Vinyl clicks and pops

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by ZloyeZlo, Jul 27, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wally Swift

    Wally Swift Yo-Yoing where I will...

    Location:
    Brooklyn New York
    Was that this little place on the south side of Sunrise Highway?
     
  2. Wally Swift

    Wally Swift Yo-Yoing where I will...

    Location:
    Brooklyn New York
    How do you like this amp? I've got one too.
     
  3. Shak Cohen

    Shak Cohen Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Neither is digital. But both are necesssary for a true music fan, IMO.
     
    David Ellis and csgreene like this.
  4. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Not at all true.
     
    MrS, Daniel Thomas and TLMusic like this.
  5. ROLO46

    ROLO46 Forum Resident

    Its ironic Raunch.
     
  6. bluesky

    bluesky Senior Member

    Location:
    south florida, usa
    What clicks and pops?

    :)
     
    Ortofun and MrS like this.
  7. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I don't want to get into the analog v digital thing, but will comment on the record clicks and pops/static/treatment aspect:
    1. The idea of putting any kind of coating on a record, like WD 40, or even using a Bounce cloth, is anathema to me. I go to a lot of trouble to remove stuff that has made its way on to records over the years (I buy mostly old records) and the difference between a record that hasn't been cleaned and one that has been cleaned is often dramatic. The sonic signature of coatings is noticeable and affects your ability to hear what is on the record. (I'm going to avoid the Last thing, which is especially formulated for vinyl- i don't use it but know others believe in it and don't want to argue that one either).
    2. The Zerostat, Milty, or whatever it is called can be overkill. It is powerful. I would only use it as a last resort and get to the bottom of the cause of the static, if that's what the problem is.
    3. I play vinyl in my bare feet, no shoes, no socks, which generate a charge. Sleeving can create friction and cause a charge. Certain types of sleeve material are more likely to create a charge. Low relative humidity, e.g. dryness in the winter with central heating, increases the possibility of static.
    4. Some cartridges are going to be more sensitive to surface noise, clicks and pop, than others.
     
    TLMusic, utahusker and blakep like this.
  8. ZloyeZlo

    ZloyeZlo New Member Thread Starter

    Great amp. I was buying it for the digital set up, and it just conveniently happened to have a phono input when I decided to get the TT. Plus, I got it new for 50% of MSRP.
     
  9. Wally Swift

    Wally Swift Yo-Yoing where I will...

    Location:
    Brooklyn New York
    It has a great, warm, old school sound. When my repairman failed to fix my Sansui 2000X I bought the PM5004. Then about 3 months later I found a real tech who did some restoration work on my Sansui and since then the Marantz has been packed away. I was thinking of selling it but it's such a great amp that I decided to keep it as a backup.
     
  10. FrankieP

    FrankieP Forum Resident

    There were two of them and yes it was off Sunrise Highway. The first one had a basement that was just piles and piles of old records. Very moldy, musty and dusty. I remember I would spend a whole day there with my fingers all crusted in black soot and dust when I was done. The very definition of crate digging! The other store was a nice DJ oriented shop which the name escapes me now. Imports sumthin...
    Anyway, sorry to derail this thread OP!
     
    Wally Swift likes this.
  11. Luckydog

    Luckydog Active Member

    Location:
    london, uk
    Although I don't like the idea, in practice I find such things can be highly effective in reducing crackle/pop surface noise of a certain very common type. And the sonic signature I find to be a profound improvement in clarity/resolution which are confirmed by measurement. And if one chooses to apply such treatments to 'normal low noise records', results can be the best I've encountered both as to to sound and measurement. I've yet to find a parameter which measures or sounds worse IME, - awkward but true !

    When one cleans vinyl, perhaps nature of the surface may change? And I find mostly crackle/pop improves but isn't eliminated, sometimes it's worse/different and sometimes about the same. Using a friction reducing agent can significantly reduce residual crackle/pop I find. At it's simplest, water even works well. Wet playback can significantly reduce certain crackle/pop for example - I believe water's reputation of lore for 'permanently' affecting vinyl may be due to sometimes permanently altering friction/lubricant nature of vinyl in its dry state, FWIW.

    However, as already posted, I too try to avoid using a friction reducing agent, unless the record has stubborn crackle/pop noise of a certain type. But for such records I use a lubricant treatment, which can be highly effective I find - as confirmed by missan in this thread. I believe there are three common causes of surface crackle/pop noise a) with a groove friction cause b) with a dirt/contamination cause c) with scratch/burn damage. And IME types a) and b) are common and generally treatable, and occur on otherwise mint records. I venture type a) may even be the most common. Type c) is rarer IME and generally visible to the eye as maltreatment damage, and untreatable except by digital restoration IME. All three types are independent ie can crop up together or separately - one reason why discussion of surface noise can often fail to reach a consensus I reckon !

    But no doubt IME successful friction reducing agents can produce profound audible and measurably improvements, even for 'normal' records -perhaps even the ultimate playback experience !?
     
