"Did The Music Business Just Kill the Vinyl Revival?"

[Cyber 1]

No, the weight of an LP has no bearing on the quality of the sound of the vinyl.

The trend to thick vinyl, some up it the 200 plus range does mean that you will be see a VTA change
going from thick to thin pressings.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

I gave away my DBX encoded LP's (sent with a not all that great NX-40 procured from Drew Alan Kaplan's "DAK Industries" in the mid '80s) and they sounded pretty good if you overlooked the breathing pumping artifacts that were easily noticeable during wide downward dynamic transients. I wish I'd transcribed them onto tape now.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

The trend to thick vinyl, some up it the 200 plus range does mean that you will be see a VTA change
going from thick to thin pressings.

Nope. The reason for the heavier weight pressing is because it's easier to null out pressing/flaws eccentricities, including but not limited to things like pinch warps. Clamps and rings can help, but the thinner the biscuit, the more of it there is and that's where your assertion falls apart. Can there still be flaws in a 180 gram individual sample? Yes. But with higher quality (thicker) pressings there is a sweet spot (which can be overshot-as with everything) where the best damping of internal resonances applies. While I don't agree with Michael Fremer on everything, this one thing he gets dead to rights correct. I don't think there is much difference between a 180 or a 200 gram record, though. The side loaded issue is what it costs vs. what they charge for it. IMO, I think that's a sub topic with more payoff potential. I do acknowledge that the only way to force prices downward is to not buy it at the prices charged, which gets into the entire economy wide phenomenon of Internet based "price fixing/coordination". There is no longer any such thing as "competition" or "price wars". (And that now includes places like ePrey.) It's now "buy it at the price we collectively set or don't". That's an unintended consequence of the low overhead economics of retailers who never lay hands on (and don't manufacture) their inventory. As UPS liked to say in their ads up until recently: "Logistics". The retailers just sit back and collect the cash, while some central warehouse someplace puts different stickers on the widgets as they go out.

 

[MidiMagic]

No, the weight of an LP has no bearing on the quality of the sound of the vinyl. A heavy record just seems nicer and makes you feel a little better about paying $25 - $40 dollars for a new copy of a record you paid $5 - $9 for 50 years ago. I haven't encountered any problems with the spindle holes on new pressings. And I haven't owned a turntable changer where you could stack records since I was 12 - it's totally manual TT's for me - and I wouldn't stack records if I could.

The 180 g record center holes do not fit on my Lenco L-78 manual turntable.

There is nothing wrong with stacking records if you keep them clean and have the right equipment. Most of the fear of stacking comes from two sources:

1. Many changers made before World War II did damage records. Some of them broke the substandard records made during World War II, But most of the changers made after World War II were gentle enough to not harm records. One reason was that the gentle devices were locked up in patent protection before the war. Many record collectors still remembered the old devices and were afraid of changers.

2. Snobbery from the elite who did not know the facts about stacking records: They were afraid that the grooves touching each other caused damage. But unless the records are badly warped, the grooves on modern microgroove records never touch each other. The labels and the rims of the records are thicker so the music grooves are separated.

I stack records with no fear of anything happening to them. I have an electronic air cleaner in the room to remove dust, and I clean the records before stacking them.

My favorite changer also has special features to take care of the records:

- The turntable stops turning during the change cycle so the record drops on a motionless turntable or record below. It is back up to speed when the arm sets down.

- The record drops flat so it is slowed by a cushion of air.

- The record dropping system does not use expanding grippers to hold up the next record. A record pusher pushes the bottom record to one side to drop it. And when the pusher retracts, it lowers the next record to the ledge instead of suddenly dropping it.

- The arm cannot automatically set the stylus on an empty turntable.

- It has a cue control to raise and lower the arm.

- The turntable is not used to drive the change cycle, so the cycle happens at the same speed no matter what record speed is selected.

- The Shure magnetic cartridge is designed to be very gentle on records. And antiskate is used to balance the stylus force against both groove walls.

- The overarm is not used to detect an empty stack, so it does not push the last record down with more force.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

The trend to thick vinyl, some up it the 200 plus range does mean that you will be see a VTA change
going from thick to thin pressings.

Agreed. Thicker's better, but only up to a certain point. Those RCA's/Mercs I alluded to in earlier posts weren't 180 gram. 100-140 gram or thereabouts, maybe. 180's not a magic number. But the sweet spot is DEFINITELY not where the typical 1974 RCA Dynaflex pressing resides. There are a thousand ways to screw up a pressing that have nothing to do with the weight of the biscuit or the final product.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

The 180 g record center holes do not fit on my Lenco L-78 manual turntable.

There is nothing wrong with stacking records if you keep them clean and have the right equipment. Most of the fear of stacking comes from two sources:

1. Many changers made before World War II did damage records. Some of them broke the substandard records made during World War II, But most of the changers made after World War II were gentle enough to not harm records. One reason was that the gentle devices were locked up in patent protection before the war. Many record collectors still remembered the old devices and were afraid of changers.

