Good Cartridge for noisy vinyl??

Yes, it will play the 45's. And the 0.6 conical will play the 50's microgroove monaural LP records which were cut for a 1 mil stylus, as well as the early mono 45's. The monaural 45's continued to be cut with the wider "microgroove" into the early 60's.

I have played these early monos on my Nagatron MC-8 with 0.6 mil conical without any tracking problems. Again I must add, the groove must be clear of the debris field near the bottom of the groove. The 0.6 conical will be tracking lower in the groove, hopefully below the wear zone. Not all records will respond equally to the smaller stylus, since the wear may run deeper on some records. If the wear is too deep, and very advanced, it becomes impossible to obtain a clean play.

 

Best conical for a Pickering XV-15 is the Stanton D6800A. Good luck finding one. They are now pricey. I stockpiled due to needing them. Back when they were getting hard to find.

 

same theory applies to o.6 elliptical?

 

Elliptical might do OK, but for styrene 45 duty they are dicey. Some work great, some do not.

 

ok. Im not thinking Styrene 45s though. Im wondering whats the difference between a conical v elliptical stylus, and if what the fringe said above would apply to ellipticals as well.

 

Might but not always. Ellipticals are usually not as good on noisy vinyl. The exception would be something like the Stanton 680 EL (which has attenuated response above 18 Khz)

 

Sorry for my question because i"m not a specialist but i wonder why for 50"s mono lps or singles one 0,6 conical plays better than eliptical? As i know the eliptical stylus goes deeper into the groove than the conical one. So the eliptical goes lower the worn point of the groove. Am i right or wrong? Thanks for your time.

 

My guess is that a 0.7 mil elleptical stylus will track deeper than a 0.7mil conical stylus, but not as deep as a 0.6mil conical tip. I think a conical shape will produce less stress on the groove wall (?).

 

Did anyone mention a conical stylus yet? I did some extensive reading about stylus theory and the conical stylus seems to be the best compromise between not sinking deep enough to catch all the noise and still allowing a good amount of musical detail.
Add to that a cartridge body that has a smooth sound (e.g. Grado) and you should be good.

 

The elliptical tracks both shallower and deeper in the groove. The elliptical footprint covers more of the vertical segment of the groove vs a conical which has a smaller, rounder footprint. For this reason, the elliptical is not the best solution for playing a worn groove. (different elliptical styli may be shaped differently, so the footprint can vary somewhat) The 0.6 conical has a smaller and deeper footprint than a 0.7 conical, and a much smaller and deeper footprint than any elliptical, so the idea is to play the unworn part of the groove, above or below the wear zone.

So this bears the question, why not choose a larger stylus to play above the wear zone? Certainly this could be done, however, larger styli are less capable of tracking higher frequencies. Also tracking near the surface is subject to tracking any scratches impinging slightly into the groove, increasing background noise. So the smaller stylus is the more practical solution and a better tracker.

There may be some who will argue the larger 1 mil conical will play more quietly than a 0.6 mil, but I think this applies more to the LP microgroove from the mid to late 50's. Most of the microgrooves were pressed for play with a 1 mil stylus, because that's all there was at that time. The 1 mil tends to mask vinyl imperfections, but also attenuates higher frequencies above approx 8k, then perhaps hacks them off as well, causing permanent groove damage in only one play. The 0.6 mil is not too small to play the microgrooves (as some wrongly believe) The early mono 45's are also ok for the 0.6 mil conical.. it just rides more deeply in the groove which is exactly what we want it to do. There are a few rare exceptions such as the original Sun 45's which must be played on a 1 mil... the 0.6 (and 0.7) will bottom out on those.

The stress on the groove is a product of many factors, stylus radius at the contact point, the total contact area, tip mass, compliance, and tracking force, also the groove itself as acceleration forces can be exerted in different ways to different styli. (ie pinch effect force on a conical is far greater than an elliptical) The physics are complex, so it is always out for debate which stylus shape exerts less stress on the groove.

Thanks for bearing with this long response,
Steve VK

 

Thanks Steve. Learning a lot here.

 

Thank you Steve for your very clear informations

 

Thank you. I wonder how many different combinations of tutntable-cartridge must have in order to listen my mono lps singles stereo 60"s lps, new releases lps. It's a maze...

 

I've got one of those bottom of the line Audio Technica cartridges, one with the 0.6 stylus. It will play parts of old worn records well but seems to have dynamic compression and confusion as things get louder. Have a somewhat more expensive AT p-mount with an elliptical [0.7 width] stylus, has less trouble with dynamic peaks. I'm getting multiple headshells, want to try the Shure 97 and 44 on my Sansui 222 turntable. Ultimately if it works, it works and no single solution is going to work for all LPs.

 

You will have to do some further research but some of your options for the Stanton are here:

http://www.turntableneedles.com/PICKERING_c_25310.html

If you can find something aftermarket that is made by Jico they are usually outstanding but stay with your original concept for a conical. Just remember not to track too lightly. These conicals usually have a higher tracking weight associated with them.

 

Thank you Steve for all these information and advices. Today, I've ordered the Nagaoka MP-100. I am looking forward to receive it and give it a try. I have some records that I love but were well played, but not scratched, so I hope that the Nagaoka will provide a clean play below the worn part of the groove. I think it will be a good way to play them while waiting for cleaner copies. The Nagaoka will give a rest to my Shibata cartridge which I will now use for only NM records.

