This thread needs to end. It mainly consists of ad hominems, and strawmen from both sides.
Not a good look for ASR.
Not a good look for ASR.
The diamond stylus wears down with use and eventually has to be replaced. Diamond is a pretty hard substance. But the plastic record doesn't wear at all, even though it is wearing a diamond down?If you want to assert that vinyl is not subject to basic laws of physics like friction, I think it's on you to support that with evidence. I don't bear the burden of proof for the assertion "rubbing two objects together creates friction and will eventually wear them down".
Who said record’s don’t wear at all? But let’s shape this question a little bit differently. A stylus will spend 20-25 minutes in the groove of one side of an LP. How much time does each segment of the groove of equal area to the contact of the stylus spend being worn by the stylus? And then how much of the playing time of a stylus get dispersed over multiple records?The diamond stylus wears down with use and eventually has to be replaced. Diamond is a pretty hard substance. But the plastic record doesn't wear at all, even though it is wearing a diamond down?
As you say there may be a universe where it works like that but it isn't this one.
Thank you. That's EXACTLY what I wrote and why I wrote it the way I did. Read my post again and stop picking unnecessary fights.Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. We can make long lists of things that are “common knowledge” and believed by people who are professionals with years of experience. That also simply are not true.
Nope that is not what you wrote at all.Thank you. That's EXACTLY what I wrote and why I wrote it the way I did. Read my post again and stop picking unnecessary fights.
There is microscope-based objective evidence that record grooves suffer wear, especially where there is significant vertical or lateral stylus acceleration. The key thing, though is whether this is measurable in terms of increased noise. Recent research suggests that "popular knowledge" of record wear rate may be wrong and that frequent playing does not cause significant noise increases.I don't think a good stylus on a correctly balanced setup will produce enough wear to be detectable before hundreds of plays. If the stylus was putting enough pressure to cause much wear, the stylus would not be able to follow the track as well and would produce a noticeable difference in sound.
I used quotes to make it clear I was stating "groupthink" anecdotal evidence. I also pointed out that this anecdotal evidence was not objectively confirmed.Nope that is not what you wrote at all.
(Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. We can make long lists of things that are “common knowledge” and believed by people who are professionals with years of experience. That also simply are not true.).
This is what you wrote and this is the second time I am fully quoting it
“Record wear from frequent plays is "common knowledge", by that I mean that "everyone knows it". I had a good LP playback system before digital became domestically common and so absolutely everybody was an "LP expert" because it's all we had access to. You would not find a single person in the 70s who would disagree with the statement "frequent playing wears records out". Why did they believe this? Because they experienced it at first hand. I certainly have, but in those days I didn't have the test gear domestically to prove it.
Professionally I've experienced it first hand. In my experience, test records measurably degrade with frequent playing, especially the highest frequency cuts. However, recently, in a different ASR thread some tests have challenged this. So I have to assume there's something different about my studio experience and modern domestic playback systems.”
That is 100% anecdotal evidence and appeals to common knowledge which is, as I said the first time inherently unreliable.
No I meant you can clearly hear the increase in noise floor and general degradation each time you play the record and by the tenth play the record is completely unlistenable, obviously. I obviously didn't mean that these differences are tiny and incremental and only add up over the course of dozens or hundreds of plays over many years, because that would be the sensible and charitable interpretation and we don't do that around here.“Point 1- I simply don't believe you. You're physically dragging a needle across a groove. This creates surface noise. The most pristine record in the world playing the most perfectly-mastered recording on a brand new SOTA turntable with a brand new expensive needle might have imperceptible surface noise, but every time you play it the noise floor increases and the peaks decline because you're physically scraping away a small amount of the material that makes up that groove.”
EVERY TIME YOU PLAY IT THE NOISE FLOOR INCREASES. Did you mean it does so inaudibly?
“Point 2: No matter how carefully you treat your LPs, they will degrade over time. I doubt you're listening in an industrial clean room. Dust will get in the grooves. Each time you play the record, it will degrade as the needle scrapes away a small amount of vinyl. A bit of oil or residue from a fingerprint will get into a groove. It's the nature of the media, it will happen. You'll eventually get ticks and pops.”
