Stylus tracking problems?

[bart1927]

Sometimes, when I play a 78 on my modern equipment (Rek-O-Kut CVS 14 turntable with Expert stylus), all of a sudden, the sounds get all swishy, as if the stylus is too small. It's usually just for a few seconds, and when I lift the arm and play the same portion again, the problem is gone. I don't know what it is. Is it a tracking problem, and what could be done about it?

I included an audio sample to illustrate what I mean. First you hear the fragment with the distortion, then without the distortion. Both times I used the same stylus, a 3.5 truncated elliptical.

The fragment is from "Talking To The Moon" by Waring's Pennsylvanians.

https://app.box.com/s/7gmasigu4tkxinhmjw1rce1c8gpob6gx

[Shlomo]

It might be dirt or lint stuck to that segment of the groove wall. You don't hear it the second time around because the stylus has already broken it up. I used to encounter this problem on rare occasions, back when I didn't brush my records prior to every play.

I remember a newly cleaned Annette Hanshaw record had swished for about 20 seconds. I brushed the record and stylus, and never had any problems during subsequent plays.

[winsleydale]

I haven't had that problem, but for some reason, when I transcribe records, the stylus seems to bounce in and out of the groove very rapidly, so that the sound seems like it's coming through a fan. It happens every time, through the whole record.

[martinola]

Hi bart1927,

I think Shlomo's idea may be it or at least part of it. However, one thing that leapt out at me was that a 3.5 mil stylus would tend to ride high in the groove. It's a great way to avoid deeper groove wear, but sometimes there isn't much groove wall above to hold the stylus in place. I've got a few records that just don't want to track a 3.5 mil stylus. I've got one and while useful, I tend to play most stuff with a 3.0 mil Truncated Elliptical. If the record is in good shape, I think I get a better signal to noise ratio with the 3.0 stylus. I'm using 3 - 6 grams on most 78s. What's your tracking weight? I'm not sure any of these issues would contribute to the problem you're noticing, but I thought I'd throw them out there as possible areas to investigate. I'd be interested in finding out what you discover.

Regards,

Martin

[bart1927]

Usually I clean all be records after acquiring them , with a stiff bristle, washing up liquid and a bit of halamid. I also clean my styli regularly, both dry and wet. After that I put them in a clean, brand new sleeve.

A 3.5 stylus may be a little big, but usually Victors (especially pre-1930 Victors), have pretty wide grooves. A 3.0 may work pretty well on a Columbia or Okeh from the same era, but in general my experience is that a 3.0 on a 1925 Victor introduces a lot swishing and swooshing.

I remember when I first bought this turntable, it came with a standard 2.7 mil stylus. Even records in great condition could sound pretty bad. When I upgraded to a 3.0 tc there was a big improvement, especially with Columbia's and Brunswicks, but Victor's and HMV's still could be a problem. Now with the 3.5 these problems are practically gone, except for the problem mentioned in my opening post. In some cases (for instance, Nat Shilkret's "There's Everything Nice About You" on HMV B 5319) I have to go as high as 4.0!

My tracking weight is set at 5 grams. I can set it as high as 6 grams, but that's about it, cause I can't turn the counterweight any further.

[Phototone]

My tracking weight is set at 5 grams. I can set it as high as 6 grams, but that's about it, cause I can't turn the counterweight any further.

Various coins resting on top the cartridge shell can increase the weight temporarily if needed. Also, you should use a separate tracking weight scale to actually measure the weight, don't go by just the markings on the turntable.

[Henry]

Usually I clean all be records after acquiring them , with a stiff bristle, washing up liquid and a bit of halamid. I also clean my styli regularly, both dry and wet. After that I put them in a clean, brand new sleeve.

A 3.5 stylus may be a little big, but usually Victors (especially pre-1930 Victors), have pretty wide grooves. A 3.0 may work pretty well on a Columbia or Okeh from the same era, but in general my experience is that a 3.0 on a 1925 Victor introduces a lot swishing and swooshing.

I remember when I first bought this turntable, it came with a standard 2.7 mil stylus. Even records in great condition could sound pretty bad. When I upgraded to a 3.0 tc there was a big improvement, especially with Columbia's and Brunswicks, but Victor's and HMV's still could be a problem. Now with the 3.5 these problems are practically gone, except for the problem mentioned in my opening post. In some cases (for instance, Nat Shilkret's "There's Everything Nice About You" on HMV B 5319) I have to go as high as 4.0!

My tracking weight is set at 5 grams. I can set it as high as 6 grams, but that's about it, cause I can't turn the counterweight any further.

If my Pioneer PL112D with Stanton 681EEE cartridge has difficulty tracking a warped LP, I lay a coin on the cartridge shell. That often does the trick, but I don't like to do this, for two reasons: it's not good for record wear, and it puts too much weight on the delicate stylus assembly. The proper solution would be to eliminate the warpage, using the ¼" glass plate sandwich and gentle heat, as often discussed in these pages. However, when the tracking error is due to an off-center spindle hole, there isn't much to be done. BTW, I normally track LPs at ½ gram.

[martinola]

Bart,

Was that a 3.0 Truncated Conical that you first upgraded to? The reason I ask is that I have one of those as well and wasn't too impressed with it. My 3.0 Truncated Elliptical on the other hand sounds really good on Orthophonic discs. I don't quite know why, but it does.

Regards,
Martin

[bart1927]

Bart,

Was that a 3.0 Truncated Conical that you first upgraded to? The reason I ask is that I have one of those as well and wasn't too impressed with it. My 3.0 Truncated Elliptical on the other hand sounds really good on Orthophonic discs. I don't quite know why, but it does.

Regards,
Martin

Yes, it was a conical. I bought it because I read it was a good all rounder, slightly bigger than the standard 2.7, and because of it's conical shape, also really useful for playing records with a little more wear. The fact that it was truncated (the standard 2.7 isn't) also really helped.

I have a whole range of styli now: 2.8te, 3.0tc, 3.25te, 3.5tc, 3.5te, 3.75tc and 4.0te. I use the 3.5tc as my default stylus for regular listening, and the others are for transferring.

I bought them based on the general guidelines regarding groove sizes and wear. (Elliptical styli for records with little or no wear, conical for records records with more wear and laterals). But I've also heard several collectors claim that you should play all 78's with conical styli, except for ones in mint condition.

I've experimented a lot, and while I noticed that stylus size can make a huge difference on a lot of records (not on all, though), I haven't been able to hear any difference between elliptical and conical.

[martinola]

Hi Bart.
Sounds like you got a nice selection of stylus' (styli?) to select from. I'll have to try out my conical stylus on something worn and see if it's an improvement. Thanks for the insight.
Regards,
Martin