Anyone notice different amounts of surface noise with different arms?
Using the same cartridge, I just went from an SME 3012R to a Bokrand AB309 and while the Bokrand is no doubt a better sounding arm in my system, I’m definitely hearing more surface noise. Records are cleaned with a Degritter so it’s not dirt... but the arm picks up more of the noise from my older records.
I’ve heard some arm swaps using the same table and cartridge where the sound changed and apparent surface noise changed too. Arms that make the sound seem livelier also tend to make noise more prominent, while arms that sound more precise and tight are quieter. I think it has to do with how well an arm damps the vibrational energy dumped into the arm by the cartridge. Surface noise is a high energy impulse of extremely short duration; if the arm is well damped, that pulse of energy does not keep moving back and forth in the arm and headshell and thereby moving the cartridge and being read by the cartridge signal generating element. Musical signal will also reverberate more in a less damped arm, but, that will be perceived as natural reverberation because it is correlated with the music. Ticks and pops don’t sound like music because of their short, very fast impulse and lack of harmonic structure and so they stick out and sound louder if they persist because they aren’t damped quickly.
That is not to say that well damped arms sound better because they reduce artificial reverberation. That “something added” might be a plus, depending on one’s taste and system synergy.
It is not the arm. It is a slight difference in the cartridge alignment. Small changes in overhang and VTA can affect the amount of surface noise you hear. All the best arms of similar mass are going to sound exactly the same as long as cartridge alignment is exactly the same.
Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn would not agree that "all the best arms of similar mass sound exactly the same" unless you define "the best" as those that sound the same! He was notorious for throwing records around during demonstrations, in part to show that scratches, pops and crackles were far less obvious with Linn products. He went to enormous lengths to minimise free play between the record and the stylus, for example by using the same grade of stainless steel so bearings and other components expanded and contracted at the same rate, and therefore could be adjusted to very tight tolerances. Propagation of unwanted impulses was suppressed, especially compared with popular arms such as those by SME, who did not make turntables at that time.
I am assuming the same cartridge in both arms, correctly aligned.
Of course it is the tonearm. HiFi News has been doing tests on the secondary resonant signatures of tonearms for decades, and they are not all the same. See links. And that makes sense, as no two dissimilar structures are going to have similar resonant signatures.
The name "tone-arm" says it all! If they are neutral, they would be called pick-up arms or similar.
May I make a suggestion! To eliminate cartridge set up variables, play a silent track, that is one containing no musical information, so no VTA adjustment, tracking force, or overhang comes into the equation. The groove contains nothing but inherent vinyl noise, plus any extraneous wear and tear. I use a test disk from Analogue Productions "The ultimate analogue test LP".
The output is turntable noise plus record noise. For analysis, I feed the microphone output from my pre-amplifier into the audio jack on my laptop, using the first free (home use only) analysis software I found on the web, WavePad by NCN Software.
Come to think of it, I have not seen a waterfall graph published for ages - about the time magazines stopped publishing useful stuff like speaker impedance curves.
I heard the same cartridge (Transfiguration Orpheus L) on the same table (Linn LP12) with two different arms (Naim ARO and Basis Vector 3). The Naim ARO was a livelier sounding arm, but, surface noise was a little bit more prominent. In this particular system, I preferred the Naim ARO. I cannot say that set up was perfect each time, but, a good protractor, digital scale and Fozgometer azimuth tool was employed, so setup was pretty accurate.
Thanks @larryi. I've been playing with setup a bit today and it's definitely making a difference. I have been using a fixed SPU headshell with an Ortofon SL-15, which technically should be dead on with the Bokrand (the pivot to spindle is confirmed correct) but there was some small differences using a DB Systems protractor. The adjustments are making things better but still hearing the arm difference... but this is making it easier to overlook. Always tradeoffs!
@richardbrandExactly right, the best arms do sound the same, like nothing. They have no sound at all. The sound is on the record. Cartridges are not supposed to sound either, they make an electric signal. The job of the tonearm is to position the cartridge over the record so it can do its job accurately and transfer that electrical signal without modification. Speakers make sound. Any sound made by the cartridge or tonearm is distortion. While some distortion is euphonic I am of the belief that all distortion is bad and should be minimized.
Dear @mijostyn : " All the best arms of similar mass are going to sound exactly the same as long as cartridge alignment is exactly the same. "
I don't agree with you for two reasons: " are going to sound " and " alignment is exactly the same ".
Aligment " exactly the same "? this is almost impossible that can happens due that always exist tiny very tiny alignment set up deviations. In the other side you posted that best tonearms SOUND de same and latter you posted that tonearm produce no sound and it's common sense to understand that tonearm it self does not produce sound contrary to the cartridge transducer where that electrical signal conversion comes full of MUSIC information, yes the cartridge alone can't sound if does not exist the other transducer at the other end of the system chain but nothing of those is the real issue here.
