I’m betting a polarizing topic, but I ask the question as a truly curious audiophile who has just not honestly had the opportunity to do any real research on this category of products....so, am not asking as either a proponent nor opponent of this technology. So, a few obvious items: (1) it’s best to work with clean, unblemished LP’s (for multiple reasons) and (2) obviously a product designed to “remove” an audible defect is also going to affect the audible spectrum; but in what ways, exactly, both desirable and undesirable do these devices affect the music?
I’m talking specifically about devices like the Sweetvinyl Sugarcube SC-1, but I’ve literally done zero research so far on how many devices like this even exist. The “Sweetvinyl” box comes to mind only because I see their ad in TAS mag, but I don’t know if there are other companies with similar products. Question is....we all have LPs in our collection that we acquired and for whatever reason were not kept “clean” and have scratches resulting in audible pops/clicks. Are these devices — essentially selective filters — selective enough to do their job on imperfect records without destroying the surrounding harmonics? Or do we just discard & reacquire any scratched records we own? Or is this a “better” solution?
I’m gonna guess that literally 10% maximum of the Agon’ers who reply here have ever owned/heard these products used, so maybe let’s all just mention whether our opinion, our response, is based on real-life observations, or just theoretical replies. Both have value, but for different reasons.
OP - I recently upgraded my phono amplifier from a 25+ old modest design to a Luxman E-250. Besides a much more musically satisfying sound, the Luxman's greater dynamic headroom tends to minimize surface noise compared to what I had before. I expected excellent music but the surface noise reduction is an unexpected benefit from a design with a much more robust power supply.
I don't know what phono amp. you have but an upgrade there could get you a lot of what you want without sonic compromise.
—hifiman5 I’m actually in really good shape Phono preamp-wise, I own 3, of which I currently use the newest/best, a Herron VTPH-2A (not even broken in) also own a Parasound JC3 Jr. (barely broken in), and a Vincent PHO-8. (Anyone need a slightly used phono preamp?)
—elizabeth You’re right...I can probably identify maybe a dozen or dozen-and-a-half albums that have scratches annoying enough to need “correction”. I’m sure it’d be most economical (and sensible) to replace them. And I DO own a decent record cleaner vac (love my Nitty Gritty 1.5Fi Mk2). I guess it’s just intellectual curiosity that makes me ask the question. Just interested in learning more about the technology/product(s), and asking if anyone might be familiar. Just one of those things I see regularly (ad-wise) but know nothing about.
I heard the SugarCube gear demonstrated in their room at AXPONA. The speakers used were Janszen Carmelitas, excellent electrostatic hybrids and extremely revealing. If I still had an analog system, I'd make sure the SugarCube was part of it. I think that the stuff is amazing, and if it does any damage to the sound, it's far outweighed by the improvement in listenability.
Dear @jhajeski : Any thing additional in the signal where must pass it affects that signal with some kind of degradation but today that kind of audio items are way advanced in design/parts and build quality that the best is to listen it.
@mike_in_nc first hand experiences with speaks a lot in favor of that item and as he pointed out always exist trade-offs in audio decisions of that kind. For him the positive quality performance level beats any negative trade-off.
I think you can try out a Sugar Cube in your home listening environment before you finalize a purchase. So you can become your own source of expert advice, which is always best.
I heard the Sweet Vinyl at AXPONA and was suitably impressed. We did AB testing and while I could hear a difference, it was not significant - a very slight veiling when click suppressed. .
Besides a much more musically satisfying sound, the Luxman's greater
dynamic headroom tends to minimize surface noise compared to what I had
before. I expected excellent music but the surface noise reduction is
an unexpected benefit from a design with a much more robust power
supply.
^^This. I'm very used to not getting ticks and pops in my system. Its a simple fact that inadequate headroom in a phono preamp design can result in excess ticks and pops which aren't actually on the LP.
There are a couple of ways to reduce or eliminate pops and tics. The first way is to clean the records as best possible. The second is to not play the part of the groove that has the pops and tics. (Yes, Ricky. There's some splainin' to do.)
The first way, cleaning, is well known and fairly easy to do. Since the OP has a good record cleaning machine, that's not particularly relevant in this thread.
