LP ... info loss w/repeated plays?

[Sal1950]

Just to confuse you further sal, this is what a faggot is to me and I love them( though not the crap ones from the packet)

ROTFLMAO..Thats priceless!
And if your LP's didn't track well you could put one faggot on the headshell instead of a penny or high end dot.

 

[RayDunzl]

 

[Thomas savage]

Man food!

 

[Sal1950]

Man food!

MAN FOOD?
"A faggot is traditionally made from pig's heart, liver and fatty belly meat"
That's just sic! LOL

 

[NorthSky]

The science of cooking...faggots. ...Yes my American friends.

Then time to spin some of your favorite LP records, light a big fat Cuban cigar, sip a cognac, and digest it all.

 

[Frank Dernie]

IIRC the Bruel and Kjaer frequency records we had at Garrard were only recommended for high frequency measurements for 5 plays.
I didn't question this at the time but certainly stylus profile, condition and VTF would probably influence the amount of wear, maybe using more sophisticated stylus profiles would extend this.
IMO wear above 15kHz is unlikely to be noticed anyway. Older people don't hear that high, the equal loudness curves show HF needs to be very loud to be heard anyway and LPs are limited in the maximum level that can be cut at high frequency by the cutter system.

 

[Deleted member 12]

There has been considerable talk since the onset of the LP that the software is damaged from basically the first play on. I remember back in the day that some of the new LP's were expected to 'break in' with a few plays....and that multiple plays would not be recommended; particularly in the same session ( the theory being that the vinyl had to 'relax' a little between plays??)
With today's more sophisticated stylus shapes and with far better control and precision of the tracking and tracking forces, I am of the opinion that most LP's can survive absolutely pristinely for multiple plays. Nonetheless, large number of plays can- and I believe does, impact the very high freq response on most LP's. Question is how audible or noticeable that truly is?

 

[NorthSky]

We need measurements Davey.

 

[Deleted member 12]

Bob, I know this is the audio science forum...so I have a question.
You measure and you don't see any difference in the Freq response of the LP after a single play, five plays and one hundred plays---- then you use your ears and you definitely hear a difference. What do you believe..your ears or your measurements??
Or the alternative...you measure and you see distinct differences after one play, five plays and one hundred plays...you use your ears and you hear no difference---what do you believe....your ears or your measurements??

 

[NorthSky]

Here's what I believe: In audio that has to do with music listening and emotional trance, each moment in time is different. The atmosphere changes, the molecules, and the neurons in our brain. Playing a LP will bring a slightly different experience each time. The grooves and the stylus running them will have slight variations from first to second to third...next play. I believe that, but it's the brain registering @ different times which is the biggest influence.
The slight alteration in micron, no. The new dust accumulation, no, if using the record brush for each play.

I believe it is so minimal that it has no real consequence even after dozens of play.
What will though is changing the cartridge, or the weight force.

But what I believe is no absolute, and only measurements can tell how much loss there is from the first play to say the ninth play.
And if there is indeed some slight loss, how much influence does it exercise on our brain.
We would think that any loss is negative, but what if that loss is mostly distortion?
Then the more you play the better it sounds.

It's just a thought. ...Not important in my book, and I like a balanced approach; a lucidity between the listening and the measurements.

Furthermore, within the parallels of our audio analog signals through the album's grooves, the cart's stylus and its design, tonearm, cables, preamp, amp, speakers, every small perfecting improvement is important. ...Auditory wise, measurably wise, and enjoyably wise.

 

[Don Hills]

Bob, I know this is the audio science forum...so I have a question.
You measure and you don't see any difference in the Freq response of the LP after a single play, five plays and one hundred plays---- then you use your ears and you definitely hear a difference. What do you believe..your ears or your measurements??
Or the alternative...you measure and you see distinct differences after one play, five plays and one hundred plays...you use your ears and you hear no difference---what do you believe....your ears or your measurements??

Your measurements, both times. Assuming, of course, that you measure the right things.
You simply can't trust your ears on the 500th play to remember the exact way it sounded on the first play.

 

[RayDunzl]

You can measure aspects of the stimulation, and when it is repeatable, there's some value in that quantification.

Perception is less easily measurable, not always repeatable, or summarily quantifiable.

You measure and you don't see any difference in the Freq response of the LP after a single play, five plays and one hundred plays---- then you use your ears and you definitely hear a difference. What do you believe..your ears or your measurements??

