Skip to main content

Topic: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable? (Read 6043 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #25
Also, midway down this link is a graph which shows ~10bB reduction of noise when playing wet.  I found this topic very interesting https://vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22360&start=240

  • splice
  • [*][*][*]
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #26
From my own experience, I've only ever played wet when a disc has proven to have intractable static issues. You can tell if static is a problem - while the disc is playing, "huff" (breath out gently) near the stylus area. The intent is to create a local cloud of moist air to dissipate the static. If the noise reduces significantly, stylus-generated static is the problem. Cleaning the disc often makes this worse, because contaminants often create a conductive layer that helps to drain static.

I also never wet played a dirty disc. I made sure it had been thoroughly washed first. I used a velvet pad and warm water with plain dishwashing liquid. I did invest in a Milty Workmat, which is a rubber mat covered in tiny rubber fingers, the intent being that dirt would fall into the spaces between the fingers rather than be rubbed into the lower surface of the disc. I rinsed under warm running water and left the disc to dry propped up against the wall next to the kitchen sink. I never bothered trying to protect the labels. None of my discs were particularly collectible anyway, and none of the labels ever suffered from the process.
Regards,
   Don Hills
"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #27
Ask the moron who carpet-bombed the vinyl myths wiki with baseless claims including being able to play vinyl over 1000 times without audible degradation.  Oh, he(?) isn't a member of the community and has never taken part in a discussion here.

...never mind.

Loescher & Hirsch did an experiment back in the 1970s (and presented the results at an AES convention and in the JAES as well) on the durability of pickups and records when played wet. They found some evidence that indeed 1000 - 2000 plays are possible wihout audible degradation under those conditions.
They provided photographs of the grooves and pickups and additional A/B comparision via tape recordings.

Loescher was afair the inventor of the Lenco-System while Hirsch was associated to Thorens.

Not exactly.

This is from the JAES paper:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2722

Authors: Loescher, Friedrich A.; Hirsch, Frank H.
JAES Volume 22 Issue 10 pp. 800, 802, 804, 806; December 1974
Publication Date:December 1, 1974 Import into BibTeX
Permalink: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2722

"
Very little degradation in audio quality was audible
with the wet playback method at the end of 2000 plays.
The standard dry playback method maintained a similar
level of audio performance for approximately 1200 plays.
Figs. 2 _hrough 7 show that even with an extremely
high stylus force the durability of the diamond stylus in
a modern high-quality pickup is very good. With stylus
forces between 1.0 and 1.5 grams more than 1500 playbacks
may be expected with the standard dry system and
about 2500 plays with the wet system. Played with a
modern high-quality pickup the record groove seems to
be nearly indestructible (Fig. 8). Even after 2500 plays
with extreme stylus force the record played wet still
sounded good with a new stylus. On the record played
dry under the same conditions a certain amount of dis-
tortion, a noticeable loss in the high-frequency range, and
a lot more noise were audible,
"
Now you tell me exactly what "Very little degradation" means by 1974 pre-digital standards actually means today... ;-)



Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #28
Also, midway down this link is a graph which shows ~10bB reduction of noise when playing wet.  I found this topic very interesting https://vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22360&start=240

Thanks!

Here's the graphs:







Basically what I see is a significant reduction in background noise (ca. 10 dB) but only a ca. 1 dB change in distortion.

The distortion is about 35 dB down, which is about 2%. This is relatively huge and very likely to be audible.

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #29
Also, midway down this link is a graph which shows ~10bB reduction of noise when playing wet.  I found this topic very interesting https://vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22360&start=240

Thanks!

Here's the graphs:







Basically what I see is a significant reduction in background noise (ca. 10 dB) but only a ca. 1 dB change in distortion.

The distortion is about 35 dB down, which is about 2%. This is relatively huge and very likely to be audible.

It's an astonishing improvement considering you only need to spray a little water on the disc. I've done this for a long time with noisy discs, but I never had any firm evidence to back it up. I may considering running some of my own tests doing something similar, but I'm not sure the easiest way to graph it - it's been a while since I fired up my copy of MatLab.

