Sibilance / disortion

[tw1st]

I am writing this after finishing listening to the MFSL Crime of the Century LP, with headphones, front to back, without a hint of sibilance or discernible distortion of any kind. This is on my Mitsubishi LT-22 through a Shure ML120HE.

I have struggled with sibilance, inner groove distortion, and some audible high-frequency distortion (mistracking?) since buying my first turntable, a Sansui linear tracker with no means to adjust VTF or change the cartridge. I then upgraded to a traditional Technics 1/2 mount table, and began to experiment with alignment and different cartridges with more advanced stylus profiles than a .7 conical. With a genuine Shure HE stylus, the issues all but disappeared. This was in addition to careful alignment as well. The LT-22 has taken alignment out of the equation, and I have finally arrived. I no longer anticipate S sounds getting "essssy" or any "static" on loud passages, or IGD as I knew it before (though I'm aware of the reduced groove velocity as record side progresses). The journey is far from over, however, as I will likely now shift my focus to improving the sound that I hear or reducing the noise floor, etc., but at least I no longer have to labour over this.

I guess the real point of this is for my own information but also others': is sibiliance and distortion / mistracking being accepted by vinyl enthusiasts? I don't mean those with AT-LP60s or Crosleys, but you, reading this.

I have heard needledrops here that exhibit mistracking. I read about cartridges or styli that have sibilance, though they are being discussed as if it a minor drawback.

Is my current level of distortion-free playback attainable without an advanced stylus profile / quality cantilever? I see conicals being recommended but also read (and have experienced) an inability to properly track inner grooves - is this seen as a trade-off for their cheaper cost or reduced susceptibility to alignment issues?

I hope this doesn't come off wrong, as I am genuinely curious (and relatively inexperienced). I did not grow up with vinyl, and I did not have the benefit of hearing a high-end system from the beginning. In fact, initially, I assumed that the things I was hearing was simply a limitation of the medium, and nobody was totally free from sibilance and IGD. I now know this isn't the case.

 

[Hajidub]

Heck no it's not accepted, I minds well stop listening and find another hobby (would drive me nuts). The only times I've experienced ssssssss is when my stylus has obtained a lint ball the size of a gerbil or someone didn't setup the TT correctly.

 

[Doug G.]

I read all the time now about enthusiasts having problems with IGD, the supposed deterioration of sound quality in inner grooves, and various other issues I have never really experienced and I have played records for over 60 years.

Doug

 

[polypetalous]

I fought Sibilance/IGD on my Lab-500 for quite some time and attributed it to the R9000E-LWS integrated cartridge (Sure M95)/arm/table combo.... but ultimately I found it to be my stylus choices...

Once I bit the bullet and put an HE stylus on... all sibilant/distorted sound disappeared.... aside form the odd bad pressing/worn record.

Probably not too surprising that the generic $15 stylus' I used previously weren't that good

Ben

 

[tw1st]

I want to hear from @needlestein and @malden as they are both well-versed in various (perhaps an understatement) cartridges / styli. Can a conical ever perform as well as well as a more advanced tip shape when it comes to tracking?

 

[gusten]

I want to hear from @needlestein and @malden as they are both well-versed in various (perhaps an understatement) cartridges / styli. Can a conical ever perform as well as well as a more advanced tip shape when it comes to tracking?

I am neither, but a short answer is; no it can't. But it can track good enough in many cases.

 

[ear4audio]

My first system included a Dual 1019 and a Shure V15 type II. I was quite happy with that combination and I never had a record where there was sibilant distortion. Then I started hearing about the ADC XLM. All the reviews I read raved about the low distortion and low tracking forces of this cartridge. I couldn't resist getting one even though I didn't have any complaints with the Shure. So I swapped out my Shure and set up the ADC. The recommended VTF was 0.6 grams(!). and it had a compliance twice that of the Shure. At the time I didn't know what that meant in terms of tone arm compatibility or tracking distortion, but listening to vocals sounded like they were all spitting at me: terrible sibilance. I thought maybe the VTF was too low so I increased it to 1 gram...same distortion. I then increased it to 1.5 grams...same problem. Switched back to my Shure and never went back to the ADC. What was the difference? Compliance? I'm told the compliance only affects the low frequency range. The elliptical shape of the ADC had a broader tracing radius by .1 mil, perhaps it couldn't handle the high frequency modulations as well as the Shure? Then I read that the smaller the effective mass of the stylus tip results in lower distortion in the mid to high frequency ranges: could that be the difference? I had a chance to audition other cartridges and found Stantons and Pickerings were good at handling sibilance. Empires had a trace of sibilance but not as bad as the ADCs. I also found that Audio Technica and Ortofon were as bad as the ADCs. Of all the distortion that can occur with vinyl, sibilance is the most irritating and ruins the entire listening experience for me. I never purchase new cartridges based on reviews or others recommendations and I always try to determine if it can handle sibilance distortion.

 

[tw1st]

I followed the conical vs. elliptical thread, which started me thinking about all this. I almost pulled the trigger on an N97GD because of it. But I have an N97HE - surely there is no reason (with an absence of dynagroove records in my collection) to pick up a conical stylus for the cartridge as well, right? Well at least at the prices currently being asked for them.

You have a huge selection of carts and styli. Properly aligned, do (m)any of them exhibit sibilance or mistracking / inner groove distortion? If they do, is it something that you look to correct, or is it simply to be expected from certain cartridges and/or styli?

 

[monkboughtlunch]

I guess the real point of this is for my own information but also others': is sibiliance and distortion / mistracking being accepted by vinyl enthusiasts?

