracking assistance.

If that does not help, try tracking higher or lower in the groove. An ML or Shibata will get down in the groove, but may still pick up bottom crud and distortions in the groove wall where the scratch punched through. For higher, try a conical. AT makes one with a carbon fiber cantilever that is still pretty musical and seems to help.

Or, try some 78 styli as they come in different sizes. Or, try playing the record with a light film of water and a drop of mild soap. The wet dampens the abrupt transitions and the soap lubricates. Be careful which cartridge you pick for wet as it needs to minimize wicking up water into the body (future corrosion).

Or, play it with a dedicated Mono Cartridge as it only reveals horizontal signals and won't "hear" the vertical impulses. Or, use a stereo cartridge, but switch on Mono to sum the channels and cancel about 1/2 the noise.

Or, ....

For worn & scratched LPs and 45s I use:

Stanton 500 with 0.7 mil conical
Ortofon Concorde with D25M (1.1 mil conical)
Grado ME+ (mono cart w/1.0 mil elliptical)

If using a stereo cartridge (as in the Stanton & Ortofon above) to play mono records, the results will be much quieter using a mono button on the phono preamp or amp.

cactuscowboy said:

For worn & scratched LPs and 45s I use:

Stanton 500 with 0.7 mil conical

Click to expand...

Is the Stanton 520 that's currently available the same as the 500? I used to use the 500 with the DAT2 stylus (I think) for this exact purpose years ago...but I can't seem to put my finger on where it's gotten to.

Stanton 400 is much like the old 500/Pickering V 15 and takes the same styli. And excellent for early monos and beat up and noisy discs. And will reduce some of that surface noise.