The Courteous Vinyl Playback Discussion

[Robin L]

I don't think I've bought a brand new vinyl record in this century. Possibly it was 1996 when local record shop stopped selling them.

Anything damaged or warped I replaced with the CD. New releases I bought the CD version.

I could not stand warped records even if they played okay.

Around 2012/2013 I toured the country buying used records when they were still cheap (many were £1). All were visually inspected before purchase.
Of those only a handful turned out to be damaged in some invisible way (e.g a first press of 'The Nightfly' with groove damage on two songs).

The person who gave me the weight said that it improved playback, it was not to correct warps. I didn't find it improved the sound although I perceived that it did change it.

I stopped dealing with LPs in 2019. Most of what I bought in the 2000s were used LPs. In the early 2000s it was easy to find clean LPs for cheap. I remember one thrift shop had white-label promos of Creedence Clearwater Revival in mint condition for $1 a pop. I had no trouble finding grey-label copies of Frank Sinatra's Capitol recordings. Those were technical wonders with great sound and very good pressings.

I did buy a few new LPs in the 2000s. The Rhino collection of Bobby Fuller Four sides was audibly off-center. That was returned. Although I already had CDs of the Decemberists' "The King is Dead" and Rosanne Cash's "The River and the Thread" I bought the LPs to find out if they had more dynamics than the CDs. They didn't. Bought all the mono reissues of the Beatles albums around 2014. One of the sides of the "White Album" was off-center. The "Mono Masters" LPs had noticeably fine sound. When it came time to sell the set I got real good money. The best sounding "new" album I bought in the 2000s was the Steve Hoffman mastering of the Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn version of the Nutcracker Suite. I think the sides ran for about 15 minutes each, there was plenty of deadwax and the vinyl was noticeably quiet.

 

[DSJR]

OK, that’s interesting. Thanks.

To me it just means that the clamp had an effect on the sound which I find interesting.
I have my own impressions as to what that sonic change was in the recording, I don’t know about yours.



If again you mean, how are you supposed to tell if it’s better on a crippled system like vinyl, that seems odd to me because the fact vinyl isn’t perfect doesn’t mean that it can’t sound better or worse. If somebody’s interested in playing records, then they probably want to sound better.



Hey, of course you’re free to have any opinion you want about the sound of vinyl.

I happen not to share that opinion, as I find it sounds quite amazing on my system. I care about sound quality (that pleases me) and so I care about how my vinyl sounds. It can sound worse or better depending on the care I take and I prefer better.

As for record clamps, if they can produce an audible change in the sound, then in principle that change could be towards higher fidelity, or even simply a change one may find more pleasing.

Audiophiles care about sound quality, some of us even care about the sound quality of vinyl, as the discussion in this forum attests. So if there’s a way of
“ improving” the sound - and it’s not like a record clamp is likely to break somebody’s bank account - hey why not use one?

It’s pretty much in the job description of an enthusiast to sweat the little details (as you can see in the constant discussions in this forum… some people sweat certain details, more than others and vice versa). So that’s why the record weight and record clamp discussion came up.

The old UK maker 'Revolver' used to do a 'pig' record clamp, made of a rubber compound and akin to the things you fit over plant stakes to prevent poking one's eyes out. I have one here, but it's perishing a little and lost any grip it might have had on the record spindle...

 

[DSJR]

I don't think I've bought a brand new vinyl record in this century. Possibly it was 1996 when local record shop stopped selling them.

Anything damaged or warped I replaced with the CD. New releases I bought the CD version.

I could not stand warped records even if they played okay.

Around 2012/2013 I toured the country buying used records when they were still cheap (many were £1). All were visually inspected before purchase.
Of those only a handful turned out to be damaged in some invisible way (e.g a first press of 'The Nightfly' with groove damage on two songs).

The person who gave me the weight said that it improved playback, it was not to correct warps. I didn't find it improved the sound although I perceived that it did change it.

