Trumpets, Pianos, and Groove Wear

I have been collecting vintage jazz records for a while now. This may go without saying, but the hotter a master disk is cut, the faster distortion from groove wear appears (Rudy Van Gelder's masterings are especially notorious for this in my experience). What is it about the timbre of trumpets and pianos that makes them distort faster than other instruments as a result of groove wear on a record?

 

High frequencies at high amplitudes I'm guessing.

 

Try and track that trumpet at the end of the MOFI Anatomy of a Murder.

 

Those old Blue Notes were cut hotter than most period cartridges and tonearms could handle. And consider how heavy those crude changer tonearms then tracked at. In that period, 4 grams was light tracking. And styli weren't changed often until the damage was done.

 

I'm actually guessing that the distorting frequencies on these instruments are more in the midrange, which is interesting, and I can't quite wrap my head around it. I'm sure it has to do with a burst of volume, but maybe it also has to do with the envelope of the note? In my most recent experience with this stuff, the sax sounded much better (fine) to me, so did the drums...

 

No, midrange frequencies at very high amplitudes. This from lots of experiencing recording classical concerts. Piano can be tricky because the different levels of loud, sometimes more than the microphone can take. I suspect the piano has a dynamic swell that can easily distort.

 

2xUel what arm/cartridge do you listen with?

 

Hi VinylSoul. Before I tell you what I'm using, I just want to note that I'm not a proponent of attempting to correct distortion from groove wear by means of one's setup. In other words, if I have records in my collection that play on my setup without distortion due to mistracking (which I do), it's pretty clear to me that it's not my setup, it's the record.

That being said, I use a Technics 1200 with a stock tonearm and a Shure m97xE aligned by way of the Technics alignment tool for the 1200. I have read extensively about alignment and I have made the firm decision that I'm not going to drive myself crazy trying to correct distortion inherent in the grooves of a record by trying dozens of different tonearm/cartridge/alignment combinations.

 

I think the whole alignment thing is overblown too. Azimuth, tracking force, stylus shape and compliance matching make a bigger difference in my experience.

I've heard terrible sibilant distortion on one setup play nearly perfect on another.

 

I don't mean to entirely discount one's setup as a factor in quality playback, I have just found my meek setup to do an exceptional job with tracking because I know it well and I believe I have it optimized for the highest performance it is capable of. So if I were getting nasty sibilance on a record, I would bet that one wouldn't be able to get rid of it entirely on a setup that's much more expensive. But I'm sure that milder distortions can be improved and perhaps eradicated with better equipment. My whole philosophy of collecting though is if a record can't sound good on my setup, it's not worth it.

 

I have three copies of ELP S/T and only one plays clean. And cost doesn't seem to have much to do with tracking ability. Some setups just perform better than others though.

The best tracker I ever heard was one of my own DIY tips. Amazing tracker but I lost the tip. It was only a $15 tip but had a parabolic shape that would track nearly anything.

The 97xe should be a fine tip but there is a large quality variance with those I've heard. A .2x.7 should track nice if it's properly shaped and set right. I have a .2x.7 DIY tip on my onyx that performs better than a lot of factory jobs, even some expensive ones, I've had.

 

I have noticed the same. The midband to lower treble (500 to 6K) tend to breakup first. This is most prevalent on a hotter cut record, and since that bandwidth seems to be the most challenging to track at higher modulation. The highest frequencies are much lower modulation, so any high quality tip (ie: 0.2 x 0.7 elliptical or better) can track those without any problem. Of course, if/when any high frequency would be higher amplitude, the acceleration forces would also be greatly increased, and very difficult to track. Just by what I hear, the highest frequencies are never a problem. The exception is of course the older ceramic cartridge with either a 1 mil or 0.7 mil conical which may not track the highest frequencies well at all, and perhaps wipe them out. (above approx 14K)

I believe wear occurs most often in the lower treble area, mostly the heavily modulated groove, and at the inner groove area near the label. Brass, piano and vocals have their peak amplitude in that region, or peak linear excursion of the stylus. The greater the modulation, the greater the physical force of inertia, or the greater the acceleration force, so, the more susceptible to wear.

