2. analog
  3. 137127-1973

Phono stage can minimize tics and pops on vinyl

Recently @atmasphere  made an interesting statement twice on a thread about CD vs. LPs where he posited that one phono stage can minimize the sound of pops and tics over others.  

I recently upgraded from my 25 year old Aragon 47k phono stage to a Luxman E-250.  After sufficient break-in time, which was considerable, as I pulled out my old, though well kept vinyl, it became very clear that I was experiencing this effect with the Luxman.  The pops and tics were still there, but they were much lower in volume relative to the music and thus made all of my vinyl quieter in the sense of surface noise.

Interestingly, the treble was clear and open.  Well recorded jazz cymbals had that burnished brass sound with a natural airy decay.  You can readily tell the wood tipped sticks from the plastic ones!  Good hall sound and open, expansive soundspace!

So...have any of you ever experienced this kind of change, and if so, what might you attribute it to?

Thanks!
128x128hifiman5
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,973 posts
 
Here are the things that allow for less ticks and pops. As far as I can tell, price isn't one of them:
1) good overload margin. (our phono sections are making nearly 100V peak to peak at overload...)
2) low RFI susceptibility. This also means that LOMC cartridges will not have to be loaded to sound right
3) good circuit stability. In this regard, stopping resistors employed at the inputs of all active devices at the very least.
It does not matter if the circuit is balanced or single ended- we've built both that are perfectly immune to excess ticks and pops. Also equalization built into the feedback loop is not a factor; we've done that too (although our MP-3 and MP-1 employ passive differential EQ). Its also not a matter of tube or solid state, although it does appear that more solid state phono sections are prone to ticks and pops than tube. Finally, bandwidth is not an issue, although there is a pretty good argument for wider bandwidth (we spec our MP-3 and MP-1 phono sections to 100KHz). IOW its a matter of engineering the circuit right, which does not have to have much bearing on the cost. Absolute premium parts aren't needed- the above parameters are.

If the phono section has its ducks in a row, you might be surprised at how few ticks and pops really exist; how few of them you hear over an entire album side, from album to album! This is way better than trying to treat the signal with stuff to get around the problem.
terry9
2,354 posts
 
@atmasphere 
Absolute premium parts aren't needed- the above parameters are.

I agree that those three factors are necessary. But, with respect for your considerable expertise, I think not sufficient for the best sound.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,973 posts
 
@terry9 You are correct. If you want the best sound, you need the best parts. But design is what minimizes ticks and pops; I am saying there is a distinction.
noromance's avatar
noromance
9,992 posts
 
@atmasphere Somewhat ironic that you say cost isn’t a factor while using your amps as examples to support that point. :-)
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,973 posts
 
Our UV-1 does not have problems with ticks or pops and its not particularly pricey.

Our MP-3 and MP-1 are not that expensive as high end preamps go- cheaper than ARC, cj and many others. Are others charging more for ticks and pops? 

As Foghorn Leghorn once said 'Ah say there that's a joke, son' :)

Its all a matter of if the designer took all the variables into account- adding stopping resistors to a circuit isn't expensive; making sure its resistant to RFI after that isn't either. After that the big deal is overload margin and as long as you aren't too precious about power supply voltages that can be solved easily too.

More to discover