I've bought several used LPs recently, one of them was to replace a record I seem to have let go twenty years back (Talk Talk's Colour of Spring, which we played to death on dem so my own copy was almost unplayed). The one I bought from Discogs came flat, but sounding like frying chips (fries) in the background and with a kind of haze on the playing surfaces I'm not sure a wet clean will fix. I ended up buying the newly Abbey Road recut version which is excellent, if a little more 'organic' sounding in the bass (the original was a DMM cut, preserving top well but the bass originally cut below 60Hz) which could be my turntable's sonics of course

The latest purchase at huge cost for a sixty year old pressing, was a 12" 'Century 21' release audio offshoot of a childhood favourite Gerry Anderson puppet show (oh alright, Fireball XL5). My own copy is ruined and currently unplayable (it may be wet-cleanable possibly, but there's pre-echo too on the left channel), but this replacement looks to have hardly been played at all and then not on an autochanger with fixed spindle it seems and the vinyl itself is surprisingly thick and 'new' feeling. The sound is great and hardly any noise at all as played on my second system's deck with Ortofon F-FF15E stylus. No digital release of this, so I'm glad I spent out on it as I kind-of owed it to this release in my mind.

 

[lini]

I don't actually know when these things were first made. (...)

Early 80s, as far as I'm aware. Iirc, I've first noticed the Stabilizer in a Thorens catalogue from around 1982 or 1983. Not quite sure anymore, but it definitely was before the introduction of the TD316/318/320 in 1984.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The Rock has a screw thread inside the spindle that a clamp is screwed into. The platter has a solid vinyl top with a record-label indent. There's a washer which is thicker than this indent that goes under the LP and makes it proud of the platter. When you screw the clamp in, it deforms the record slightly so that the surface bends down to touch the platter. If you don't use the clamp, to have to also take the washer off. It fixes all but the worst warps.

 

[mike70]

sounding like frying chips (fries) in the background

do you clean the records before using it? ... in which way?

 

[MAB]

I've bought several used LPs recently, one of them was to replace a record I seem to have let go twenty years back Talk Talk's Colour of Spring

 

[Bland_username42069]

I've bought several used LPs recently, one of them was to replace a record I seem to have let go twenty years back (Talk Talk's Colour of Spring, which we played to death on dem so my own copy was almost unplayed). The one I bought from Discogs came flat, but sounding like frying chips (fries) in the background and with a kind of haze on the playing surfaces I'm not sure a wet clean will fix. I ended up buying the newly Abbey Road recut version which is excellent, if a little more 'organic' sounding in the bass (the original was a DMM cut, preserving top well but the bass originally cut below 60Hz) which could be my turntable's sonics of course

The latest purchase at huge cost for a sixty year old pressing, was a 12" 'Century 21' release audio offshoot of a childhood favourite Gerry Anderson puppet show (oh alright, Fireball XL5). My own copy is ruined and currently unplayable (it may be wet-cleanable possibly, but there's pre-echo too on the left channel), but this replacement looks to have hardly been played at all and then not on an autochanger with fixed spindle it seems and the vinyl itself is surprisingly thick and 'new' feeling. The sound is great and hardly any noise at all as played on my second system's deck with Ortofon F-FF15E stylus. No digital release of this, so I'm glad I spent out on it as I kind-of owed it to this release in my mind.

This may / may not be of interest but I’m a sucker for the magazine and 7” combo

Issue 124 — Electronic Sound

The Sound Of Gerry And Sylvia Anderson + ‘Captain Scarlet’ / ’Thunderbirds’ / ’UFO’ white vinyl EP

electronicsound.squarespace.com

 

[MatrixS2000]

I meant if software can draw same scale near two spectrograms,

If??? There are no ifs here, Izotope can and does do exactly this.

it does not automatically mean that you can compare these spectrograms side by side.

Sure it does, that is one of the uses of the software.

You clearly do not know how spectrograms are computed and how that can affect their appearance (and interpretation).

Does it matter whether I understand how spectrograms are computed (which I do) or if iZotope knows how to compute and present them? Do you think I am the one doing the computations to create the spectrograms or is it Izotope? Please try to make at least some sense.

My goal is not to convince you, my goal is for somebody else reading this not to believe the 'bass note wider' nonsense.

Good luck….

This is the end of the conversation.

Hey we agree!

 

[MatrixS2000]

@MatrixS2000 ... in the wav's i sended (phil collins song) ... you finded the difference between them and then EQ the difference in the vm95ml track, right?

@mike70

Here are a few of the differences found:

Spectrum:

Dynamics:

Phase:

If you can point me to a timestamp location where you think you hear the most difference between cartridges, I can do the spectrogram comparison also.