The second way to reduce noise is more subtle and at least partially relies on a clean groove. It has to do with stylus size and profile. I cite the following as an example.
I was using an AT OC9/II for years. when one wore out, I replaced it with another identical cartridge, standard OC9/II stylus type. I pretty much knew where most every pop and tic was on all my favorite records.
I had an old Lyra Clavis Da Capo rebuilt by Soundsmith last year. The rebuilt uses a Boron cantilever with a very small line contact stylus that rode deeper in the groove. When it arrived from Soundsmith, it got mounted on an identical JMW-12 tonearm on a VPI Aries Extended (Original) table, the same as the OC9's. The pops and tics almost completely disappeared. The part of the groove where the new stylus contacted the vinyl had not (to my knowledge) every been touched by a stylus before. There remained some deep groove damage that remained audible, but the groove silence was quite nice.
The very small stylus takes a lot of the guesswork and concern away from buying used records. Most used records have never had a stylus contact the grooves where the very small Soundsmith stylus rides. I imagine there are some other cartridges with very small stylus. It might be worth looking into rather than spending $2,000 and putting another piece of electronics in the sensitive phono chain.
@bpoletti, that Aries 1 table is a good one (I have the non-extended version myself), and the Delrin top layer of it's platter may be partly responsible for the reduction in noise (unless that's the same table the old cartridge was on). Delrin is a good vinyl/platter interface material, providing some damping of LP's.
So Jim, next time you upgrade your table, look at models incorporating platters (or mats) designed to damp the resonance inherent in LP's. Damping the vinyl lowers the audibility of tics and pops.
Clean, static free records need absolutely no help in this regard. The only remaining problem is background noise like rumble that this unit will not correct. I would never spend this kind of money and tolerate any level of degradation for the rare bad scratch or pop. I also never clean my records. Contrary to popular mythology records come from the manufacturer perfectly clean. If played with a conductive sweep arm (carbon bristles NOT camel's hair!!) and a dust cover the records never get dirty and dust is never ground into the surface as any incidental dust is cleared out of the way of the stylus by the sweep arm as well as discharging the record so it never builds a static charge and therefore does not collect dust. If you buy used records then a record cleaning device is mandatory. I do not because every one I have ever played was unacceptably damaged. Even after cleaning. Once a dirty record is played it is done for. Thousands of PSI pressure literally melts the dust right into the vinyl surface and there is no system that can repair the damage.
In my opinion, playing LPs under a dust cover induces more sonic degradation in the form of coloration than a tick or pop as forms of noise. In my opinion based on personal experience, of course. The sweep arm idea is an interesting one, however. Do you have a specific brand to recommend? They used to be commonplace, but one doesn't see them marketed much these days.
Lewm7, I suppose if you had a particularly bad dust cover but in the case of my dust covers there may even be a degree of improvement with the covers down as they do diminish sound pressure levels within. Both my tables are also suspended which may make a difference. Many tables now come without covers or covers that are very difficult to use (not hinged). For something like a Clearaudio or VPI table you use 1/4" Lexan. You have a bottom plate which the table sits on and the cover is hinged to the bottom plate. There are several companies that will make these for you. Here is one
https://www.displaycasej.com/custom-audio-covers These guys did the one for my 30/12 and the workmanship is perfect. Now, even if there was some degradation in sound quality there is a major improvement is the lifespan and performance of your records which to my mind is more important. For the sweep arm this is the one I use
https://www.sleevecityusa.com/Antistatic-Record-Cleaning-Arm-p/tac-01.htm. It is a bit light weight but it works great. The bristles are conductive carbon which is critical. The Integrity arm is nicer but stupidly they use a camel's hair brush which does not conduct! Dumb to say the least. With the Sleeve City arm keep the back end high. You have to position it to the spindle just right to get it to track the whole record. I have a felt mat stuck by the table that I wipe the brush off with. Hook the wire up to chassis ground. I slide the weight all the way forward and crazy glue it in place. I put a little low strength loc tite on the counterbalance weight threads and use the weight to balance the arm. You want the bristles just touching the vinyl. They should not bend! To heavy and the bristles bend in the direction of rotation and just run over the dust instead of picking it up. I have three arms. Every once in a while I will clean off the brush with alcohol and switch to the other arm so the three arms rotate between the two tables. I know you have to trust me on this one Lewm but once you have a proper dust cover made you will never live without one again. You can throw your record cleaning machine away and with the brush you can throw your zerostat away.