Two different tonearm with the same EM develops different kind of resonances/distortions that one way or the other contribute to different sound coming from the speakers due that those 2 tonearms are self damped by design and building in different way and even with different " geometry ".
Tonearm it sel fputs a" color "/distortions and the cartridge too due that exist different kind of resonances through the cartridge body, its tracking abilities, its overall design.
mijos everything in a room/system ( including yours ) develops distortions and the owners challenge is to put all those kind of distortions at MINIMUM.
@rauliruegasWow are you nitpicking Raul. Give a guy a break. Just imagine if you could align two identical cartridges in two different arms of exactly the same effective mass and bearing quality. Between you and me most people can't hear the difference between different cartridges in different arms.
My system have distortion? Not on your life Raul. My system is perfect.....just like yours.
Do you mean “the same cartridge in different tonearms”? Such differences are not subtle even assuming the unlikely case of perfect alignment. This experience causes me to believe there is no such thing as a tonearm that adds nothing to the sound.
@mijostyn You seem to rely a lot on imagination and thought experiments, but are reluctant to believe in the resonance properties of structures like tonearms. Don't forget that at one end of the tonearm is a highly sensitive transducer that picks up vibrations including resonances from the tonearm and cartridge body!
In my opinion, if you want to minimise distortion you are far better off with well-recorded CDs or better still SACDs. Before you claim digital distortion, remember that virtually all records made in the last few decades have been made using digital intermediaries.
The qualification "well-recorded" is deliberate, because it seems to be very easy to produce a poor-quality CD. It is hard to mix digitally without significant rounding errors. SACD is a good indication that the performing artists and sound engineers have really tried!
My personal exploration back into vinyl is inspired by the high prices offered for old Garrard 301 transcription turntables and the astonishing rebound of record sales.
Now, there are other individual and critical factors that goes totaly against your " inert " tonearm you posted.
Between those factors it's not only a different geometry design but different tonearm kind of mearing and the material used in that bearing, obviously the whole blend of materials used in each tonearm that are different with other tonearms designs.
Resonances/feedback, noise, distortions and the like are generated for eacg individual factors in the tonearm designs and no one can't ( till today ) avoid all those.
I know for sure that you totally agree and your posted " aberration " was only that maybe to start this discussion and it's ok.
@richardbrand : " and the astonishing rebound of record sales. " well that's only anectdotic and almost all know that. What is not anectdotic is that many/several analog lovers/LPs ( I love analog but first than all I love MUSIC. ) do not understand that from a few years now the digital alternative outferformed the analog alternative but to each his own
@richardbrandI think you need to know that I am all over digital reproduction. My phono stage runs directly into a Lynx Hilo, a studio ADC, switcher, USB DAC. RIAA correction is done by computer. I have been using a digital pre amp with room correction and subwoofer management since 1996.
You are correct. The phonograph cartridge is a vibration measurement device and it does not care where the vibration comes from. However, other than the primary suspension resonance in the 8 to 12 Hz range, a well designed tonearm does not contribute much. Because the moving mass in a cartridge is so low it has trouble exciting any resonance in the much heavier arm. None of my cartridges display any audible needle talk. What I find rather funny is people have their turntables totally open and exposed to the sound their system is making. Ideally, you would have your turntable in another room. My turntable is floating inside a plinth with a heavy duty dust cover that is totally sealed when closed and attenuates sound by a measured 10 dB. In spite of extremely expensive cartridges of all types it still can not compete with a well mastered, high resolution digital file. I play records because I have always played records. Playing records is psychologically comforting because it has given me decades of pleasure. I still go to record stores just to flip through, it's my version of an amusement park. Shopping online can not compare. But, If I really want to blow someone away I'll pick a digital file every time. Even Raul agrees!
Tonearms make a difference. Even different tonearm wands on the same air bearing sound different, with the same cartridge, set up over days. Since my tonearm has repeatable measurements (error bars 20 seconds of arc, 50 microns linear) and settings, it is easy to make exact comparisons with painstaking setup.
My experience says that tonearm wands make a difference.
@mijostynSeems as if we are furious agreement on most things! My stereo was stolen just after CDs came out, and just before I did a round-world trip. I called unannounced on Quad in Huntington, UK and met Peter Walker. I asked him what he thought of these new-fangled CDs and he said they were fantastic. So I bought a pair of Quad electrostatic speakers, pre-amp and amp in the UK and a CD player in Singapore. On that trip, my dad gave me his Garrard 301 turntable with SME 3009 arm and Shure V15 cartridge, but I have not bought a record (except test disks) since.