2. Snobbery from the elite who did not know the facts about stacking records: They were afraid that the grooves touching each other caused damage. But unless the records are badly warped, the grooves on modern microgroove records never touch each other. The labels and the rims of the records are thicker so the music grooves are separated.

I stack records with no fear of anything happening to them. I have an electronic air cleaner in the room to remove dust, and I clean the records before stacking them.

My favorite changer also has special features to take care of the records:

- The turntable stops turning during the change cycle so the record drops on a motionless turntable or record below. It is back up to speed when the arm sets down.

- The record drops flat so it is slowed by a cushion of air.

- The record dropping system does not use expanding grippers to hold up the next record. A record pusher pushes the bottom record to one side to drop it. And when the pusher retracts, it lowers the next record to the ledge instead of suddenly dropping it.

- The arm cannot automatically set the stylus on an empty turntable.

- It has a cue control to raise and lower the arm.

- The turntable is not used to drive the change cycle, so the cycle happens at the same speed no matter what record speed is selected.

- The Shure magnetic cartridge is designed to be very gentle on records. And antiskate is used to balance the stylus force against both groove walls.

- The overarm is not used to detect an empty stack, so it does not push the last record down with more force.

You make a good case for changers. I'm just not that tempted by the prospect of succumbing to static inertia when I listen. When I was a kid, seeing the entire assemblies of those "all in one" entertainment centers bouncing up and down on what passed for their "plinths" (and dissipating the potentially damaging inertia of one record slamming into a another one) did a pretty good job of biasing me against them. I clamp my records as the added mass of the platter does help mitigate the issue of the weight of the record itself (another rabbit hole with respect to this topic) along with whatever resonances the entire aggregate platform might present, so they're not an option for me. The big divisor in most of the conversations I've been a part of has to do with how much Bass and Midrange a given user either likes and wants more of or dislikes (i.e., "feedback") and wants less of, depending upon case in question. I have multiple subwoofers in my systems (seven in different locations) and reducing resonances and plinth isolation make a big difference. If bookshelf speakers are the only playback transducer involved (or if the speakers are far enough away from the turntable) some might not feel the need for those solutions. Again, everyone's mileage varies.

 

[Cyber 1]

I think you misunderstood I was pointing out there is a physical change in VTA and when going from a 100 gram to a 200 gram you will hear a change due to the VTA change which wasn't a big issue in the 70's

I was not pointing out the benefit of a certain weight of vinyl

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

I think you misunderstood I was pointing out there is a physical change in VTA and when going from a 100 gram to a 200 gram you will hear a change due to the VTA change which wasn't a big issue in the 70's

I was not pointing out the benefit of a certain weight of vinyl

*Edit for clarity* @Cyber1: Something weird happened regarding which comment to which I was attempting to reply. I clicked on one, but not the one I thought. Probably my error. I see why you posted your reply now. This reply was directed towards the comment that asserts that there is no relation between the fidelity of an LP vs. its weight. My point is that they ARE related, but "more isn't better" isn't any more true than "more is always better". *end edit* But I was! : - ) VTA (beyond a certain point which is your point and I didn't overlook it) isn't unimportant, but, IMO, it's not critical to the (see my other post that mentions him) point that folks like Michael Fremer take it. There's nothing wrong with searching for the perfect VTA for every record you play, but at my place in life, I only have so many hours on the planet left, so I usually only do it when I change head shell/cartridges. : - )

 

[par4ken]

I have never owned a vinyl, they hit their peak well before my time. After listening to one, I simply cannot understand the vinyl craze. There's nothing there that digital can't offer us, excepting for better mastering because of physical limitations. If record labels weren't so daft with their mastering and stopped brickwalling everything, this wouldn't be a discussion.

While I like a lot of different music from different time periods my sweet spot is the late sixties and early seventies. I'm even now discovering great music that slipped past my radar back in the day! When Napster was a thing I discovered a lot of great music that way. Of the music that I really liked I would seek out the CD. If no CD could be found I would seek out the (used) vinyl LP. The music industry made more money off me while Napster was still running!

I was somewhat shocked to read recently (here or off of a posted link) that at one time the recording industry had tried to ban the sale of used records! Yes the artist and record company make no money on such sales, but really they have already made money on the original sale unless it was a promo! So my take on the situation, then as now was that the record companies should make available their entire back catalog in high quality downloadable format for a reasonable fee per download. Then everyone could get paid.

Vinyl would then become more for simple collecting than for use as a necessary and viable music format.

 

[atrocity]

My favorite thing about vinyl is how often I have to ream out a larger spindle hole and manually, tediously center eccentric pressings if I don't want the digitization to have wow in it forever.

 

[HiFiMan]

I think you summed it up quite elegantly, krnewman! If you're enjoying the experience (and it IS all about the experience), what's left to say?

 

[HiFiMan]

While I like a lot of different music from different time periods my sweet spot is the late sixties and early seventies. I'm even now discovering great music that slipped past my radar back in the day!