 

Example: I love those old R&B/Blues 45 singles on noisy vinyl (and that's NM copies). Epiphany happened. I listened to some airchecks of WVON in Chicago. Those records played cleaner. Enough I was made to think. And it dawned on me that they likely were using GE VR II cartridges. And I had an arm which could play nice with one. So, I found me one and some styli. Got me one of those SL-1200 shells with the weight screw hole, and used that hole to mount the stylus rotation piece. Boy, does it make old Chess and Vee-Jay 45 singles come to life.

 

OK, I recieved the Nagaoka MP 100 today. I was having trouble to set it up on the Thorens TD 160 with the TP16 tonearm : the cartridge was wobbling or vibrating up and down. I haven't found why. Maybe its compliance does not match the TP16 tonearm, however the Nagaoka MP100 is a low compliance cartridge and the TP16 is a medium mass tonearm, both should match ... or is there something I am missing. Anyway, I tried on an other TT (Thorens TD 165 with the TP11 tonearm) and the cartridge does not wobble, everything seems normal.

The first impression regarding the sound is very good. Good tracking, IGD is low at the end of the side : not worse or better than my Shibata cartridge. So good points ! Bass and highs are present (I was afraid that highs would be tamed because I read some review about the Nagaoka MP110 saying that highs are cut).

Now regarding the clean play (the purpose I bought it) of some VGish records : well, on my system there is a slight difference compared to my other cartridge. Noise seems a little bit on the background. But on records with groove wear, the distortion have not dissappear. I guess these records are worn out . Light scratches are still audible, maybe the "pop" is lighter. The stylus seems to track deeply because on some records it has removed some dirt.

Could I improve the set up in order to attenuate the record flaws better ? A higher tracking force (it is at 2 gr now) ? an aligment using a particular protractor?

 

Try wet cleaning the records under running water with soap and rinse. Use a directional cleaning pad such as Discwasher or Mofi, and use only that one for wet cleaning. Dirt and debris can cause distortion, sometimes as much as wear. Since the stylus is picking up dirt, it is tracking it. Wet cleaning will certainly improve reproduction.

 

Hello,
do you try to put the MP100 back at the TP16?
Any improvement?

 

It seems you've done everything right for reducing noise and distortion. The MP-100 has a 0.6 spherical which tracks deeper in the groove, often an unworn portion of the groove. The 2.0g tracking force is good. I think the possibility exists your cartridge compliance may be a bit high for the arm you're using. But this may not be the issue. Here is a point by point checklist for cleaner play of worn records, if I may just for clarity:
1) The worn record needs to be cleaned. Any worn record will have junk in the groove. Wet cleaning should be on a RCM.. ineffective methods do exist.
2) A cartridge with a 0.6 conical (oft referred as "Spherical") tracks deeper in the groove, where the groove may be in better condition.
3) An increase in tracking force can diminish noise, however also a product of decreased high frequency response.
4) playback of mono records in mono mode greatly reduces noise and distortion. There is the option of L or R channel playback in mono, the groove side with less wear.
5) .... a detailed point.... For special applications, a 1.0 mil conical can produce excellent results in playing older microgroove mono records. However many of these have sustained wear from previous play on a vintage 1 mil stylus and a stiff ceramic cartridge. The 1.0 mil rolls off the high frequency range above approx 8 kHz, so cleaner play can be obtained. Likewise the early microgrooves were cut with a limited range not far above 8 kHz (sometimes to 12 kHz but at a lowered groove pitch which is ok for the 1.0 mil) The caveat is potential groove damage in the wrong application. The 0.7 mil was developed in 1957 (thereabout) for stereo reproduction. NEVER play a stereo record on a 1.0 mil, unless you don't care about the record. NEVER play a later pressed (mid 60's) mono record on a 1 mil, unless you don't care about the record. NEVER play a Robert Ludwig mastered Led Zeppelin II on a 1.0 mil stylus, unless you don't care about a $300.00 record. The early mono 45's are candidates for play on a 1.0 mil, especially Sun records. The Sun records and many other 50's-early 60's mono records will not play cleanly on a 0.7 mil, even an unplayed record. This point does not apply to most records pressed after 1960 (with exceptions) as their frequency range is increased and cut with a smaller stylus. The 1.0 mil does not track higher frequencies, especially LP's at 33 RPM.

rock on,
Steve VK

 

I use a 2M bronze. I recently fine tuned my alignment and got a significant reduction in surface noise. So I would think checking alignment is always a good start when attacking surface noise. I may have more to go, at the moment its the best I can get it with a magnifying glass and just a printed arc protractor from vinyl engine. The trickiest bit is making the hole in the middle, and I doubt anyone gets that exactly spot on. do they?

 

Replace your ortofon with a Sumiko blackbird. Designed for excellent tracking and low noise.

 

On the TP16, the wobbling is gone... because I put back the foams into the springs of the platter.
I keep the MP100 on the TP11 tonearm, it seems to be a good combo. It is dufficult to say if the MP100 reduces noise on worn records, but it tracks well and reduces sibillance of some records. It is a great cartdrigde to play mono 45 rpm too.

 

With a lot of my collection being not perfect punk and reggae vinyl after a lot of reading I went with a Shure M447 will track everything I have played on it and no wear on any new vinyl purchases oh yes and a huge reduction in surface noise compared to the 2M Red I was using previously