If we look at a groove under a microscope, the complex shape of the groove contains the analog equivalent of the source. In the bass region, the groove is physically very gentle, cut in long sinuous sweeps. So, even highly modulated passages are not usually difficult to track, since the groove will still be cut in long sinuous sweeps.. which does have its limits. In the higher frequencies the physical shape takes on a more jagged appearance, sharp peaks and valleys, and radically acute ramps, steep hills and dales the stylus must track. The more acute the ramp, the more difficult it is to track. Difficult to explain in non-scientific terms, but again the inertia forces become much greater, therefore the force of the stylus against the groove much greater. The pinch effect also factors in. The higher modulated groove in the treble area increases pinch effect distortion, (sibilance and distortion) or unwanted vertical movement of the stylus that's NOT cut into the groove, but that's another topic.

 

Different styli have different profiles, and so they make contact with different areas of the groove wall. A record that sounds horribly distorted when played with a .3 x .7 mill elliptical stylus might play beautifully with a fineline stylus that sits deeper in the groove, where the wear has not ocurred.

 

This is true but I've heard the same thing on new records. Some setups just track better than others.

 

No argument there!

Unwanted arm resonance also negatively affects tracking.

 

Hi action. I have been content with my choice of the .2 x .7-mil m97 because I came to realize that what you just described above is true, that a .7-mil stylus will ride a little lower in the groove for a mono record that was probably played quite a bit in the 50s and 60s with a (heavy) 1-mil stylus, and thus that the narrower stylus will "miss" hitting the worn upper edges of the groove wall (I have only found one "affordable" modern stylus that's not .7-mil, the 1-mil Ortofon D25M).

However, in my own A/B comparisons between the D25M and several other .7-mil styli, I found the difference in performance to be negligible with worn records that would have been originally released in the 50s and 60s. In theory it sounds like a great idea, but I didn't find that a .7-mil actually made that much of a difference in my tests.

As for microline styli, I have tried the AT440mla, apparently a .12 x .7-mil, and I wasn't crazy about it. Not only did it not work miracles with worn records (like all the other styli I have tried), I wasn't a big fan of its response curve, and I wasn't about to fuss with impedance just to get it sounding better (my integrated Marantz doesn't have an impedance switch).

My point is that in most of my experiences with worn records, a worn record is a worn record. No stylus is going to "cure" groove wear inherent in a record 100%.

 

I just want to add, however, that the more experienced I become (aka the older I get haha), I think my ear may becoming more discerning regarding more subtle amounts of distortion that might be due to more subtle amounts of groove wear, and perhaps in those instances a finer stylus would indeed make a difference. I'm kind of going through that right now with a bunch of records. I've actually been waiting on a replacement stylus for my m97 and have been using my M44G (spherical), and now that I think about it, I do recall hearing some subtle differences between the two carts more recently.

But my point still stands that in most instances with records from the 50s and 60s, a worn record is a worn record now matter how hard you try to fix it.

 

I agree with you on the AT440MLa (I can't stand that cart!), but not the above...

Just yesterday, I pulled out a very clean white label promo 6-eye stereo pressing of a '50s Brubeck LP, one which I haven't played in years because it suffered from bad groove wear. I've changed cartridges since the last time it was played, and was surprised that it played VERY well, with only the slightest whisp of distortion near the inner groove. This is a record that was unlistenable from start to finish when played with my previous cartridge.

 

What were the two carts?

 

The current one is a Grado 8MR with an MCZ stylus.

I'm not sure what it was a few years ago, possibly a Shure M91ED with JICO SAS.

 

For me, gain matching can really help with this point. Any crud on the needle will make a mess of things as well. The other seemingly minor issue that helped me out was wires. I think there is some low-level crud that can be intoduced with typical wires, where some designs can minimize this. My 2 cents.