I am in this mainly for the music, which in my case is predominantly large-scale orchestral. My curiosity in vinyl was piqued by the high prices the Garrard can command, so I thought I'd spend a bit of time and money to give it a good shot at impressing me. Like you, I am astonished at the plinths available which do not include covers. My Garrard is in a 1970s hollow plinth from SME, with a suspended mounting board. I am building an internal plinth to basically fill up the hollows. By raising or lowering the internal plinth, I expect to be able to switch between a fully solid plinth and a suspended design.
Results so far are promising, in the sense that I sometimes think to myself "If I heard this playing at a hi-fi show I would be impressed".
@richardbrandIMHO, you should dress it up and sell it then get a better amp or digital processor. The only reason to have a turntable is if you have a lot of records. If you do not, I always suggest you spend the money on digital music. Those of us that are older and have a ton of records have a psychiatric illness, megavinylosis. It is a lifelong illness responsible for the consolidation of trillions of tons of petroleum, rice paper and cardboard, enough energy to light up NYC for a decade. On the bright side it also sequestered tons of CO2. That's great marketing slogan, Save the Environment, Buy Records.
@mijostynMy gut feel is that you are right, but I do have a few records not available on silver disk that carry deep meaning for me on the rare occasions that I play them. Then there is all the hype about analogue versus digital which I'd like to get to the bottom of!
Can I ask what your table, arm, cartridge and phono stage are, please?
@richardbrandI use a Sota Cosmos Vacuum table with a Schroder CB arm. My current cartridges are the Lyra Atlas Lambda SL, Ortofon MC Diamond, Soundsmith Hyperion MR and the Shure V15 V Jico SAS/B. The phono stages are the MM stage in the DEQX preamp and a Channel D Seta L Plus.
You might consider have those few records digitized. Those of us with Channel D phono stages can do that for you at 24/192 resolution. I raid friend's record collections all the time.
Dear @mijostyn :" In spite of extremely expensive cartridges of all types it still can not compete with a well mastered, high resolution digital file. "
I already posted in this thread and others in the last 10+ years that fully digital alternative beats fully analog alternative or even alittle worst when both alternatives are mixed as in your system.
Lyra, Ortofon and several other cartridge designers make the cartridge VOICING through a fully analog alternative. Yes they comparesagainst same recording on ditigal option but that's all.
My take is that today you still do not really know how good are your cartridges and obviously that even that,everything the same, willnot beats a top digital option butI think a little better that what you are listening. These is not about what you like but what should be..
Come on mijos:RIAA and bass range ( foundation of MUSIC ) is handled digitally. Where comes the analog? that's what the cartridges were mainly designed.
You can have or " You might consider have your records/LPs digitized. "
@mijostynThanks for the list! One or the early upgrades I thought about was putting a Jico SAS/B stylus into my Shure V15, which I guess is 50 years old and has an elliptical stylus. For about the same price I bought a new Audio Technica VM540ML cartridge, which seems to have the same MicroLine stylus as the SAS/B, albeit on an aluminium cantilever. It makes it on to TAS' "50 Greatest Bargains in High-End Audio". And I still have the complete Shure cartridge!
Had not thought of digitising my records, though I did record all my dad's records to tape. I note that Presto Classical can now singly manufacture no-longer-available CDs from the back catalogues of record companies like Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, Philips, Sony etc. They also had over 6,000 SACDs in their catalogue last time I counted. And they have just introduced a streaming service including file downloads.
@rauliruegasAll my records are in effect digitized as my phono stage runs directly into the ADC of the Lynx Hilo. I have gone back and forth between analog RIAA correction and digital RIAA correction and I can not tell the difference. I can record records either way. As far as the performance of my turntable is concerned, it is right up there with the very best. It has no bling. It is the cost effective way of going about it. I put it together to play music not stare at it. Could it be better? Yes, with the addition of a tangential tracking tonearm. No turntable/cartridge/tonearm combination can compete with the best 24/96 or 24/192 files. I have heard some great analog systems over the years and none of them can compete with a digitally corrected one.
@richardbrandMy DEQX preamp has a Volumio chip in it which connects with a multitude of streaming services. After doing some research I subscribed to Qobuz and have been very happy with it. It is the first streaming service I have heard that matches Channel D's Pure Music program. I'll look into Presto Classical, Thanx for that.
@mijostyn As someone who listens for a living in my work which is tangential to the music industry, your blanket statement about that level digital being superior is completely fine for your ears. I’ve done the comparison in a room of people in a recording space with multiple analog sources vs the best digital and every single analog source, tape or LP was preferred by the group. It’s just what you like, what sounds bring YOU pleasure. This group likes analog sound, you don’t. Blanket statements don’t apply.
