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
hifiman5's avatar
hifiman5 OP
1,832 posts
 
 @atmasphere   Thanks for explaining so much about what is going on with the audibility or lack thereof of Pops and Ticks.  The point you made above about having a stylus that rides in a different portion of the groove is spot on.  My 70's and 80's vinyl was subject to an elliptical stylus.  My current cartridge has a micro ridge stylus which is riding deeper in the grooves.  But, your info. about the phono amp. explains why I am hearing much less surface noise than with the previous phono pre.

It is a very pleasant surprise to rediscover the musical beauty in those older LP's.
soundermn's avatar
soundermn
344 posts
 
@atmasphere yes, thank you for the great explanation!

@hifiman5 yes, I experienced the same phenomenon when I added the Manley Chinook into my rig.  Due to an unfortunate incident, I ended up also changing the cartridge to the AT ART9 with a Line Contact stylus around the same time.  Clicks and pops are virtually gone, even with less than stellar albums.  
stringreen's avatar
stringreen
6,492 posts
 
a good system won’t minimize the clicks.pops, but neither will it emphasize them. I hear the noise on a different plane than the music. In life, if someone sneezes from the 2nd balcony, it sounds from a different place than the orchestra.
hifiman5's avatar
hifiman5 OP
1,832 posts
 
@stringreen   Interesting way of expressing your experience with surface noise.  It's as if the pops and tics are detached from the fabric of the music allowing your brain to focus on the music not extraneous noises.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,973 posts
 
I hear the noise on a different plane than the music. In life, if someone sneezes from the 2nd balcony, it sounds from a different place than the orchestra.
@stringreen I understand this bit very well- its why I prefer vinyl, as any surface artifacts are in a different plane from the music, while the colorations (brightness and hardness) of digital are part of the music itself.
However, this statement suggests to me a misunderstanding, I'd like to clear it up:
a good system won’t minimize the clicks.pops, but neither will it emphasize them.
The idea here is that indeed a phono section can affect how many ticks and pops you hear, because they originate due to phono section design issues which is triggered by something on the LP surface. And I hate to say it, but many high end phono sections do have this problem- in fact they emphasize ticks and pops, and people thing they are part of 'a good system'. I think this is because as I pointed out earlier, many people grew up with unstable phono sections and simply thing that ticks and pops just come with the media, which they don't. 

Put another way, if you really do have 'a good system', you will hear less ticks and pops- it will minimize them, without other coloration, such as a loss of highs.
More to discover