  12. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    I don't think wet playing is useful for anything other than one time archiving. You saying you do this to records you play regularly?
     
  13. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Lucky- I have no doubt that lubricants (and from what I can tell, that's essentially what's happening with Bounce too) make the record quieter. But, i think in the process of 'smoothing' out surface noice, you are necessarily losing information in the groove. I am not basing this on measurements (though those would certainly be welcome), but only on my own experience in getting a record really clean and hearing what it does to the sound.
    Agreed, bad cleaning/handling technique can make things worse.
    Also aware of wet playing for recording purposes- never did it myself; this is similar to the experience people had with bad cleaning- they had to keep recleaning the record everytime they played it, otherwise it sounded noisy. My suspicion was- they weren't getting the stuff off the surface the first time, so by rewetting/cleaning, it acted much like a lubricant.
    Agreed, apart from pressing defects, much noise is either groove damage which you can do little about, static, which you can address or contamination, which you can eliminate. I've had old records that for one reason or another, were virtually unplayable- most recently, one that sounded 'crispy/fuzzy' at the high frequencies, like the grooves had been chewed- usually a fatal sign. But because the record was extremely valuable and relatively rare ( I could have returned it but chose to 'work on it,' ), I managed through a variety of cleaning steps- none volatile- to get the record to M- playability with only about three short spots where the fuzzy distortion is more or less permanent. That tells me that the problem largely was not irreversible groove damage, but something ground into the grooves. (My point here isn't even that a lubricant that doesn't dry can attract contaminants to the record, though I suspect that is true; instead, that putting anything on a record surface affects the sound).
    Sorry if I sound absolute/ Old Testament about this; I'm not rejecting your approach if it works for you. On balance, you may choose the lubricant over noise and that makes sense. I've just found that a well cleaned record sounds better and if only because I don't want to mask or conceal what's on the grooves, stay away from additives, coatings and lubricants. (In fact, as my cleaning techniques and the products have improved over the years, my records sound better)- I listened yesterday to my original copy of Countdown to Ecstasy that I bought when it was released. It sounded great. I cleaned it using my current multi- step process, since I can't remember the last time I pulled that record out- 10 or 20 years ago? I've had that record for what- 40 plus years?
    Final thought- I also don't want to contaminate my stylus. Cartridges today are crazy expensive and I have to assume that a lubricant on the record is going to migrate to the stylus.
    (I appreciate the kind and thoughtful way you disagreed with me, though. This is a good discussion that would probably be as enjoyable in person).
    Best regards,
    bill
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2014
    Ntotrar likes this.
  14. Luckydog

    Luckydog Active Member

    Location:
    london, uk
    I found water to be the first and simplest lubricant which readily displays the achievable improvements. As a proof of concept, it's brilliant. But it dries, and so the improvement is not permanent. What's more, sometimes when it dries the friction surface seems to have permanently altered, so the click/pop problem can become 'permanently' worse when playing dry. But not always. Besides water is messy. So no, I don't use water any more - well very rarely. I continue to look for the ultimate permanent treatment - but at the moment I use a siloxane based lubricant similar to missan's method. But only for already clean undamaged records requiring treatment for stubborn crackle/pop. ie the common type a) above.

    BTW, perhaps the reason that 'wood glue' cleaning can be so effective at reducing surface noise is that a component of PVA might naturally lubricate or improve vinyl surface as to friction - rather than removing dirt (which it also probably does) ?? I don't use wood glue cleaning, BTW, just mention it because I think the reason it works might be different from what people think..........!
     
  15. Luckydog

    Luckydog Active Member

    Location:
    london, uk
    Cleaning seems to address a certain type of problem in my book, and can't treat others, eg those with a friction cause. Well perhaps in the sense that cleaning the friction surface might alter it, but IME although that is mostly for the good it can be worse or unaltered too. Despite what one might expect as to 'smoothing out losing detail', it apparently doesn't happen - quite the opposite. For example, harmonic distortion actually improves ie tracing accuracy is better with successful lubricants. Frequency response unaltered. Slew rate unaltered or slightly improved. LF stability/FM significantly improved. All from my own measurements. What's more, this is on top of the primary improvement to noise floor. All in all measurements confirm a profound improvement in audible performance with a successful lubricant IME. Profound.


    My take on this is that cleaning might well alter the nature of the friction surface too, and bring about crackle/pop reduction that way. I wouldn't jump to conclude 'dirt' or contamination as the cause - it is hard to separate from friction as a cause I reckon. But IME there's often residual crackle/pop noise left after even the most careful cleaning which can often be eliminated via lubrication. Or even straight from the factory ! From which I conclude that the nature of the vinyl surface itself can play a significant role in crackle/pop noise, and I believe this is overlooked. This is the noise that's treatable with lubricants, I find. Too much is attributed to damage or 'ground in dirt' when cleaning alone doesn't treat the noise IMO. I agree, permament untreatable damage is far rarer than often portrayed. From what you describe, I expect a lubricant treatment might well improve that record - versus the risk of mucking about with a rare record.........that's an individual decision no doubt - I probably wouldn't either.