I don't accept sibilance if it can be overcome. I've found that line contact cartridges, like the discontinued AT-150MLX, virtually eliminate inner groove distortion and sibilance.

However, when you buy a near mint used record, there's no guarantee it wasn't damaged by the previous owner's mistracking or damaged stylus. In those cases, a micro line cart cannot undo the damage the previous owner did.

I'd be curious to know if there are any conical carts that handle IGD and sibilance better than others. There's still a place for conicals for some records.

 

[ear4audio]

From my experience, sibilance is due to the design of the cartridge. I've eliminated sibilance by switching cartridges (returning to Shure from ADC). Also, even though there was serious distortion with the ADC, it cleared up when I switched back to the Shure so the ADC did not cause any groove damage.

 

[malden]

Is my current level of distortion-free playback attainable without an advanced stylus profile / quality cantilever? I see conicals being recommended but also read (and have experienced) an inability to properly track inner grooves - is this seen as a trade-off for their cheaper cost or reduced susceptibility to alignment issues?
.

A quality stylus that is properly matched to, and set-up in, a quality tone-arm should not exhibit distortion or mis-tracking, regardless of tip profile.

I personally think that there is too much attention given to tip shape, or at least the advertised tip shape. Equally important is the suspension, but that is much more difficult to discuss unless you are an engineer or physicist that actually works in this field.

 

[onwardjames]

I nearly gave up on vinyl for the first few years back in the hobby because of IGD and sibilance.

For my transfers to digital, I use a humble Stanton cart due to its very adept handling of IGD. Best I've ever heard among conicals.

My Astatic MF-100 doesn't track worth a hoot, and the suspension sags a bit (less after the WD-40 treatment) but it will NOT give you IGD. Damned great cart.

And another vote for the Sonotone 9TA, which needlestein and I have both written about extensively. I regret posting soundbites of Waylon Jennings' album "Hangin Tough" because about a month later, I got the cd of it, and guess what? Yep, it's in the recording.

 

[sqlsavior]

The worst sibilance I've ever heard was caused by loose tonearm bearings, using a fine-line cartridge that, on a good tonearm, had none whatsoever.

 

[malden]

From my experience, sibilance is due to the design of the cartridge. I've eliminated sibilance by switching cartridges (returning to Shure from ADC). Also, even though there was serious distortion with the ADC, it cleared up when I switched back to the Shure so the ADC did not cause any groove damage.

There are many variables to consider when experiencing distortion or sibilance. As @sqlsavior stated, he traced sibilance back to his tone-arm bearings.

ADC cartridges do not have sibilance built-in, it must have had something to do with the quality or age of the stylus. Was it NOS, "after-market", new, used? What model stylus and what tone-arm?

 

[ear4audio]

There are many variables to consider when experiencing distortion or sibilance. As @sqlsavior stated, he traced sibilance back to his tone-arm bearings.

ADC cartridges do not have sibilance built-in, it must have had something to do with the quality or age of the stylus. Was it NOS, "after-market", new, used? What model stylus and what tone-arm?

My comparison was done when the ADC XLM was first introduced in 1971. It was brand new, right out of the box. The Shure was about a year old when I compared it to the ADC. Both used the same tone arm and same records. I had a spare cartridge headshell so I was able to switch without realigning for overhead adjustment. The only adjustments I made was balancing the arm and setting the VTF and antiskating.

 

[tw1st]

I loaded up the only conical I have, a barely-used Excel ES-28. A/B vs the Shure with the same inner track - seems to be more bass and certainly not bad sounding at all, however there is some light breakup where the HE stylus was crystal clear. I know this is n=1 and not a high-end conical by any means, but it helped illustrate things for me. The first track on the side sounded pretty good. On the LT-22 I didn't really sense any sibilance, but I guess it was "groove pinch" that was audible, which could be described as IGD.

Maybe I will seek out a high-quality conical for one of my Shures to play around with. There was a VN-3 on the bay but I didn't keep track of the auction. Went pretty cheap too.

EDIT:

I also played Side 1 of the mono box set White Album with a similar outcome. Tiny of bit of high-frequency distortion. Swapped back to the HE - no contest (and no distortion!)

 

[malden]

My comparison was done when the ADC XLM was first introduced in 1971. .

Well, you've just added one more variable to the already complex equation. Maybe it's time to let it go...

 

[malden]

I loaded up the only conical I have, a barely-used Excel ES-28. A/B vs the Shure with the same inner track - seems to be more bass and certainly not bad sounding at all, however there is some light breakup where the HE stylus was crystal clear. I know this is n=1 and not a high-end conical by any means, but it helped illustrate things for me. The first track on the side sounded pretty good. On the LT-22 I didn't really sense any sibilance, but I guess it was "groove pinch" that was audible, which could be described as IGD.

Maybe I will seek out a high-quality conical for one of my Shures to play around with. There was a VN-3 on the bay but I didn't keep track of the auction. Went pretty cheap too.

VN-3 ? Is that for a V15 cartridge? Which one, type 1,2,3,4 or 5?

You compared a Shure M97HE cartridge to a Excell ES-28..... what is a Excell ES-28?

 

[tw1st]

VN-3G is for a V15 III, but I would use it on my Type IV.

I compared the Excel to the ML120HE - not a very fair comparison pricewise, but I was told that Excel is a Japanese OEM manufacturer that makes Hana cartridges. The ES-28 is the same as a Sanyo MG-28, and is NOS with a .7 mil conical.

Like I said, I know it's only one sample so I'm not drawing sweeping conclusions from it.

 

[malden]

This conical will work on the V15 Type 3 and Type 4....

https://www.jico-stylus.com/product_info.php?products_id=1595