The only issue I have with this method is you need to pay attention as the stylus seems to gunk up very quickly (or rather, my AT440mlb does)

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #30
Now you tell me exactly what "Very little degradation" means by 1974 pre-digital standards actually means today... ;-)




These show conditions 'after'.  Are there  'before' photos in the article?
  • Last Edit: 14 July, 2017, 04:08:01 PM by krabapple

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #31
Now you tell me exactly what "Very little degradation" means by 1974 pre-digital standards actually means today... ;-)




These show conditions 'after'.  Are there  'before' photos in the article?

No. The article is from the days when the people in the intended audience just knew that from the last time they looked through the microscope on their cutting lathe.  The article text suggests that the wet groove is close to pristine.

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #32
The distortion is about 35 dB down, which is about 2%. This is relatively huge and very likely to be audible.

The tests were designed to be optimistic, as the maximum recorded level was -10 dB FS. This is about 1/3 of max amplitude.

If you work out how the polynomials work, this suggests that if there is no additional nonlinearity, the distortion rises by a factor of nine for the largest order of distortion, second. IOW at max level, distortion can be reasonably estimated to be more like 15-20%.  That is just about unconditionally audible.

  • Atmasphere
  • [*][*]
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #33
Quote
The tests were designed to be optimistic, as the maximum recorded level was -10 dB FS. This is about 1/3 of max amplitude.

Are you saying that at 0VU (because that would be full scale) on the LP, that distortion is 15-20%?? If so, the statement is clearly false. Not arguing with the math, but sumthin's wrong with this here picture! I'm thinking the 2% at -35db is not right... 2% at 0VU would be a lot closer...

Measuring the actual distortion is really problematic. You have to remove the distortion in the source and somehow negate the distortion of the pickup and EQ (please correct me if we are talking apples and oranges). But if I recall correctly, 2-3% is an accepted norm, but with proper equipment I think you can do better than that (I use a Triplanar, which might be the most adjustable arm made).

The key to LP longevity, in this case based entirely on my own experience, is to insure that the cartridge is in fact tracking properly. This is the tricky bit as cartridges and arms are not always compatible. But if you get it right, there will be no hint of distortion regardless of the track in question. At that point you get the minimum wear of the surface as well.

I find that the biggest enemy of the LP is improper storage and a failure to handle the media properly.

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #34
Quote
The tests were designed to be optimistic, as the maximum recorded level was -10 dB FS. This is about 1/3 of max amplitude.

Are you saying that at 0VU (because that would be full scale) on the LP, that distortion is 15-20%??

Given the evidence at hand...

Quote
If so, the statement is clearly false. Not arguing with the math, but sumthin's wrong with this here picture!


I'm thinking the 2% at -35db is not right... 2% at 0VU would be a lot closer...

Provide us with reliable proof of that.   A technical paper, a well-run test. Something but mere braggadocio.

Quote
Measuring the actual distortion is really problematic. You have to remove the distortion in the source and somehow negate the distortion of the pickup and EQ (please correct me if we are talking apples and oranges). But if I recall correctly, 2-3% is an accepted norm, but with proper equipment I think you can do better than that (I use a Triplanar, which might be the most adjustable arm made).

Sources that have vanishing distortion by LP standards have very low cost and are widely available.  So that concern is all about what you don't know about modern audio technology.

The distortion of the pickup is a big part of the problem. I understand why you want to deny it, but I know of no means to play records without one. Do you?

All the adjustments in the world don't guarantee good performance.

 Until you show us reliable evidence of better performance, we will be obliged by reason and experience to dismiss the unsupported, undocumented claims of superior performance as just more mere braggadocio.


Quote
The key to LP longevity, in this case based entirely on my own experience, is to insure that the cartridge is in fact tracking properly. This is the tricky bit as cartridges and arms are not always compatible. But if you get it right, there will be no hint of distortion regardless of the track in question. At that point you get the minimum wear of the surface as well.

Again, until you show reliable proof to support the expceitional claim of "no hint of distortion' it is dismissed as mere braggadocio.

Quote
I find that the biggest enemy of the LP is improper storage and a failure to handle the media properly.

Frankly, given your stream of poorly-informed errors such as your claim that cantilevers are subject to wear even if not used, its not clear what your findings actually mean.


I have in possession a freshly-purchased SOTA test LP from a reliable supplier that I will use as my final standard if it checks out.
  • Last Edit: 21 July, 2017, 04:16:30 PM by Arnold B. Krueger

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #35
The distortion of the pickup is a big part of the problem. I understand why you want to deny it, but I know of no means to play records without one. Do you?

Yes. Lasers, right?  :D

Rather expensive, and I have a vague memory of someone telling me that, even though it looks like the ultimate toy for LP listeners, the results are not that good. Sorry, can't quote source on that. And I'm sure you know about the Japanese laser players.
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #36
The distortion of the pickup is a big part of the problem. I understand why you want to deny it, but I know of no means to play records without one. Do you?

Yes. Lasers, right?  :D

Rather expensive, and I have a vague memory of someone telling me that, even though it looks like the ultimate toy for LP listeners, the results are not that good. Sorry, can't quote source on that. And I'm sure you know about the Japanese laser players.

Oh yes. the ELP  It was in such bad in need of post-transcription correction that for at least a while, it was sold with software to fix up the needle drops made with it. It turns out that a regular stylus distorts the groove and scrapes dirt away in beneficial ways.

http://elpj.com/

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #37
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111421.msg918698.html#msg918698

I am not working there now, so can't retry anymore.

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #38
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111421.msg918698.html#msg918698

I am not working there now, so can't retry anymore.

I just downloaded the files, and  my first impression  was a bit of awe at how perfectly they were matched.

Seems like they are begging to be ABXed.  Of course it would be fun, but with my tired old ears, not very revelatory of any global truth.  Any listening or technical comparisons?

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #39
The files are not supposed to be ABX'ed, but if someone wants, feel free to do so. Also, please read the the thread I linked as there are some relevant posts about the ELP.

Some photos for those who interested. Notice the black spots in the cleaning fluid. The studio purchased several boxes of cleaning fluid and one box of them had those stuff in several bottles.
  • Last Edit: 22 July, 2017, 08:26:27 AM by bennetng

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #40
The files are not supposed to be ABX'ed, but if someone wants, feel free to do so.


Obviously different - biggest difference is the vastly larger number of tics and pops in the ELP track.


  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #41
Guess it needs to be played wet, oh wait...
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #42
Afair It  was already also discussed (briefly?) around here; there was ongoing research for an optical playback solution due to archiving and restauration needs:
http://irene.lbl.gov

and a relativ new approach seen on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnGh7FADitg

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #43
Afair It  was already also discussed (briefly?) around here; there was ongoing research for an optical playback solution due to archiving and restauration needs:
http://irene.lbl.gov

and a relativ new approach seen on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnGh7FADitg
What is missing is technical info about how this system works onrelatively modern discs in reasonably good condition.

They mention the CBS STR110 test disc,

https://vanaltd.com/products/cbs-str-100-stereophonic-frequency-test-record  (correct for STR110 no matter what the link info says)

but they skip the interesting part, where they play it and check out the results!

It seems like this could be commercialized without massive effort. The fact that it hasn't been picked up by any of the deep pockets associaterd with vinyl suggest that there is, in actuality a huge "fly in the ointment".


  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #44
The files are not supposed to be ABX'ed, but if someone wants, feel free to do so.
Obviously different - biggest difference is the vastly larger number of tics and pops in the ELP track.
Yes, obviously different. But what's interesting is the conflicting ways that people notice the difference:

  • Arny immediately focussed on the increased impulse noise from the laser turntable. As a well-known critic of vinyl, he appears to be concentrating on what's wrong with the format.
  • OTOH, the difference that I noticed was the improved detail from the laser turntable. As someone who actually quite likes vinyl, I appear to be concentrating on an aspect that isn't something to do with the format's faults.

There's an interesting psychological difference between how we responded to these samples. Could it be that the flaws of vinyl get under Arny's skin in such a way that he can never enjoy it, whereas I can somehow "dial it out"?

Please note that I'm not daft enough to claim that vinyl is an accurate medium. I fully understand how compromised it is. I think it's remarkable how enjoyable it can sound despite its limitations.

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #45
The files are not supposed to be ABX'ed, but if someone wants, feel free to do so.
Obviously different - biggest difference is the vastly larger number of tics and pops in the ELP track.
Yes, obviously different. But what's interesting is the conflicting ways that people notice the difference:

  • Arny immediately focussed on the increased impulse noise from the laser turntable. As a well-known critic of vinyl, he appears to be concentrating on what's wrong with the format.
  • OTOH, the difference that I noticed was the improved detail from the laser turntable. As someone who actually quite likes vinyl, I appear to be concentrating on an aspect that isn't something to do with the format's faults.

There's an interesting psychological difference between how we responded to these samples.


Right. I focused on the difference that was most objectively and reliably audible and quantifiable.  I counted the tics and pops that I could hear, and did that several times to ensure that I had  fairly stable numbers for each file.  I did this in FooBar's ABX comparator as randomly chosen X's, and then analyzed the ABX log to sort my tic counting runs according to the actual source.

Please tell me how you quantify "improved detail", that is reduce it to numbers that are reliable in a blind test.

Quote
Could it be that the flaws of vinyl get under Arny's skin in such a way that he can never enjoy it, whereas I can somehow "dial it out"?

Please apply what we know about experimental design. Both samples were obviously digitized vinyl. Therefore the issues you just raised are common to both transcriptions. No such conclusion can be arrived at by any means that I know of from listening to two transcriptions of what was presumably the same LP.

I was wondering - same cartridge?

Also, I know for sure based on ABX testing that the sensitivity of my ears has been seriously damaged over the past 10 years by age (the years from 60 to 70) , and during the last 2 years by chemotherapy. I'm unsure that enough of hearing is left to have relevant opinions about more subtle things like improved detail.  I still have enough hearing left so that I enjoy music, but that is about it.

At my age I'm pretty happy tostill be able to  hear tics and pops. Some friends  my age can't. :-(

Finally, "Improved detail" and tics and pops are AFAIK orthogonal. They can be independent properties of an audio file, particularly if a particularly good job of removing tics and pops is used before the recordings are compared as related to detail.

I didn't go that far. I might, later on. I notice others have been kind of bowled over by the ELP's greater sensitivity to tics and pops, which is apparently scientifically explained, and widely perceived. At this point we even have ABX test evidence to go on. BTW I'd nominate the difference for something that really doesn't need an ABX test to reliably perceive. IMO it is so bad as to be distracting.

Please note that no way did I say that the only audible differences between the files were the tics and pops. I just said the tics and pops  were the most obvious to me. Anybody want to read my mind and argue with that statement? ;-)

I'll  leave the head shrinking that may come to mind to the readers, given the more complete explanation of the test. ;-)

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #46
Right. I focused on the difference that was most objectively and reliably audible and quantifiable.  I counted the tics and pops that I could hear, and did that several times to ensure that I had  fairly stable numbers for each file.  I did this in FooBar's ABX comparator as randomly chosen X's, and then analyzed the ABX log to sort my tic counting runs according to the actual source.

Please tell me how you quantify "improved detail", that is reduce it to numbers that are reliable in a blind test.
When I listen to the two samples, I hear a "freshness" and clarity in the laser sample compared to the needle one. For example, the cymbals have more sparkle. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this could simply be down to different frequency responses.

But that isn't really the point. What I was trying to suggest is that when comparing two needle drops, some people (like Arny) seem to zone in on differences in the faults, while others (like me) zone in on the general character of the sound. My hypothesis is that this different psychological response may be at the root of why some people enjoy vinyl (despite its obvious flaws), while others simply can't.

Please apply what we know about experimental design. Both samples were obviously digitized vinyl. Therefore the issues you just raised are common to both transcriptions. No such conclusion can be arrived at by any means that I know of from listening to two transcriptions of what was presumably the same LP.

I was wondering - same cartridge?
I don't understand. We're talking about two needle drops from different turntables, and noticing the differences. It's obviously possible to draw conclusions about differences between the two transcriptions. They clearly aren't using the same cartridge - indeed one of them isn't using a cartridge at all.

Finally, "Improved detail" and tics and pops are AFAIK orthogonal. They can be independent properties of an audio file, particularly if a particularly good job of removing tics and pops is used before the recordings are compared as related to detail.
Quite so. They are unrelated - hence my interest in noting that you focus on one while I focus on the other.

Please note that no way did I say that the only audible differences between the files were the tics and pops. I just said the tics and pops  were the most obvious to me. Anybody want to read my mind and argue with that statement? ;-)
And please note that I never said otherwise - just that since it was the faults that were most glaring to you, could this be a factor in how you respond to vinyl playback in general?

