Thanks for all that.
I’ll try my existing cartridges in a comparison and report back ...
I’ll try my existing cartridges in a comparison and report back ...
Best cartridge for very old worn vinyl
Fellow vinyl junkies,
I have a weakness for old vinyl (particularly early oval Argo choral recordings circa 1958-1969).
Almost invariably these suffer from worn grooves, the effects of god knows what misaligned agricultural arms/cartridges over several decades, even the ones marked “near mint” by professional sellers.
I have a range of cartridges, including Decca London Reference, Koetsus, SPUs and Shure V15 111.
These go in an FR66 arm. Not all of these are necessarily ideal for this job...:)
What do you guys reckon is the best cartridge for these types of records?
Key requirements are not to be flustered by the challenges these ancient slabs of vinyl hold while doing the best job of producing something resembling music ?
Cheers !
I have a weakness for old vinyl (particularly early oval Argo choral recordings circa 1958-1969).
Almost invariably these suffer from worn grooves, the effects of god knows what misaligned agricultural arms/cartridges over several decades, even the ones marked “near mint” by professional sellers.
I have a range of cartridges, including Decca London Reference, Koetsus, SPUs and Shure V15 111.
These go in an FR66 arm. Not all of these are necessarily ideal for this job...:)
What do you guys reckon is the best cartridge for these types of records?
Key requirements are not to be flustered by the challenges these ancient slabs of vinyl hold while doing the best job of producing something resembling music ?
Cheers !
- ...
- 57 posts total
I use an Audio Technica AT750SH for damaged vinyl and it sounds pretty quiet but doesn't sound as good as my Decapod Super Gold Paratrace. The SG is susceptible to surface noise. I also have a Garrott Brothers Gold with a new line contact which is almost as good as the SG BUT with virtually no surface noise. |
the shibata, or SAS, or Micro-ridge, or Micro-line, they will have greater contact area, but will also pull more deep hard packed detritus out of the groove. And thus will require more cleaning of the stylus, in the first go round of playing the given older record. the difference in force applied with the cleaning brush or cleaning machines vs the stylus is huge. the stylus outdoes them all at some +20 tonnes per square inch. So it will definitely find detritus and grunge that the given record cleaner will not remove. So, first go-round with a fine line contact type stylus of the above types, make sure to clean not just the record (a second time, after playing-a light brushing at the least-to get the now loose stuff off) but the stylus as well. This is just the OTT anal end of the pool. Alternatively, just... play the record. And clean with a brush, carbon type, etc...as per usual. But, cleaning the line contact type profile stylus becomes paramount due to the deep dive it makes into the dirty grooves of old records that were previously played only with conical styli. http://www.pspatialaudio.com/stylus_wear.htm |
teo_audio the shibata, or SAS, or Micro-ridge, or Micro-line, they will have greater contact area, but will also pull more deep hard packed detritus out of the groove. And thus will require more cleaning of the stylus ...That won't happen if you first use a good record cleaner, which I think is a must for anyone playing older records. |
- 57 posts total