Contrary to popular mythology records come from the
manufacturer perfectly clean.
That's just plain wrong. I've been in record pressing plants and seen the LPs waiting to be sleeved. These aren't dust-free rooms, so of course some dust accumulates. Some plants are much better than others, but it's easy to show that some new records are packaged with dust on the surface and - sometimes - fingerprints.
If you buy used records then a record
cleaning device is mandatory. I do not because every one I have ever
played was unacceptably damaged.
I'm sorry for your bad luck! My experience has been mixed, but I do have some LPs that I bought well used and they sound great. I think that's explained in part by my use of a fine-line stylus shape, which rides a part of the groove not likely seen by the original owner's stylus. And I do use US cleaning, which helps.
Once a dirty
record is played it is done for. Thousands of PSI pressure literally
melts the dust right into the vinyl surface ...
The notion that a stylus exerts thousands of pounds per square inch at the playing surface has been bandied about for years, but I've never seen any mathematics to support the claim, or to prove that a stylus can literally melt dirt into the record. Nor have I seen any physical evidence to support the claim. In fact, my experience suggests just the opposite.
In
my opinion, playing LPs under a dust cover induces more sonic
degradation in the form of coloration than a tick or pop as forms of
noise.
I think that depends on the particular turntable and dustcover. I would have agreed with you back when I had an Oracle, but I don't find it to be true with my VPI. To be fair, the VPI TNT dustcover rests on the turntable shelf, and isn't directly connected to the turntable itself. So that may account for some of the difference.
Elizabeth, ok, so I will take a one inch square metal rod place it on the top of your head and put 2000 lb on it. Any idea? Math is just that, Math. Math allows us to predict what will happen in real terms. Pressure produces heat. Next time you are near a compressor after it runs place your hand on the tank (not the motor). It gets pretty warm and that is only about 120 psi. Now when a stylus runs into a piece of dirt and can do one of three things. It can push it out of the way. It can capture it (the stuff you clean off with your stylus brush or it can run over it in which case it actually accelerates the dust into the vinyl wedging it firmly in place. That tiny amount of heat is like a spark which is enough applied to a very small particle to "melt" the dust into the vinyl and there are electron micrographs of this. But really, just play an really old record that you have played 100 times. A bit more pops and clicks than when it was new. And no matter how many times you try to clean that record it will always be noisier than when it was new because you can not clean that embedded dust off. I have records I got in the late 60's before I had perfected my record maintenance method. I always had a good stylus and was using cartridges that tracked at 0.75 grams but no matter how I clean those records, and I have used ultrasonic cleaners and brush/vacuum cleaners, there is never any significant improvement. Cleeds, get a dust cover from those people I mention above and you will be happy as a lark. As for the math? I can do the same 2000 lb/per square inch experiment on your head if you like. Now just for fun here is the math. Soundsmith says the contact area of it's line contact stylus is 50um2. 1 um2 = 1.55 e-9 inches2. This means 50 um2 = 0.0000000077 inches2. 2 grams = 0.004 lb . 0.004/0.0000000077 = 51,948lb/inches2. 52 thousand psi. So now guys lets do the same experiment on cleed but we will put 52 thousand pounds on his head. We can skip the metal rod.
Soundsmith says the contact area of it’s line contact stylus is 50um2. 1 um2 = 1.55 e-9 inches2. This means 50 um2 = 0.0000000077 inches2. 2 grams = 0.004 lb . 0.004/0.0000000077 = 51,948lb/inches2.52 thousand psi. So now guys lets do the same experiment on cleed but we will put 52 thousand pounds on his head. We can skip the metal rod.
You’ll need to double-check your math. First, Soundsmith defines the contact area not as 50um, but 6 x 50 um. "Rather than providing a small circular 'dot' contact point with the groove, the more complex shape of the Shibata allowed a long vertical line of contact to be achieved with the groove wall." Details here.