Both, but would remain open to try to figure out why.

Or the alternative...you measure and you see distinct differences after one play, five plays and one hundred plays...you use your ears and you hear no difference---what do you believe....your ears or your measurements??

Both.

But they are different tools.

 

[TBone]

While waiting for a new belt to arrive for my turntable, been experimenting with stylus alignment, ripping the results. In a nutshell, I played & recorded the same song over & over again, during a very short span of time, sometimes within minutes. ~13 rips / ~25 passes total over 2 days.

The LP/song is the same LZ3 SIBLY noted above; an original pressing ~ the time vinyl quality took a major nose dive. This pressing, thankfully, has proven durable.

Here are some of my latest notes ...

pass: dr peak rms
pass 2: 12.3/13.1 -1.61/-1.92 -17.0/-17.5
pass 4: 12.2/13.2 -1.46/-1.89 -17.0/-17.5
pass 5: 12.17/13.04 -0.86/-1.07 -16.27/-16.76
pass 5: 12.24/12.73 -0.99/-1.18 -16.56/-17.01 (post digital processing, subsonic filter @40hz)
pass 6: 12.2/13.1 -1.48/-2.00 -17.1/-17.6
pass 9: 12.1/13.2 -1.33/-1.86 -17.0/-17.5
pass12:12.3/13.3 -0.70/-1.05 -16.3/-16.9 (next session, slightly different rec.level)
pass13:12.2/13.1 -0.79/-1.24 -16.4/-17.0

(CD 11.8/12.8 -0.29/-0.17 -14.7/-15.9)

The LP was purchased used, so no accounting for how many prior plays/stylus profiles/wear. My repeated playing has showed little sign of additional wear from a both a measurable standpoint and listening. Change in values can be attributed to stylus rake angle and tracking force variations used on each pass.

However, this little experiment does not take into account any initial wear during initial playing, that test will require a brand spanking new LZ3 LP (which I have, but a different pressing).

 

[TBone]

Bob, I know this is the audio science forum...so I have a question.
You measure and you don't see any difference in the Freq response of the LP after a single play, five plays and one hundred plays---- then you use your ears and you definitely hear a difference. What do you believe..your ears or your measurements??
Or the alternative...you measure and you see distinct differences after one play, five plays and one hundred plays...you use your ears and you hear no difference---what do you believe....your ears or your measurements??

When ripping for best-practice archiving purposes; measurements first, listening second.

 

[NorthSky]

There is no doubt; measurements are essential.
When recording your own music playing, you adjust the meter levels so that they don't clip.
When pressing a record you follow some basic standards, you are aware of the possibilities and limitations...and stay within those parallels.

Record spinning is a mechanical/physical contact. Between the first and next play, who knows with certitude which one will give you the better audio orgasm.
A metaphor? ...What else can we use as a scientific audio validation?

If I buy a new TT and cart today, and play a brand new record on it; what tells me exactly if this, is going to be the ultimate experience?
If everything was properly set and perfectly adjusted, and measured with micro second precision; it should be the right direction in the audio listening emancipation.
It should...

They have scientific experiments on how music listening affect our nervous system...the sensory of our brain. But none between first and second play of an album vinyl spinning on a turntable and powered by a rotating motor. By the time we do, we'll be in another audio dimension...

 

[TBone]

When recording your own music playing, you adjust the meter levels so that they don't clip.

Well, digital doesn't saturate, so best avoid clipping. with ripping vinyl, it happens occasionally, even during my last session. recording large dynamic content sans scouting each & every track can result in clipped peaks. If it's clipped too bad, press erase and start again. Doesn't happen nearly as often using my pro-recorder, with its very fast/accurate peak meters. past consumer grade recorders used slower non-peak type meters, too often clipped peaks (evident post analysis) were not evident during the recording stage.

 

[TBone]

Between the first and next play, who knows with certitude which one will give you the better audio orgasm.

depends on the amount of rumble that makes one flutter, i suppose ...

 

[TBone]

They have scientific experiments on how music listening affect our nervous system...the sensory of our brain. But none between first and second play of an album vinyl spinning on a turntable and powered by a rotating motor. By the time we do, we'll be in another audio dimension...

nah, no such matrix type expectations here; this thread is simply about examining measurable wear on a given (used in this case) LP. Sensory perception(s) are a secondary aside, near useless without the related measurments.