“Each time you play the record it will degrade”
Did you mean inaudibly?
That is true about vinyl but in a way it is also true about digital. Assuming you store your digital files on a hard drive it will eventually wear out and fail and unlike a "worn" LP that will still play at reduced fidelity a file on a dead hard drive will not play at all. Of course you can mitigate this problem by taking the extra steps of cloud backup and remote back up but this is just mitigating the problem not eliminating it and LP's don't have this problem.The fact is that vinyl degrades over time.
I have over 5,500 records. At this point they get one play. A digital rip. Maybe if I think there’s a reason for a redo I’ll do a second rip.No I meant you can clearly hear the increase in noise floor and general degradation each time you play the record and by the tenth play the record is completely unlistenable, obviously. I obviously didn't mean that these differences are tiny and incremental and only add up over the course of dozens or hundreds of plays over many years, because that would be the sensible and charitable interpretation and we don't do that around here.
The fact is that vinyl degrades over time and digital does not. Full stop. If you want to argue about how much or how little it degrades and how you can mitigate these problems by replacing your stylus every two weeks and handling your records with literal kid gloves, etc etc, go nuts, argue until you're blue in the face. You're just mitigating a problem, not eliminating it, and it's a problem that doesn't exist for digital.
I've experienced some failures with micro sd storage. It's hard to wear out CDs, which is why I'm sticking to that format for the time being. Although I'm running out of space for them, they are hard to resist at the prices they now go for. I got a 16 CD set of historic chamber music recordings for $19 plus tax and a minimal shipping cost two weeks ago. Fortunately, it was in a slim-line box.That is true about vinyl but in a way it is also true about digital. Assuming you store your digital files on a hard drive it will eventually wear out and fail and unlike a "worn" LP that will still play at reduced fidelity a file on a dead hard drive will not play at all. Of course you can mitigate this problem by taking the extra steps of cloud backup and remote back up but this is just mitigating the problem not eliminating it and LP's don't have this problem.
Your use of 'dragging' isn't accurate; that story causes difficulty understanding how this works. However as pointed out earlier, the comparison was not with digital.Point 1- I simply don't believe you. You're physically dragging a needle across a groove. This creates surface noise. The most pristine record in the world playing the most perfectly-mastered recording on a brand new SOTA turntable with a brand new expensive needle might have imperceptible surface noise, but every time you play it the noise floor increases and the peaks decline because you're physically scraping away a small amount of the material that makes up that groove. In normal use listening to normal records you're going to hear surface noise. This is not an issue with digital media.
Point 2: No matter how carefully you treat your LPs, they will degrade over time. I doubt you're listening in an industrial clean room. Dust will get in the grooves. Each time you play the record, it will degrade as the needle scrapes away a small amount of vinyl. A bit of oil or residue from a fingerprint will get into a groove. It's the nature of the media, it will happen. You'll eventually get ticks and pops. It's not an issue with digital media.
You can take a lot of steps to reduce the inherent flaws in the vinyl LP format and you can get a system that sounds really good, but it takes a huge investment of time and money. You can get a system that's objectively better while investing a fraction of the money and none of the time with digital media. I can pull a CD off the shelf I've listened to literally 200 times over the past 25 years and it still sounds exactly the same as it did 25 years ago. That's not true of an LP, no matter how expensive your turntable is or how delicately you handle your records.
I'd be interesting in having a chat with 'almost everyone else in the industy' and see if that is really so. This sort of appeal to authority makes your position inherently false. What I find interesting is this does not appear to be about fact. Right here you have someone who has hands on experience, who it telling you that LPs don't do as well as digital, but do much better than you continually imply, but instead you want to belive stuff you read on the internet.Your claims, as usual, are at odds with almost everyone else in the industry.
IMHO , it's you that are hyperbolic, making exaggerated claims.