 

Groove wear is an enigma, or it appears to be. If we could zoom in with binocular vision to see the wear we can hear, then we could then choose a stylus that bypasses the wear. Wear is wear, I agree with that. Just because a clean play can be obtained on MY system does not indicate the record plays better than it appears. It only played better on the stylus it was played on. For a record to be wear free , obviously the entire groove wall must be wear free from top to bottom. For instance, a record that was previously played on a 1.0 mil stylus and worn near the upper parts of the groove wall, will sometimes play cleanly on a 0.2 x .07 mil elliptical, or a smaller 0.6 mil conical. (the conical in this example smaller than the elliptical) If any part of the groove has any wear, the record is worn. This begs the question whether a clean play is possible by playing the unworn part. In many cases, a perfectly clean play may not be possible.

Wear takes on many variations. Wear may occur on the inner groove wall, by heavy skating force from a "heavy arm", and none at all on the outer groove wall. I am certain many hifi enthusiasts here have encountered have encountered this on the old DG mono discs. (then by selecting the left channel of a stereo cartridge obtains a clean play) Wear can occur at once from a single play. I have run across quite a few mono LP's and 45's that appear NM but something not just right since the groove appears slightly "hazy" or a "halographic rainbow affect) when inspection is done from straight on as if looking in a mirror. This type of "single play groove wear" can be very harsh sounding, mostly breakup in the midrange and lower treble. These are usually hopeless cases. I suspect melting occurred in the groove, perhaps melted vinyl material pulled or ripped into the leeward part of the groove, so shards of vinyl will be permanently part of the pressing and resultant hard clipping.

The record which has been played several times and sustains minor progressive wear stands a better chance for a clean play vs a new record damaged once on let's say, a heavy tracking juke box with a worn, chiseled stylus. The record with progressive wear may not appear as nice, but plays better.

 

Please excuse the typos in my previous message, (hate typos)
also to clarify: Just because a clean play of a visibly worn record can be obtained on my stylus does not guarantee the same record plays universally better than it appears! (This has been mentioned in seller ads, that the record "plays better than it appears", however that is still subject to what equipment the buyer has, who may obtain an entirely different result)

another clarification: Single play damage can be evidenced by a previous "needle droop" from the offending stylus. Play on a quality high fidelity system will reveal the sudden onset of heavy distortion from the beginning point of the "needle drop", then at the end suddenly go away. This is the proof of "single play damage" that occurs. The needle drop section can be visually identified by the haolgram-like rainbow appearance superimposed on the groove. The damaged section will not appear gray and dull, but still just like new. By inspection straight on, the reflectivity of an unplayed groove is nearly as reflective as the lead out area. The person inspecting should see his or her reflection only slightly diminished in the grooved area. As a groove sustains slight scoring or wear, the reflectivity blurs, still highly reflective, but not as sharply defined. In this regard, there is a rough correlation of the visual and audible result

Single play damage greatly blurs the reflection, and more than likely the "rainbow effect". There are the exceptions, such as some UK pressings which can appear dullish in the grooved area, perfectly normal, not all records are highly lustrous when new.

 

I do not know the exact cause of the rainbow effect (except that previous play on a heavy tracking stylus has caused the conditions for this to occur) This effect is obviously light being reflected and refracted off the surface of the groove walls into the visible color spectrum. You can see it, a very visible defect but I think largely ignored by record dealers, and perhaps by some of we collectors too. I speculate that the groove has been physically distorted out of shape from its original pressed state (thus produces audible distortion) But more importantly the surface state has been altered in some way, scored, possibly melted in spots, and vinyl "pulled" away and redeposited. The top molecular layers may have been compressed and hardened by the offending stylus... all just thoughts.

 

That was a highly detailed, useful--and IMO accurate--discourse. You found the sensible middle ground: some groove wear can be corrected, some cannot. To bring us back up to "1x" level from your excellent microscopic analysis, at this point in my collecting life I don't have much interest in owning records that need this type of correcting, but certainly to each his or her own.

Great points about the visibility of groove wear--I need to get better at being able to detect it on sight.

And finally, yes, sellers often tout "Plays better than it looks!", but I can only guess that in most of these situations they are merely referring to surface noise on a record that was mastered hot, which not only is very different than groove wear, of course, but I have found groove wear to be the giant elephant in the room when it comes to the record collecting market: sellers don't want to talk about it or acknowledge it, while I find that many if not most collectors surprisingly don't have an ear for it.