Math is just that, Math. Math allows us to predict what will happen in real terms.
Ok. I tried a common sense test by lowering my stylus onto my finger. I left it in place for more than a minute. If it was true that the stylus exerted anything near 52,000 psi on my finger, I’m sure I’d have been in pain, especially given my low tolerance for pain. But I didn’t feel any discomfort at all. You’ll need to double-check your math.
I keep a dust cover on my VPI while playing, and I have not observed any degradation.
To keep uncovered exposure of my vinyl to a minimum, my dust cover is suspended on string cabling and counterweighted, so I can just lift it up then pull it down without having to move it to a separate resting place. Yes, I would have preferred a hinge, but none was available.
cleeds. half way down is a chart showing the contact area of Soundsmith's styli.
https://www.sound-smith.com/articles/stylus-shape-information The Line Contact stylus is listed as 46.7 micrometers squared. 6 X 50 micrometers defines the tip shape of the stylus not the contact surface area. I rounded out the 46.7 to 50 for simplicity's sake. The reason that the stylus does not perforate your finger is that skin is soft an flexible. The tip become buried in your skin which then also contacts the rest of the stylus and the cantilever spreading out the contact surface area by several orders of magnitude. If I took a very sharp sowing needle and used the tip to apply two grams of pressure to the tip of your finger I promise you will not be a happy camper. Common sense does not work very well. Scientist design experiments for just that reason. If you continue to use "common sense" as your principle metric in life I guarantee you will make one mistake after another.
jameswei, add the sweep arm. It is only $20.00. Your records will stay even cleaner as they will not hold any static charge so will not attract duct on their way back and forth to the record cover and any incidental dust on the record will be swept out of the way of your 52,000 psi stylus.
mijostyn jameswei, add the sweep arm. It is only $20.00. Your records will stay even cleaner as they will not hold any static charge so will not attract duct on their way back and forth to the record cover and any incidental dust on the record will be swept out of the way of your 52,000 psi stylus.
Thanks for the advice -- I’ll give it a try. Reminds me of the old Dust Bug I used to have; but I know its different.
James, I had a dust bug! They did not have conductive carbon bristles back then and we had the right idea but in the end I think the Dust bug increased the static charge on the record which led to more trouble. I even tried spraying it lightly with distilled water which helped for two or three sides before the felt bristles got dirty then you could not clean them effectively until it dried off:( The first conductive bristles came around in the early 80's. I bought a record brush that had them. In about a week it dawned on me and I cut up the brush and made a sweep arm out of an aluminum extrusion. It was not the prettiest thing but it worked great about a year later a very similar device was released on the market and I bought one immediately. It certainly was a lot more polished than my device but it did not have an adjustable counterweight and it leaned too heavily on its bristles. So, I added lead from fishing weights until I felt it balanced the way I wanted. So much for the polished appearance. This little cheap arm from Sleeve City is the first arm that comes almost ready to go. The sliding weight won't stay in one place so I moved it all the way up front and put a small drop of crazy glue on the shaft to hold it in place. The counter weight at the back is threaded. To keep it from turning once it was set I put some low strength Loc Tite on the threaded shaft. Adjust the counter weight so the bristles just touch the record. It will track the record best this way. Once set you will never have to touch it.
I forgot to mention Jim that you want to keep the back end high. I would have designed it with the bristles perpendicular to the record. I also stuck a square of felt down next to the turntables to wipe the brush off on between sides. I clean the felt once in a while with a record brush which I ceremoniously wipe off on my shirt to my wife's chagrin. Do let us know how you like it particularly it's effect on the static charge of your record collection. Also let us know how brand new records fair and whether or not you ever feel the need to clean them.
The trick of the math is that the units are "pounds per square inch". Mijo is correct about how to calculate it, but the lie therein is that the pressure of the stylus tip on your finger in psi must then be re-divided by the actual area of the contact patch, to give a quantity equal to "pounds per area of the contact patch" which brings us back to the typical VTF or about 2 grams. That’s why your finger is not hurting, squashed, or perforated. The math is not wrong. The science is not wrong. The facts are just being misapplied. Similarly, that's why the groove does not catch fire.