What do you call Mr Atmasphere's claims?
Me either, it's the same ole, same ole linec of exaggerations and ignoring the facts of what exists in the real world.
And what have all those toys cost you in an effort to avoid the inevitable.
Digital recordings suffer none of these issues.
Simply wasted money, just like expensive cables and powercords, noise reducing grounding boxes, and all the rest.
If you guys really enjoy playing with all these snake-oil toys, be my guest.
Just don't continually try to deny or minimize the negative sonic effects of vinyls inherit problems to those of us that know better.
In order for this to be valid evidence, the provenance of the playback setup has to be included in the study. Certainly if a Close and Play was used you're going to have problems. Without that, a study like you imply here simply lacks credibility.There is microscope-based objective evidence that record grooves suffer wear, especially where there is significant vertical or lateral stylus acceleration. The key thing, though is whether this is measurable in terms of increased noise. Recent research suggests that "popular knowledge" of record wear rate may be wrong and that frequent playing does not cause significant noise increases.
No I meant you can clearly hear the increase in noise floor and general degradation each time you play the record and by the tenth play the record is completely unlistenable, obviously. I obviously didn't mean that these differences are tiny and incremental and only add up over the course of dozens or hundreds of plays over many years, because that would be the sensible and charitable interpretation and we don't do that around here.
The fact is that vinyl degrades over time and digital does not. Full stop. If you want to argue about how much or how little it degrades and how you can mitigate these problems by replacing your stylus every two weeks and handling your records with literal kid gloves, etc etc, go nuts, argue until you're blue in the face. You're just mitigating a problem, not eliminating it, and it's a problem that doesn't exist for digital.
That is true about vinyl but in a way it is also true about digital. Assuming you store your digital files on a hard drive it will eventually wear out and fail and unlike a "worn" LP that will still play at reduced fidelity a file on a dead hard drive will not play at all. Of course you can mitigate this problem by taking the extra steps of cloud backup and remote back up but this is just mitigating the problem not eliminating it and LP's don't have this problem.
Yes, I agree it will take a lot of plays to get to the point where it is audible. Arguably not an issue but I do have records I've owned for forty years, that can mean hundreds of plays.Who said record’s don’t wear at all? But let’s shape this question a little bit differently. A stylus will spend 20-25 minutes in the groove of one side of an LP. How much time does each segment of the groove of equal area to the contact of the stylus spend being worn by the stylus? And then how much of the playing time of a stylus get dispersed over multiple records?
Or to put it another way. Styli generally last around 2,000 hours or so before they are noticeably worn. How much time would each part of the groove walls been in contact with the stylus if 2,000 hours of play was dispersed among 400 records?
I’m pretty sure we’re talking a small small fraction of a second vs. a couple thousand hours.
If you want to talk about a lot of fuss: ripping my large CD collection so I could stream it from my server was one might, lengthy pain in the ass. It was like a second job. I finally gave up and sent the rest to a company that ripped CDs for you, and even they got the meta data screwed up.
Not to mention I personally dislike CDs (jewel cases in particular) as physical objects.
Makes me think of all the time spent in Amoeba flipping through LPs and CDs. Preferred the sound of the LPs softly flapping against each other compared to the hard clacking of jewel cases (even worse, those security cases used when CDs were worth something). Still dislike jewel cases, find the big collections of classical titles in cardboard sleeves much better both in terms of appearance and saving space. Jewel cases are much too easy to break.Not to mention I personally dislike CDs (jewel cases in particular) as physical objects.
The thing is, why use something that does wear down when there's a contactless medium available? That's really the part I don't get. Vinyl was superseded in every respect 40 years ago.
I've hundreds of CDs and only a handful have dynamic limiting to the point where it's a problem.Because what’s delivered with the antiquated, technically inferior medium often sounds subjectively better, due to the mastering, than versions mastered for listening in the car, etc., delivered by technically superior means. Because it’s fun, like a visit to Greenfield Village or something. There’s another thread here largely about the why’s. Can anyone explain….