I'll totally echo that !

 

[Blackwood]

I'll totally echo that !

I’ll echo that echo. I think in the past decade I’ve bought more “old” music that is in many ways new to me. I may have heard and liked the hits, but never heard the deep cuts. Part of that is probably related to having a surround system now and getting the anniversary box sets.

But in other cases, it’s just a desire to appreciate things I missed the first-time around when my tastes were more narrow.

 

[DuncanS]

I’ll echo that echo. I think in the past decade I’ve bought more “old” music that is in many ways new to me. I may have heard and liked the hits, but never heard the deep cuts. Part of that is probably related to having a surround system now and getting the anniversary box sets.

But in other cases, it’s just a desire to appreciate things I missed the first-time around when my tastes were more narrow.

I'd also add that I am also buying music I didn't get as a teenager in the 70s as I didn't have the disposable income to indulge with, so only bought what I knew I'd like all of.

 

[PK]

Apparently lots of people don't actually listen to records...

 

[MidiMagic]

You make a good case for changers. I'm just not that tempted by the prospect of succumbing to static inertia when I listen. When I was a kid, seeing the entire assemblies of those "all in one" entertainment centers bouncing up and down on what passed for their "plinths" (and dissipating the potentially damaging inertia of one record slamming into a another one) did a pretty good job of biasing me against them. I clamp my records as the added mass of the platter does help mitigate the issue of the weight of the record itself (another rabbit hole with respect to this topic) along with whatever resonances the entire aggregate platform might present, so they're not an option for me. The big divisor in most of the conversations I've been a part of has to do with how much Bass and Midrange a given user either likes and wants more of or dislikes (i.e., "feedback") and wants less of, depending upon case in question. I have multiple subwoofers in my systems (seven in different locations) and reducing resonances and plinth isolation make a big difference. If bookshelf speakers are the only playback transducer involved (or if the speakers are far enough away from the turntable) some might not feel the need for those solutions. Again, everyone's mileage varies.

You would like the base I have for my favorite changer. I made it myself out of some hardwood cabinet doors. It has rubber feet on the Masonite bottom with spacing between the feet and the side walls. The side walls are 5/8-inch thick oak panels supporting the Masonite top with the cutout for the changer base. And the supporting springs for the changer are damped with foam rubber. My brother's bass guitar and amp didn't cause any problems when the changer was playing..

I think you misunderstood I was pointing out there is a physical change in VTA and when going from a 100 gram to a 200 gram you will hear a change due to the VTA change which wasn't a big issue in the 70's

I was not pointing out the benefit of a certain weight of vinyl

Vertical Tracking Angle (VTA) is not as critical unless you are playing CD-4. Then the angle can cause enough mistrackiing to mess up demodulation..

I can't hear any audible difference in the change of VTA from the first record in the stack to the eighth when the records are stereo or matrix.

My favorite thing about vinyl is how often I have to ream out a larger spindle hole and manually, tediously center eccentric pressings if I don't want the digitization to have wow in it forever.

I had some of those. I didn't ream out the centers (Though I do ream out the 180 g vinyl so I can play it). I have a turntable with a removable spindle, so I just removed the spindle and centered the record.

I'd also add that I am also buying music I didn't get as a teenager in the 70s as I didn't have the disposable income to indulge with, so only bought what I knew I'd like all of.

Me too. I was a college student during that period. I often bought used records.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Apparently lots of people don't actually listen to records...

View attachment 87510

Most youngsters collect them for show. Occasionally they'll use the MP3 320kbps download code included with some vinyls but the amount of modern vinyl consumer having vinyl playback capabilities is close to zero.

 

[par4ken]

I have never come across a record hole that was too small for the spindle! Aparantly the standard size is 0.286" just over 9/32". I tried to measue the holes and spindles and get readings close to that for both spindels and records including the new ones. The spindle on my Lenco L75 measures a bit larger than the one my Ariston but of the new (and old) records that I tried all fit perfect on both and on my Kenwood as well!
https://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1343&sid=c355f2d1d655185b2c0f14c8a75731b6From posts on other forums including "Steve Hoffman Music Forums" small centre holes have been a problem for some people.

 

[Aging quadie]

I watched an unboxing video for the new pressings of The Rolling Stones in Mono LP box. Yes, they looked beautiful, but I'm not someone who cares about colored vinyl. In a few cases the video revealed the tonearm swaying back and forth on the turntable. Maybe most people would never notice a subtle wow, but it would drive me crazy. I'll keep my mono Deccas, Londons, ABKCO SACDs and the latter's mono CD box, thank you.

 

[ar surround]

It has been pointed out many times that even the use of LPCM 5.1 which does not incur a royalty fee, IMO, sounds a hell of a lot better than 1990's DD and DTS!

LPCM 5.1 does sound better than DTS, but DTS is way better than DD. DD has that “grainy-sizzly” sound to it that would have driven all of the snakes out of Ireland had it been around in St Patrick’s day.