Mijostyn, Thanks for the tip on the brush, but how do you then clean the brush so it does not itself become a source of particulate matter being dragged across the LP? As for a dust cover, ..... feh.
Lewm as I explained before the pressure is right and the contact area is in square inches. The reason the stylus does not go through your finger is because your skin is very pliable. As the stylus bears into your skin the skin "tents" allowing other structures to bear like the cantilever rapidly increasing the surface area involved by a factor of thousands and the psi drops dramatically. I clean the brush between sides on a felt pad I keep near by. I clean both the brush and the felt pad occasionally with alcohol. The brush catches everything on the record and tracks along with the tonearm perfectly.
well, just got home from Capital Audiofest. I checked out the Sugar Cube systems. Personally, I thought the bass was a bit more pronounced after the signal passed through. Not so much that it affected my enjoyment of the music. Would I spend the money for either models? Probably not. The system does in real time what I can do with my WaveRepair software. My guess is if you have enough money to buy this equipment you probably have enough to buy a new pristine copy of whatever record you want to clean.
The crackling of a vinyl adds an authentic sound when using the gas fireplace in my listening room...it sounds more like a wood fireplace, and when listening to digital sources I have to use a wood fireplace crackle sound generator which, unfortunately, doesn't exist.
Grinding dust into the surface of your records is a destructive habit. Think about it chakster. You are playing your records at a pressure of 52 thousand psi generating thousands of volts of static electricity which draws dust like a magnet from as much as a foot away during the process. Then you spend money on a record cleaning device which will temporarily remove whatever dust is on the record but never returning it to like new condition and you start the whole process over. All because you were to cheap to buy a dust cover listening to other people who say dust covers ruin the sound because they are too cheap to buy a dust cover. Wonderful. Dust covers were considered mandatory back in the day not only to protect records but also to keep dust out of delicate tonearms. Then manufacturers started coming out with wild and crazy shapes for turntables to make them look "cooler" because we all know that cool looking equipment sounds better. Unfortunately, it made fitting dust covers difficult and more expensive. So, they didn't instead preferring to generate the myth that dust covers sound bad. Like so many obedient free thinkers a large percentage of the audiophile community bought it and we have been destroying billions of records ever since. At least we are supporting the hard workers in the retipping and record cleaning industries.
Back to the theme of this thread, if you use a dust cover and conductive sweep arm and don't buy records from chakster a pop and tick eliminator is totally unnecessary.
You are playing your records at a pressure of 52 thousand psi ...
You might want to back off on your VTF a little bit. That kind of pressure would poke a hole right through an LP and possibly damage your platter, too.
There are relatively inexpensive digital looping gizmos I could record some wrinkling paper into...pop some packing bubble wrap also...all I need is pine incense and I'll be all set.
I've got a Burwen 70000 Transient Noise Eliminator which is an older technology compared to the Sugarcube. These were also sold under the KLH nameplate. It works pretty well to remove modest ticks and I use it for most of the albums I play. Another option is an SAE 5000 click and pop remover. I had one of these years ago but I preferred the Burwen so I sold it. Both the Burwen and SAE units can be bought used for a reasonable price so it's not a big risk to try one.
I also have a Phase Linear 1000 Series Two noise reducer which reduces the surface noise (hiss) in vinyl records. On some of the records from my college days which are pretty trashed the combination of the Burwen and the Phase Linear makes them listenable.
I heard the Sugarcube a couple years ago at AXPONA and I was astounded. I've been steering my resources toward other upgrades but I'm definitely going to get one of these eventually. The new top model also reduces surface noise but I haven't heard that one yet.
I am very sensitive to vinyl clicks, pops, and surface noise. I find the defects distracting and they definitely hurt my enjoyment of the music. I love my vinyl records so if I can find a good way to suppress the noise in them I am going to give it a shot.
In the old days, SAE made a vinyl tic eraser. Curiously, it was non-returnable. If it helped at all, it would have to be a digital, stepped circuit, converting your pretty analog sound to digital, thus heretically defeating our gospel of analog.
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.