@dhcod I like sound, period. I did not say digital versions always sounds better. Digital sources can in the end provide better reproduction with lower noise and distortion. Whether or not a digital version sounds better is very dependent on mastering. At this point in history 95% of all music is recorded digitally. As for your group think, unless that type of comparison is done very carefully, blinding the panel it is virtually meaningless.
The greatest sources of signal corruption are the loudspeakers and the room they are in. A system can be measured and these deficiencies corrected with digital signal processing without adding any distortion or noise. If starting with a digital recording it is best to stay digital until the very end of the chain, the amplifier. Going back and forth between formats is never a good thing.
Anyone who always prefers analog sources and systems has a psychological issue. Nothing in this life is always except death and taxes.
@mijostyn : As@dhcod said " It’s just what you like, what sounds bring YOU pleasure. "
Now, " I have gone back and forth between analog RIAA correction and digital RIAA correction and I can not tell the difference. " :
of course you can't because at the end your system and specially the bass range works in the digital domain. I'm not talking which RIAA is better but maybe why you can't hear differences.
Anyway at the end we are listening what we like it and not what should be.
@mijostynBlinding the panel isn’t what music listening determination is about. It’s what you enjoy listening over a long period of time. I’ve had state of the art digital in my personal listening system and boy it sounds awesome. And then after a few days I want to kill myself because it’s just not conducive to long term listening. With good analog, I’m hard pressed to turn off the music. With even the best digital, I’m out after about 45 minutes.
By the way, the music is recorded digitally but there’s a ton of analog elements in between because artists know digital sucks. They hate it.
If I ever have the money, and the Garrard does not work out, I have my eye on a Slovenian Holbo deck which has a tangential arm riding on air, and an air-bearing platter. About the same price as one of your cartridges, or an SME V tonearm.
I heard one playing at a B&W demonstration evening and was impressed, so I went back later with a few of my records. Sounded good, even playing through B&W speakers, and got me interested in vinyl again!
I had to he same thought as Raul, after reading that you hear no difference between analog and digital RIAA filtering, because you’re signal is in the digital domain AFTER RIAA correction. That added processing might obliterate differences that would otherwise be audible. Of course there’s also the possibility that there is no audible difference between analog and digital RIAA correction. Quien sabe?
- setup is critical. Deviations measured in .0001 (I’m pulling a number outa my tuchus, but you get the idea) will make a difference
- it has been my experience that less expensive cartridges are livelier - maaaaybe to mask inferior quality? - and pick up more surface noise, but the liveliness often masks it. The more expensive cartridges have less surface noise, but you can hear it better. Could be for the reason someone on this thread alluded to. Milage may vary: I don’t expect everyone will have the same experience.
Does the way a certain design for a Tonearm, create an interface with a Cartridge that improves the environment for the Cartridge to function in?
Hence, the Cartridge being mounted on a Tonearm that has a focus for the design, which is to create an interface that seen to be much improved for the Cart' to function in will create a difference for how the Cart's end sound is perceived.
If the Cart' is set up correctly at all interfaces, in numerous cases of listening, the TA>Cart' in use will be perceived by most who experienced the pairing as a change to the end sound, that is strongly suggested as being a betterment.
Similar outcomes are also able to produced when other interfaces that are needed to replay a Vinyl LP are adequately addressed.
Mechanical interfaces are very capable of creating sound that is mix from assessments made, whether it is deemed an attractor or a repellent.
An end sound produced using a Vinyl LP's Modulation as the source for the Signal or a Digital Code used as the Source for the Signal, will also produce an end sound that is mixed in assessments of whether it is perceived as an attractor or as a repellent.
From my point of view today, my experience of Digital is proving fine for my needs. A Digital Code as a Source from my CDT >DAC, produces an end sound that I am classing as an attractor. The same method of producing an end sound, extends Cartridge Life as well.
If listening to less end sound produced from a Vinyl LP is the trade off, I am contented with such a outcome. I no longer want a one source system, but do like the mechanical and geometrical disciplines that using Vinyl has taught me. Does these disciplines leant, really have anything to do with listening to music? Music is being produced and enjoyed by multiples who use Vinyl LP's, where the multiples of users do not put too much emphasis on the mechanical and geometrical concerns that can be searched out and learnt about.
As for the Surface noise, there are not too many causes, revisiting Cart' Alignment might help. Cleaning the Vinyl LP to the standard advised by Neil Antin in the PAVCR Educational Document, in my experience has done wonders for quietness of a Vinyl replay.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