    Yup, I empathise there. My search for an ultimate elixir goes on. And I find this a fascinating and interesting discussion too Bill.
     
  16. Antares

    Antares Forum Resident

    Location:
    Flanders
    My intuition says you need a minimum amount of friction not to "gloss over" the finer details. And that's exactly what wet cleaning + rinsing gives you, more friction/traction. YMMV.
     
  17. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    I don´t use white glue either, I have tested it, but using siloxane is much better IME. But I agree, what happens to the surface is difficult to know, but that is my thinking also. PVA-compound can be altering the surface so in fact friction is reduced.
    Using siloxane from my part is to reduce friction, and I have done it for several years. My measurements show a significant reduction and I see no possible way, so far, to do it in any other way with no draw backs and such an improvement in sound quality.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2014
  18. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    Nah, friction is always bad as I see it. Friction causes noise and tracking problems.
     
  19. blakep

    blakep Senior Member

    No doubt. But I cannot see how placing a lubricating agent between the stylus and the groove wall can "improve" sound quality. After all, it can only reduce the physical interaction between the two, which is really what it's all about.

    I must admit I have limited experience with lubricating agents on records. I would say that my one experience with it (albeit on hundreds of records) using RRL/Mobile Fidelity Super Vinyl Wash was not very positive.

    RRL/Mo Fi market the SVW as a final stage cleaner. It apparently uses carboglycinates as a vinyl lubricant and RRL/Mo Fi claim they are chosen because of a lack of any sonic signature. What I (and others) have found, however, is that they tend to roll off the highs and mask detail and information.

    I ended up re-cleaning/rinsing a large portion of my collection that had been cleaned with the SVW with ultrapure water as the final cleaning stage and in virtually every case there was simply more music. I suppose that some records may have played slightly noisier (and I'm talking very slightly and not in any way annoyingly noisy-personally, I just do not keep records like that) but I attribute this more to differences in vinyl formulation shown up by an improved stylus/groove wall interface. In the end, some vinyl is simply quieter than others (70's & 80's Mobile Fidelity releases-"high definition Super Vinyl" by Victor Company of Japan-being a prime example of extremely "quiet" vinyl).

    As such, I'm simply reluctant to really mess around experimenting with lubricants; it's not just counterintuitive to me: it literally does not make any sense to me in terms of achieving maximum information retrieval.
     
  20. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm

    At some point we can come to a decision what to do if we want to achieve the most from the records, as I see it. We might then realize that the friction is one parameter that is holding the SQ back.
    There are many other parameters, like vibrations and others, but friction is very significant IME.
     
    Luckydog likes this.
  21. bluesky

    bluesky Senior Member

    Location:
    south florida, usa
    Solution:

    Only use M or M- LPs with an Ortofon cartridge.

    Works for me. Hardly any clicks or pops.
     
  22. Spirit Crusher

    Spirit Crusher Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mad Town, WI
    I just remembered that the NAD 1130 preamp has input capacitance selection of 100, 220, 320, so at least that's something, but apparently not low enough. I have it set to 100pF, and the resistors I have are 82K ohms, I don't know the underlying principles so I don't know what all this adds up to.
     
  23. Luckydog

    Luckydog Active Member

    Location:
    london, uk
    That's exactly where I started from. But I had to re-appraise and try to work out how/why it does..........! Objectively and subjectively profound. Demonstrable, repeatable - plain awkward to explain.

    Bluesky - I believe friction is one way in which stylus can affect surface noise and other aspects of performance BTW. SRA too.

    Missan - yes, friction is a parameter holding back SQ bigtime IMO.
     
    missan likes this.
  24. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    Ld, many times conclusions
    don´t come easy, they are not intuitive, a great understanding of mechanics is mandatory, and I know You have this, and also one needs an open mind. So the only way is really to test all this in a proper way, after that we will know much more of what is happening, hopefully.
    That low friction is a true way to achieve the best performance must be understood by testing , me thinks, if not by understanding the mechanics
    .
     
  25. dconsmack

    dconsmack Senior Member

    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Are the 82k ohm resistors installed? I wouldn't deviate from 47k ohms for any moving magnet cartridge unless it's manual specifies it. If you can get low capacitance RCA cables (around 33pF a foot; look up Blue Jeans Cable or what KAB USA has), and get them to reach your preamp with 1.5 feet instead of the typical 3' length, that would add only 60pF (that includes the wire inside your tonearm). Then along with your preamp set to 100pF, you would have a total capacitance of 160pF. That's right in the middle of the range for Audio Technica moving magnet carts. But as long as your RCA inter connect doesn't exceed 100pF, you're good with the lowest capacitance setting of your preamp.
     
    Shak Cohen likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine