Search was not working this morning, so I was unable to search this topic.
As an analog medium , I would think vinyl would wear out over time, just from friction alone. But how long does that take? Are used albums a bad idea?
As an analog medium , I would think vinyl would wear out over time, just from friction alone. But how long does that take? Are used albums a bad idea?
Of course in an absolute sense a vinyl LP will deteriorate with every play. But if the turntable is is good order and correctly aligned, an LP can survive dozens of plays without much audible degradation. On the other hand, one single play on a badly set up turntable can wreck an LP through extreme mistracking. And there's no way to tell via a visual inspection. So buying used LPs is a bit of a lottery.
That said, the damage done may well be at a different height on the groove wall to where your own stylus will track. Cheap and nasty turntables tend to have spherical stylii with fairly large radii, which means the damage will sit fairly high on the groove wall. If you use a small elliptical stylus it will tend to sit a bit lower and may play an undamaged part of the groove wall.
My advice is to only buy used LPs if they are cheap, or if the seller is prepared to take them back if they prove to be damaged.
This is more a curiosity than anything else. I will admit that I am a complete and total digital snob. For very subjective reasons, I was extremely happy to leave my albums behind, and switch to CDs. The list is long and not in line with this thread. But anyway...
There is a used CD store near me that is now split in half and the other half is now all used vinyl. I was always curious how much of a crap shoot used vinyl was.
Assuming you have good equipment that is properly aligned, what is the life of vinyl? Obviously leaving it in a hot car is a horribly bad idea. I've dealt with a few warped records in my time.
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.
Are used albums a bad idea?
Wear is certainly an issue that affects used vinyl. Indeed, the marketplace grades and values vinyl based on the condition which includes wear. Generally, mint condition unworn (rarer) vinyl commands the highest prices. If wear is an issue for you, then you can just spend more and buy only used near-mint condition or new vinyl. Of course, listening to used vinyl is not an issue if you're not listening critically. A lot of enjoyment can be had from music on used vinyl as is evident from the fact that the records were worn by playing them.
From hanging around Discogs, I get the impression that many collectors either play their material sparingly or not at all. Personally, I play my collectible vinyl only once or twice, in order to make a digital copy. of course, this is no different from how I treat collectible Cds as well. ;~)
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.
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.
I read that article and noticed some rather far-fetched claims in it. Hence why I posted this. 1000 plays seems a bit much.
According to the makers of LAST record preservative, "200 plays without discernable wear"is possible (with the aid of their product of course):
http://thelastfactory.com/vinyl-record-care-preservation/ (http://thelastfactory.com/vinyl-record-care-preservation/)
LAST was a favorite from my audiophile days, and I recently picked up a fresh bottle of the stuff and figured I'd put it to the ABX test. So far have only made made recordings before and after treatment but haven't ABX'd (maybe this weekend?)
I used to buy a lot of secondhand vinyl, and when buying from shops which specialize in it, condition tended to be pretty decent. But most of those were probably from the late 1960s onwards when stylus tracking forces tended to be measured in grams, not ounces!
In general, if the record jacket and the disk itself appear to be in pretty good shape, they probably are.
You can't always be confident with the look of a second-hand LP. I was talking with a guy who runs a second-hand record shop, and one of the dodges that unscrupulous sellers have is to use T-Cut (or a similar polish) to make a disc look lovely and clean. It buggers the sounds quality, and may well do the same to your stylus, but it looks nice.
When I buy second-hand vinyl, I go to a decent shop (usually Alan's in Finchley, North London) and don't buy the pricey discs. While I do occasionally get a record that's beyond salvation, they are usually playable (and digitisable, if I want to keep it).
As for looking at the jacket, I once went into my then-local shop, to find the owner swearing like a docker. A bloke had come in with some really great-looking records (Beatles first pressings, that sort of stuff) and the jackets/inner sleeves were pristine. Then he looked at the discs... which looked like they'd been used as flooring by people in muddy boots. Not even worth putting in the bargain bins.
I wonder if any stores have turntables in them that will let you try an album out before you buy it.
I really like the size and thinness of the album packaging, Though I do like CD packaging, the small size just isn't as impressive.
I wonder if any stores have turntables in them that will let you try an album out before you buy it.
I really like the size and thinness of the album packaging, Though I do like CD packaging, the small size just isn't as impressive.
My local stores generally have a turntable that customers can use. Otherwise, it would be a great excuse to pick up one of these Numark portable turntables:
https://www.numark.com/product/pt01-scratch (https://www.numark.com/product/pt01-scratch)
My local shop has a couple of decks, if there's a disc you want to try before you buy.
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.
On the other hand I've seen reports (I think from Ortofon) that wet playing can actually damage the grooves. The theory is that the instantaneous high temperatures created at the point of contact between stylus and groove should not be quenched by a liquid.
FWIW, when I experimented with Lencoclean playing it did seem to reduce some of the surface noise, but subsequent dry playing was a crackle-fest - presumably because the dirt lifted out of the bottom of the groove by the wet solvent got deposited back on the side walls.
Loescher was afair the inventor of the Lenco-System ...
OK, so no vested interest there, then ;)
My local stores generally have a turntable that customers can use. Otherwise, it would be a great excuse to pick up one of these Numark portable turntables:
https://www.numark.com/product/pt01-scratch (https://www.numark.com/product/pt01-scratch)
Crikey. If I ran a used LP store and a customer turned up wanting to try a record on one of those, he'd be politely asked to shove it where the sun don't shine.
As for looking at the jacket, I once went into my then-local shop, to find the owner swearing like a docker. A bloke had come in with some really great-looking records (Beatles first pressings, that sort of stuff) and the jackets/inner sleeves were pristine. Then he looked at the discs... which looked like they'd been used as flooring by people in muddy boots. Not even worth putting in the bargain bins.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I was looking through the bargain bin ($3 each) at a local store a while ago, and happened upon Ace of Spades by Motörhead. I was a little bit surprised, but it made sense to be there, as the jacket was badly worn and the inner sleeve was missing. The disc itself had some dust and fingerprints on it, but no scratches, so I figured I would give it a shot for $3.
Got it home, cleaned it up (dish soap, lukewarm water and paintbrush, dry with microfiber towel) and it plays perfectly, no discernible loss of sound quality that I could detect. Plus, it's a UK Bronze Records first pressing. Not too bad, if I say so myself :-)
Search was not working this morning, so I was unable to search this topic.
As an analog medium , I would think vinyl would wear out over time, just from friction alone. But how long does that take? Are used albums a bad idea?
I dug after something like that in this thread: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113365.msg940580.html#msg940580 . In brief:
Bad: a bad stylus can wear down the vinyl quite quickly.
Good: According to that former AES Sweden president, there are styli that will hardly wear the vinyl in thousands of spins.
@KozmoNaut:
Good that it wasn't this LP that had its jacket ruined: https://www.discogs.com/Motörhead-No-Remorse/release/1313603
Search was not working this morning, so I was unable to search this topic.
As an analog medium , I would think vinyl would wear out over time, just from friction alone. But how long does that take? Are used albums a bad idea?
Has the world been spoilt by perfect digital reproduction? Perfect the first time, perfect every time.
apastuszak, this is not what buying second-hand LPs is about. Its about stuff like finding an album you always wanted, getting it at a price you can afford, all the mystique of handling that properly-printed, decent size physical object, sometimes buying it even though it may may be far from perfect.
We have a thread on what people like about vinyl. Not about how it sounds, how many Hz it can accommodate or whatever, but the sheer, personal experience of the thing.
You have a store. There are used records there. Go find out!
Disclosure: Vinyl (and even shellac before it) was, for me, so so long,
the stuff that music was made of that it still causes certain feelings, passions, even. In practice, however, my modest collection of LPs, some of which I have had for fifty years (unplayable, but won't throw away) remains in the cupboard, and, these days, even the turntable is there with them.
There's an old generation that gets it. There's a new generation that thinks there is something to get, and wants it. If you are part of the former, I don't think you would be asking the question. If you are thinking of joining the latter, I
personally advise against it.
To reiterate: perfection is not the point of second-hand LPs, although it is a great treat when you find it. Which you might.
When I buy second-hand vinyl, I go to a decent shop (usually Alan's in Finchley, North London) and don't buy the pricey discs. While I do occasionally get a record that's beyond salvation, they are usually playable (and digitisable, if I want to keep it).
Do you remember Reckless Records in Islington? I have a copy of Steven Stills Manasas that
looks as if all four sides have been sanded, and was priced accordingly. I still listen to the digitization of that set in preference to the brand new CD.
Search was not working this morning, so I was unable to search this topic.
As an analog medium , I would think vinyl would wear out over time, just from friction alone. But how long does that take? Are used albums a bad idea?
Has the world been spoilt by perfect digital reproduction? Perfect the first time, perfect every time.
apastuszak, this is not what buying second-hand LPs is about. Its about stuff like finding an album you always wanted, getting it at a price you can afford, all the mystique of handling that properly-printed, decent size physical object, sometimes buying it even though it may may be far from perfect.
We have a thread on what people like about vinyl. Not about how it sounds, how many Hz it can accommodate or whatever, but the sheer, personal experience of the thing.
You have a store. There are used records there. Go find out!
Disclosure: Vinyl (and even shellac before it) was, for me, so so long, the stuff that music was made of that it still causes certain feelings, passions, even. In practice, however, my modest collection of LPs, some of which I have had for fifty years (unplayable, but won't throw away) remains in the cupboard, and, these days, even the turntable is there with them.
There's an old generation that gets it. There's a new generation that thinks there is something to get, and wants it. If you are part of the former, I don't think you would be asking the question. If you are thinking of joining the latter, I personally advise against it.
To reiterate: perfection is not the point of second-hand LPs, although it is a great treat when you find it. Which you might.
I grew up with vinyl. My parents had a very large record collection from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I bough vinyl in the early 80s through 1989 as my exclusive pre-recorded format of choice, I would copy my albums to cassette to listen to on my Walkman or in my car.
I understand what people like about vinyl. I also know that it's quite possible to hunt for some long lost album, find it in a used record store, bring it home, and have it sound pretty bad.
I've bought used CDs, popped them in my CD player and had them not play. That can be quite a frustrating experience. I would think that the same could happen with vinyl. I'm just wondering if there is a point where a record will deteriorate to the point where you'd prefer not to listen to it.
As I said in my original post, I am a complete digital snob. I bought my first CD player in 1989 and immediately started to buy CDs and left my vinyl behind. I gave it all away about 2 years ago to a coworker. Since then, I've moved on to an iPod, then a smartphone.
But I recently bought a used CD player and fixed it up, and have been buying a lot of used CDs. And I was curious about used albums. I'm not looking to get into used albums, I was just curious how they hold up over time. Albums have a number of very subjective limitations for me that keeps me away from them.
Someday, I may buy a turntable for those few releases I want that never came out digitally. But for now, I'm content.
When I buy second-hand vinyl, I go to a decent shop (usually Alan's in Finchley, North London) and don't buy the pricey discs. While I do occasionally get a record that's beyond salvation, they are usually playable (and digitisable, if I want to keep it).
Do you remember Reckless Records in Islington? I have a copy of Steven Stills Manasas that looks as if all four sides have been sanded, and was priced accordingly. I still listen to the digitization of that set in preference to the brand new CD.
Never went to Reckless, but knew of it. I bought a Lamont Dozier album from Flashback in Islington, and some nerk had stuck a label across the actual playing surface.
Most of my hard-earned money that should have gone on food, rent and other inessential things was spent at Golden Grooves (near the Barbican, but since closed down) and Retrobloke (the shop was in Hendon, but he's now on-line only).
Some of the stuff in Reckless was expensive. I sold them some albums once... they paid peanuts. I worked in Islington 1974-1990. I guess my
Reckless years were in there somewhere.
My other second-hand-LP shop was in Soho. The guy would always say he didn't have the record I wanted, but I often found it
Search was not working this morning, so I was unable to search this topic.
As an analog medium , I would think vinyl would wear out over time, just from friction alone. But how long does that take? Are used albums a bad idea?
Has the world been spoilt by perfect digital reproduction? Perfect the first time, perfect every time.
apastuszak, this is not what buying second-hand LPs is about. Its about stuff like finding an album you always wanted, getting it at a price you can afford, all the mystique of handling that properly-printed, decent size physical object, sometimes buying it even though it may may be far from perfect.
We have a thread on what people like about vinyl. Not about how it sounds, how many Hz it can accommodate or whatever, but the sheer, personal experience of the thing.
You have a store. There are used records there. Go find out!
Disclosure: Vinyl (and even shellac before it) was, for me, so so long, the stuff that music was made of that it still causes certain feelings, passions, even. In practice, however, my modest collection of LPs, some of which I have had for fifty years (unplayable, but won't throw away) remains in the cupboard, and, these days, even the turntable is there with them.
There's an old generation that gets it. There's a new generation that thinks there is something to get, and wants it. If you are part of the former, I don't think you would be asking the question. If you are thinking of joining the latter, I personally advise against it.
To reiterate: perfection is not the point of second-hand LPs, although it is a great treat when you find it. Which you might.
I grew up with vinyl. My parents had a very large record collection from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I bough vinyl in the early 80s through 1989 as my exclusive pre-recorded format of choice, I would copy my albums to cassette to listen to on my Walkman or in my car.
I understand what people like about vinyl. I also know that it's quite possible to hunt for some long lost album, find it in a used record store, bring it home, and have it sound pretty bad.
I've bought used CDs, popped them in my CD player and had them not play. That can be quite a frustrating experience. I would think that the same could happen with vinyl. I'm just wondering if there is a point where a record will deteriorate to the point where you'd prefer not to listen to it.
As I said in my original post, I am a complete digital snob. I bought my first CD player in 1989 and immediately started to buy CDs and left my vinyl behind. I gave it all away about 2 years ago to a coworker. Since then, I've moved on to an iPod, then a smartphone.
But I recently bought a used CD player and fixed it up, and have been buying a lot of used CDs. And I was curious about used albums. I'm not looking to get into used albums, I was just curious how they hold up over time. Albums have a number of very subjective limitations for me that keeps me away from them.
Someday, I may buy a turntable for those few releases I want that never came out digitally. But for now, I'm content.
Well, I guess I made a big mistake about your background! We are not so far apart in history and current situation, except I have shed quite a lot of snobbery along with my HF hearing.
But with a background in vinyl, you should know already how a record can get clicks and ticks when you're not even handling it, and how something that looks good can have horrible problems.
Let me readjust my bottom-line advice: if you do not even currently have a working turntable, don't even think about that used-vinyl side of the store!
@KozmoNaut:
Good that it wasn't this LP that had its jacket ruined: https://www.discogs.com/Motörhead-No-Remorse/release/1313603
That would have been absolutely heartbreaking, truly.
On the other hand I've seen reports (I think from Ortofon) that wet playing can actually damage the grooves. The theory is that the instantaneous high temperatures created at the point of contact between stylus and groove should not be quenched by a liquid.
FWIW, when I experimented with Lencoclean playing it did seem to reduce some of the surface noise, but subsequent dry playing was a crackle-fest - presumably because the dirt lifted out of the bottom of the groove by the wet solvent got deposited back on the side walls.
An interesting video of wet playing LPs ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgiCwWsktk
On the other hand I've seen reports (I think from Ortofon) that wet playing can actually damage the grooves. The theory is that the instantaneous high temperatures created at the point of contact between stylus and groove should not be quenched by a liquid.
FWIW, when I experimented with Lencoclean playing it did seem to reduce some of the surface noise, but subsequent dry playing was a crackle-fest - presumably because the dirt lifted out of the bottom of the groove by the wet solvent got deposited back on the side walls.
An interesting video of wet playing LPs ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgiCwWsktk
Discarded in the day because it was said to be good for one playing, and then the LP was became excessively noisy forever.
There was so much relevant science that made its way into the pages of the two or three mainstream audio magazines of the that seems to have gone missing. It may be in the pages of Audio, High Fidelity, and Stereo Review over at http://www.americanradiohistory.com.
On the other hand I've seen reports (I think from Ortofon) that wet playing can actually damage the grooves. The theory is that the instantaneous high temperatures created at the point of contact between stylus and groove should not be quenched by a liquid.
FWIW, when I experimented with Lencoclean playing it did seem to reduce some of the surface noise, but subsequent dry playing was a crackle-fest - presumably because the dirt lifted out of the bottom of the groove by the wet solvent got deposited back on the side walls.
An interesting video of wet playing LPs ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgiCwWsktk
Discarded in the day because it was said to be good for one playing, and then the LP was became excessively noisy forever.
There was so much relevant science that made its way into the pages of the two or three mainstream audio magazines of the that seems to have gone missing. It may be in the pages of Audio, High Fidelity, and Stereo Review over at http://www.americanradiohistory.com.
Anecdotal, I know but...
Whenever I have an old noisy record, I 'wet play' it with some cleaning solution. This tends to collect a huge amount of material on the stylus that is not present during the dry play. I clean the stylus 2-3 times per side (depending on how dirty it gets), and after this point the record plays
much more quietly. I would suggest that the type and shape of stylus likely plays an important role. I also fully dismiss the "temperature/heat" arguments.
I can see no way in which wet paying can damage the vinyl. The turntable and stylus on the other hand...
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
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.
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... ;-)
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=107570.0;attach=11369)
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:
(https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?mode=large&image_id=13038)
(https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?mode=large&image_id=13037)
(https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?mode=large&image_id=13036)
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.
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:
(https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?mode=large&image_id=13038)
(https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?mode=large&image_id=13037)
(https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?mode=large&image_id=13036)
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)
Now you tell me exactly what "Very little degradation" means by 1974 pre-digital standards actually means today... ;-)
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=107570.0;attach=11369)
These show conditions 'after'. Are there 'before' photos in the article?
Now you tell me exactly what "Very little degradation" means by 1974 pre-digital standards actually means today... ;-)
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=107570.0;attach=11369)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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/
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111421.msg918698.html#msg918698
I am not working there now, so can't retry anymore.
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?
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.
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.
Guess it needs to be played wet, oh wait...
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
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".
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.
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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...
Cliveb's posts were in no way violating TOS8. This latest post of yours, OTOH, violates TOS2.
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?
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"?
...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.
I believe that's true. Vinyl defects bothered me back in the vinyl days, and now they bother me even more!
It seems fairly clear that audiophiles who prefer vinyl and claim it's superior (I'm not including you, Clive) are not bothered by the noise, or at least not bothered by occasional low-level noises...
Back in the vinyl days, defects seemed to bother me more than they bothered my "casual listening" friends and acquaintances. And, I was more bothered by the clicks on my records I was familiar with than by defects on other's records... I knew when the tick was coming and I'd be anticipating it instead of enjoying the music.
It's also fairly clear that in those days, "audiophiles"
were bothered by vinyl defects as there was lots of interest in caring-for and preserving records.
I also remember visiting a house with a high-end stereo when I was a "kid", They had a pair of those cylindrical Empire speakers. The were playing an (distant?) FM radio station and the hiss from the tweeters was terrible! (Our stereo at home probably didn't have tweeters.) Nobody else seemed to be noticing the "poor sound quality".
But interestingly, I preferred vinyl over hissy (commercial) cassettes with rolled-off highs, and I never actually bought any cassettes, although I copied my records to cassette for listening in the car. (8-Tracks were out of the question, since sometimes the track would change in the middle of a song.)
I was going to reply to Arny's most recent response, but I see it's been moved to the recycle bin under TOS2.
Therefore I see no point in continuing the playground scrap.
That said, in preparation for my reply I had already created de-tic'd versions of the samples, so I'm providing them here in case anyone wants to ABX them.
Let me start by admitting that it was not worth the inordinate amount of time it would take to de-tic the quiet section at the beginning of the sample from the ELP laser turntable. Without a music-free noise fingerprint to use for decrackling, it would take several hours of painstaking manual editing, and even then the results would probably not be competely tic-free. So the de-tic'd samples here contain only the louder sections. But I think they are still pertinent to the point I was trying to make, which is that they are easily ABXable without the tell-tale tics. I attach my own ABX log.
Without a music-free noise fingerprint to use for decrackling
Here you are. Maybe it was the studio's fault to not equipped with a semiconductor fab like cleanroom to use the ELP. We did clean the vinyls but they were not immediately dry after vacuuming, we usually put them aside for several hours so they become dry enough to put into the ELP or the Stantons (didn't heard about the wet playing trick :P ). We also digitized vintage tapes so stuff like tape particles and mold could contaminate the cleaned vinyls again.
I created de-tic'd versions of the samples, so I'm providing them here in case anyone wants to ABX them.
Let me start by admitting that it was not worth the inordinate amount of time it would take to de-tic the quiet section at the beginning of the sample from the ELP laser turntable. Without a music-free noise fingerprint to use for decrackling, it would take several hours of painstaking manual editing, and even then the results would probably not be competely tic-free. So the de-tic'd samples here contain only the louder sections. But I think they are still pertinent to the point I was trying to make, which is that they are easily ABXable without the tell-tale tics. I attach my own ABX log.
First, please note the attachment showing potentially audible differences in the normal audible range, varying up to several dB between the Laser1 and needle1 files, named accordingly. R and G relate to the red lines and the green lines, respectively, with red being the needle1 file and green being the laser1 file.
Second, please note the corresponding ABX log whose name also indicates the range of times that I (sucessfully) ABXed.
My subjective opinion is that the differences in the timbre of the cymbal crash was a pretty obvious "tell".
Without a music-free noise fingerprint to use for decrackling
Here you are. Maybe it was the studio's fault to not equipped with a semiconductor fab like cleanroom to use the ELP. We did clean the vinyls but they were not immediately dry after vacuuming, we usually put them aside for several hours so they become dry enough to put into the ELP or the Stantons (didn't heard about the wet playing trick :P ). We also digitized vintage tapes so stuff like tape particles and mold could contaminate the cleaned vinyls again.
Thanks again.
Please see the attachment showing unexpectedly high measured averaged levels for the subjectively quieter "needle new" file as opposed to the measured lower values for the ELP file..
Please see the attachment showing unexpectedly high measured averaged levels for the subjectively quieter "needle new" file as opposed to the measured lower values for the ELP file..
As mentioned in my previous post, the files are not meant to be ABXed. People who want to do so feel free to make any adjustment they like to the files.
Thanks, Arny, for taking the trouble to do an ABX of the two files.
First, please note the attachment showing potentially audible differences in the normal audible range, varying up to several dB between the Laser1 and needle1 files, named accordingly. R and G relate to the red lines and the green lines, respectively, with red being the needle1 file and green being the laser1 file.
I also did a frequency analysis, because I was suspicious that what sounded like increased clarity in the laser sample might very well be due to a simple difference in frequency balance. Initially it looked like the only significant difference was above about 13kHz (which I thought could not really explain what I was hearing), but on more careful inspection I think the laser sample has more energy in the presence region (3kHz - 12kHz) by a couple of dB, so I am content to believe that this is probably the dominant factor in the audible difference.
Second, please note the corresponding ABX log whose name also indicates the range of times that I (sucessfully) ABXed.
Although the stats show you were able to distinguish the two samples, I have to say I'm surprised that there were 2 negatives amongst the trials. I had no negatives at all, and was able to make a decision on each trial within a couple of seconds.
I know you've explained that your hearing has been compromised by recent medical treatments, so perhaps that's a possible explanation.
My subjective opinion is that the differences in the timbre of the cymbal crash was a pretty obvious "tell".
Agreed.
In summary, do you agree that there are audible differences between the two samples that are not solely due to the increased tics and pops from the laser turntable?
In summary, do you agree that there are audible differences between the two samples that are not solely due to the increased tics and pops from the laser turntable?
It seems that the audible difference may have been due to artifacts of the process that removed the tics. The tics utterly masked my ability to tell much more than that there were way to many tics to tell much of anything. With tics in place, both samples were utterly unenjoyable, one more so than the other.
Both samples with tics managed, were subjectively tic-free enough to be listened to with some amount of pleasure. Subtle technical differences aside, I could listen to the music and enjoy the musical art that they embodied.
Please see the attachment showing unexpectedly high measured averaged levels for the subjectively quieter "needle new" file as opposed to the measured lower values for the ELP file..
As mentioned in my previous post, the files are not meant to be ABXed. People who want to do so feel free to make any adjustment they like to the files.
That said, I find it curious that the averaged SNR of the ELP file was that much bette despite all the transient noiser.
AFIK they were well-matched insofar as the level of the music goes.
In summary, do you agree that there are audible differences between the two samples that are not solely due to the increased tics and pops from the laser turntable?
It seems that the audible difference may have been due to artifacts of the process that removed the tics.
You don't know what the process was, so you're making suppositions without any supporting evidence.
I'll give you a hint: the process didn't touch the cymbal crashes, which you've already stated was an obvious "tell" between the two samples.
For your further amusement, I've attached short extracts that include one of the "tell-tale" cymbal crashes.
Both are from the laser turntable: one is the original sample, the other is the de-tic'd version.
If, as you suggest, the audible difference is an artefact of the tic-removal process, you'll be able to ABX them easily. I challenge you to do that.
In summary, do you agree that there are audible differences between the two samples that are not solely due to the increased tics and pops from the laser turntable?
It seems that the audible difference may have been due to artifacts of the process that removed the tics.
You don't know what the process was,
That makes what followed a blind test. ;-)
so you're making suppositions without any supporting evidence.
Utterly false. May even speak to state of mind...
I provided the frequency response and noise level curves.
You might not like the evidence, you may disagree with the evidence, but claiming it does not exist is utterly false.
Furthermore, the evidence about background noise levels may support some of your hypotheses.
I'll give you a hint: the process didn't touch the cymbal crashes, which you've already stated was an obvious "tell" between the two samples.
So, you say.
For your further amusement, I've attached short extracts that include one of the "tell-tale" cymbal crashes.
Both are from the laser turntable: one is the original sample, the other is the de-tic'd version.
If, as you suggest, the audible difference is an artefact of the tic-removal process, you'll be able to ABX them easily. I challenge you to do that.
We shall see. Unlike you, I just analyze and test the evidence.
For you there seems to be this non-technical foregone conclusion stated in Placebophile terms.
Dunning KruEger strikes again.
We shall see. Unlike you, I just analyze and test the evidence.
Oops. I have just discovered that I made an error. :-[
I am man enough to admit it.
But before I reveal my mistake, let's see if the guy who likes to analyse and test the evidence can discover what it is.
Honestly, I didn't do this on purpose as bait, but what the heck - may as well see what transpires.
We shall see. Unlike you, I just analyze and test the evidence.
Oops. I have just discovered that I made an error. :-[
I am man enough to admit it.
But before I reveal my mistake, let's see if the guy who likes to analyse and test the evidence can discover what it is.
Honestly, I didn't do this on purpose as bait, but what the heck - may as well see what transpires.
Failure to find a particular mistake in the midst of many mistakes is not a big deal. The big fault is that the sample is so short as to be easily criticized for "cherry-picking". It is pretty trivial to find media that makes a point, particularly if the point is "Can't hear a difference".