Just wondering out of the blue if optical cartridges cut down on the rumble, or worsen it? I can think of reasons why they might go both ways. I don’t expect that anyone will really know the answer
Where do classical vinyl records get their rumble from?
Recently converted back to vinyl from silver disks, I am struck by how much rumble seems to be inherent in the new and used vinyl I am buying.
A case in point, is a recent Deutsche Grammophon (DG) recording (487 7484) of Mahler’s Second Symphony made at a live performance at the Sydney Opera House (I was there). The first set I bought was amongst the dirtiest pressings I have ever had, but the second set was much improved. However, there is a persistent rumble whether played on my Holbo Mk2 air bearing system or my venerable Garrard 301 (new bearing from Classic Turntable Company).
Mahler typically has huge dynamic range, from muted off-stage performers to hundreds of musicians going hell-for-leather.
The rumble could be partly caused by the venue’s air conditioning system, but I hear similar background on a Telarc recording (Stereo 10051) of Saint Saens Organ Symphony made in Philadelphia. Telarc even arranged to have local roads shut down for the recording sessions.
Similar efforts were made by DG when recording the organ at Notre Dame in Paris, where recording was done late at night to reduce traffic noise. My copy includes Dolby Atmos on Pure-Audio Bly-ray (DG 486 1466).
I was beginning to think the rumble was inherent in my tables, but then I played a German Direct Metal Mastered (DMM) set from In-Akustik for Clearaudio’s 40th anniversary (INAK 78051 2LP). It includes some Telarc tracks. This set has the quietest background I’ve never heard. There is virtually no rumble, exonerating my tables.
So apart from the recoding venue’s air conditioning and traffic noise, why do so many classical records seem to have built-in rumble? Could it be from the mastering lathe?
I am really only thinking about classical recordings where the dynamic range approximates the signal to noise ratio of vinyl, meaning that very low-level signals are musically important, while simultaneously bumping against the noise floor.
- ...
- 148 posts total
@faustuss I brought up using a mono cartridge strictly to address the OP's rumble problem, not to evaluate the merits of mono cartridges. This was obvious in my original post. |
I think they accurately reflect any low frequencies that the cartridge stylus traces. Because they 'measure' the deflection of the stylus, they give maximum output at the extreme points where the deflection is maximal. By contrast a conventional MM or MC cartridge delivers zero output at these inflection points, because they 'measure' velocity. That is why optical cartridges are renowned for delivering deep bass. So if there is rumble, optical will reproduce it whereas MM and MC might attenuate it to some extent. Optical cartridges do decrease the general noise levels from clicks and pops because in general these induce rapid changes in velocity but not much change in position. |
I have no difficulty with your introduction of mono to this topic. It has made me think a bit more about the horizontal and vertical components of turntable rumble. My vintage Garrard 301 comes with a certified measure of rumble as tested in the factory, and predates the widespread usage of stereo records. As such, I assume the rumble measure mainly reflects horizontal vibrations. |
@richardbrand Especially if it was one produced in the 1950’s. The only issues I've heard about when it comes to those old idler drive turntables is the motor. The Garrard and Thoren’s tables always sounded great but people started buying belt driven tables because the motor was quieter. I’m assuming that we’ve now advanced to a place where the noise from those large motors can be isolated. Anyway as I said, even if you did notice a difference in rumble cancellation by playing those records with a mono cartridge, I’m not sure anything could be done about it. But it would isolate the problem. |
- 148 posts total