 

[undeakyetonde]

Sure it does, that is one of the uses of the software.

Does it matter whether I understand how spectrograms are computed (which I do) or if iZotope knows how to compute and present them? Do you think I am the one doing the computations to create the spectrograms or is it Izotope? Please try to make at least some sense.

Sure!

If you use a tool (like iZotope), sometimes it can be very important to understand what it does and how.

Here are spectrograms of the same song resampled from CD-quality 44.1 kHz to 48, and then to 96 kHz. Same analysis window length. Of course, zoomed in to same frequency range and time segment for a fair comparison. I did it myself, just for you, using my own licensed version of iZotope.


Notes definitely look 'fatter'. Yet both files sound exactly the same. This is fully expected if one knows how things work. How a spectrogram looks does not directly correspond to aural impressions like 'sloppier'. And, of course, 'blurred detail' analysis from your original post is exactly the same kind of nonsense.

Hope this helps

 

[mike70]

i asked because you post other 2 wavs, with some EQ points in the vm95 graph and you said "try now" ... i thought you modified the vm95 wav to get an inaudible difference.

 

[JP]

@MatrixS2000 ... in the wav's i sended (phil collins song) ... you finded the difference between them and then EQ the difference in the vm95ml track, right?

I did that and posted the files. Can’t remember which I EQd.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Here are spectrograms of the same song resampled from CD-quality 44.1 kHz to 48, and then to 96 kHz.

To be clear, the previous analysis compared two different masterings of the same song. The main point is that I would use a similar approach to identify any differences related to the record weight.

 

[mike70]

I did that and posted the files. Can’t remember which I EQd.

ah, ok, it was you

well, it's really interesting in a general way ... think about differences between cd masterization, sacd /cd, hires, etc
it's not the same? you can say, "i can find the difference with a MC cartridge, EQ that, and then there's no audible difference", buy EVERYTHING can be in that way ... or not?
i mean, it's a good open question

 

[MatrixS2000]

Here are spectrograms of the same song resampled from CD-quality 44.1 kHz to 48, and then to 96 kHz.
View attachment 459986 View attachment 459985

You do realize that this points more to your SRC not being very good right?

Here is what it looks like when I do the same:

44k:

48K:

96K:

 

[DSJR]

do you clean the records before using it? ... in which way?

For my extensive sins, I use a carbon fibre record brush, which is fine for all my LPs, 98% bought new at the time. This bad one was a Discogs risk which failed, but I kept it in the hope of getting it properly cleaned. To be honest if I was that bothered, I'd try to find another original pressing, but as I have the excellent recut and the original CD, not sure it's worth the bother now

 

[mike70]

For my extensive sins, I use a carbon fibre record brush, which is fine for all my LPs, 98% bought new at the time. This bad one was a Discogs risk which failed, but I kept it in the hope of getting it properly cleaned. To be honest if I was that bothered, I'd try to find another original pressing, but as I have the excellent recut and the original CD, not sure it's worth the bother now

Let me tell you something you only will understand if you do it (as happened with me many years ago)
If you want to extract the best from vinyl ... you have to do a proper wet cleaning. Yes, even with brand new ones (record factories aren't hospitals precisely).

Lower noise, better high frequency response, etc can be obtained.

If you don't care, it's ok, but the better results comes with clean records / stylus (not something you can check with visual inspection).

 

[Newman]

Has anyone here ever bought a new record, given it a clean with a brush (say, a carbon fibre record cleaning brush), measured the audio, then wet cleaned it and measured it again, and observed a better high frequency response? Care to share?

Cheers

 

[goat76]

ah, ok, it was you

well, it's really interesting in a general way ... think about differences between cd masterization, sacd /cd, hires, etc
it's not the same? you can say, "i can find the difference with a MC cartridge, EQ that, and then there's no audible difference", buy EVERYTHING can be in that way ... or not?
i mean, it's a good open question

Perl Acoustics had this comparison between MC and MM cartridges on their YouTube page, and they chaired the direct recorded files for download. Anyways, I found the MC version to sound obviously better out of the box, but when EQ matching the MM to the MC version, I could get it to sound pretty much the same. The main difference was an energy top in high frequency range, and a minor raise in the bass. The difference that was left was very minor, and I don't know if these are the general differences between MM and MC cartridges.