In other words, we can place listeners into two categories: those who can (to some extent) dial out the faults of vinyl in order to enjoy the music, while others find those faults so off-putting that they simply cannot stomach listening to vinyl.

Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #47
Right. I focused on the difference that was most objectively and reliably audible and quantifiable.  I counted the tics and pops that I could hear, and did that several times to ensure that I had  fairly stable numbers for each file.  I did this in FooBar's ABX comparator as randomly chosen X's, and then analyzed the ABX log to sort my tic counting runs according to the actual source.

Please tell me how you quantify "improved detail", that is reduce it to numbers that are reliable in a blind test.
When I listen to the two samples, I hear a "freshness" and clarity in the laser sample compared to the needle one. For example, the cymbals have more sparkle. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this could simply be down to different frequency responses.

I think an important and relevant personal  facility for ignoring tics and pops is being afflicted by one or more common hearing disorders affecting the ability to hear high frequencies. I know for sure that some older friends who are "rediscovering vinyl" fit this profile.

 Being a dyed-in-the-will Placebophile would help, no?

Ever hear of TOS8?

It is easy to show how your answer is dismissive and non-responsive, not to mention in violation of forum rules.

Frankly, I expected nothing better. I get it. In your mind you are right because you think you are right, science and forum rules be damned.

There's a better way to at least attempt to collect reliable and relevant evidence related to  this question. Make the tics go away without affecting the remaining properties of the recording. I think that is  is doable. But there's no reason to do so because of the anti-science posturing.

 Making the tics go away and doing a DBT  would be umm like scientific...
  • Last Edit: 23 July, 2017, 07:05:34 AM by Arnold B. Krueger

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #48
Cliveb's posts were in no way violating TOS8.  This latest post of yours, OTOH, violates TOS2.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?
Reply #49
When I listen to the two samples, I hear a "freshness" and clarity in the laser sample compared to the needle one. For example, the cymbals have more sparkle. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this could simply be down to different frequency responses.
I think an important and relevant personal  facility for ignoring tics and pops is being afflicted by one or more common hearing disorders affecting the ability to hear high frequencies. I know for sure that some older friends who are "rediscovering vinyl" fit this profile.
Sorry Arny, are you saying that I'm able to ignore tics and pops because I have some kind of hearing disorder?
Do you really think that's the only conceivable explanation?
Or perhaps, to coin one of your favourite phrases, you're making a personal attack - which I find insulting.

I am frankly staggered that any time anyone ever disagrees with you, your response is to let rip with both barrels.
And in this case I wasn't even disagreeing with you!

What's also interesting is that you choose to target one small part of what I posted - even though my very next sentence points out that it isn't the main thrust of what I was getting at. Do you want to debate the core hypothesis I put forward, or do you just want to pick a fight?

Ever hear of TOS8?
Yes, and if you like I could post a FB2K ABX log showing 100% ability to distinguish the two samples. But you had already stated they are obviously different, so I assumed that wasn't necessary.

It is easy to show how your answer is dismissive and non-responsive, not to mention in violation of forum rules.

Frankly, I expected nothing better. I get it. In your mind you are right because you think you are right, science and forum rules be damned.
How many times have you berated people for arguing against things that you never said in the first place?
And yet that's exactly what you're doing now.
What is it that you believe I think I'm right about? Tell me and I'll let you know if you're putting words in my mouth.

There's a better way to at least attempt to collect reliable and relevant evidence related to  this question. Make the tics go away without affecting the remaining properties of the recording. I think that is  is doable. But there's no reason to do so because of the anti-science posturing.

Making the tics go away and doing a DBT  would be umm like scientific...
As it happens, audio restoration of vinyl LPs is one of my hobbies, and as you say, removing the tics is eminently doable.

So let me make sure I understand. Do you think that if the tics and pops weren't there, then an ABX comparison wouldn't find any differences? Because if that's what you're saying, and if you're prepared to take the test, I will de-tic these samples so you can ABX them for yourself.

On the other hand, you've already stated that the tics and pops are not the only audible difference - just the most obvious. So presumably you will expect the de-tic'd samples to still sound different. In which case, what exactly are you attacking me for?