The Truth About Vinyl Records

[Thomas_A]

Yep. The recording is pretty much the limitation. The system not nearly as much. Even when I play vinyl.

I agree, sort of; but It is two different issues. Vinyl has limitations but can sound suprisingly good. Crosstalk cancellation and head tracking etc will sound fantastic given a proper recording regardless of vinyl or digital. But its a one-man show and studio ”lounge-mixed” recordings may sound better in stereo or three-channel (with proper processing) and be better suited for listening from various seating positions.

 

[Axo1989]

Why are you repeating this falsehood when you've already been corrected?

I thought so, but was too sleepy to check. Misreading "batted around" as "battled" is maybe understandable, but doubling down even though one has presumably read the correction seems unusually obstinate.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I agree, sort of; but It is two different issues. Vinyl has limitations but can sound suprisingly good. Crosstalk cancellation and head tracking etc will sound fantastic given a proper recording regardless of vinyl or digital. But its a one-man show and studio ”lounge-mixed” recordings may sound better in stereo or three-channel (with proper processing) and be better suited for listening from various seating positions.

It is a single seater system. I have only found one track, not album, one track so far that was a mixed bag. Every other recording has benefited from the BACCH

 

[Thomas_A]

It is a single seater system. I have only found one track, not album, one track so far that was a mixed bag. Every other recording has benefited from the BACCH

That is why a three-channel system may be better. It is not single-seated.

 

[Newman]

By deforming a groove, does that mean temporarily pushing the groove out of shape, or does it mean chiseling (wearing away) a part of the groove permanently?

I said ‘permanently’, and you ask if that means ‘temporarily’?

It doesn’t have to be ‘chiseling’ or removal of material. It could just be plastic deformation, like a dent in a car’s door.

cheers

 

[levimax]

I said ‘permanently’, and you ask if that means ‘temporarily’?

It doesn’t have to be ‘chiseling’ or removal of material. It could just be plastic deformation, like a dent in a car’s door.

cheers

PVC is plastic which has a lot of "memory" and unlike a dent in a car door will "spring back" after being deformed. No doubt though that playing records does slowly wear them out. For most use cases it is not a big concern.

 

[Newman]

I thought so, but was too sleepy to check. Misreading "batted around" as "battled" is maybe understandable, but doubling down even though one has presumably read the correction seems unusually obstinate.

Hmm, looks like I was too sleepy to check too.

I completely misread Matt the first time. And never saw his reply before 'doubling down': I must have jumped to 'last post in thread' and skipped it. I only now see my error after reading your post Axo.

Apologies @MattHooper . An honest mistake by me.

cheers

 

[NTK]

The "Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records" by the Vinyl Press referenced 2 old (1968 & 1976, both with related AES papers) articles by engineers at RCA Lab on record wear with SEM photos.

AES E-Library » The Scanning Electron Microscope-A New Tool in Disc-Recording Research

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) has only recently become generally available as a commercial device. The combination of high resolution and high magnification with a remarkable depth of focus provided by the SEM, together with simple procedures in specimen preparation, make this...

www.aes.org

AES E-Library » Development of Compound for QuadraDiscs

QuadraDisc records require a compound different from that suitable for stereo records in terms of first play quality as well as wear resistance. A wearing and evaluation process has revealed the peculiar characteristics required of a QuadraDisc compound.

www.aes.org

The first one is "Record Groove Wear" by Dr. J. G. Woodward published in HiFi Stereo Review (p 85):

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/60s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1968-10.pdf

The second one is "Development of Compound for Quadradiscs" by Bogantz and Khanna published in RCA Engineer (p 17):

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/ARCHIVE-RCA/RCA-Engineer/1976-02-03.pdf

 

[Newman]

PVC is plastic which has a lot of "memory" and unlike a dent in a car door will "spring back" after being deformed.

A scratch in an LP doesn't 'spring back' and can be very small, and the result of a very small force. Hence it's far from accurate to say PVC will spring back after being deformed.

As per the full Wikipedia entry that I linked, by definition, plastic deformation is permanent. The temporary component is called elastic deformation. Yes, there is a kind of memory/delay return component ie viscoelastic deformation in some materials and I believe that would include PVC, but as per the notion of a scratch, records definitely suffer plastic (permanent) deformation. This would apply to groove wear by the needle.

No doubt though that playing records does slowly wear them out. For most use cases it is not a big concern.

Agreed that there will be a range of degrees of wear, and often the effect is not audible. As per the R J Woodward article in NTK’s post above, which clearly shows and describes plastic deformations due to wear, the audibility of even the fairly severe visual damage is limited by being drowned out by all the other vinyl badness aka “residual distortion and noises from other causes masks the audibility of the wear component”.

Woodward also notes that the wear seems to be dominated by plastic (permanent) deformation, and very little scraping away of vinyl (material loss).

cheers

 

[Axo1989]

The "Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records" by the Vinyl Press referenced 2 old (1968 & 1976, both with related AES papers) articles by engineers at RCA Lab on record wear with SEM photos.

AES E-Library » The Scanning Electron Microscope-A New Tool in Disc-Recording Research

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) has only recently become generally available as a commercial device. The combination of high resolution and high magnification with a remarkable depth of focus provided by the SEM, together with simple procedures in specimen preparation, make this...

www.aes.org

AES E-Library » Development of Compound for QuadraDiscs

QuadraDisc records require a compound different from that suitable for stereo records in terms of first play quality as well as wear resistance. A wearing and evaluation process has revealed the peculiar characteristics required of a QuadraDisc compound.

www.aes.org

The first one is "Record Groove Wear" by Dr. J. G. Woodward published in HiFi Stereo Review (p 85):

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/60s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1968-10.pdf

The second one is "Development of Compound for Quadradiscs" by Bogantz and Khanna published in RCA Engineer (p 17):

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/ARCHIVE-RCA/RCA-Engineer/1976-02-03.pdf

Those time capsules are remarkable: I conclude that old sh*t is just as at least as weird as new sh*t.

From the first one: [breathy/deep narrator voice] "in a serious of startling photographs". From the second [fast/high-pitched newsreel voice] "manufacturing technology—the onward thrust" ...

And I guess, don't use 5 grams tracking force.

 

[Newman]

They used 1.5g in the groove wear article.

 

[Newman]

Please, I must have missed it: Which anecdote and what was "illogical" about my anecdote?

Already explained. I must have completed the explanation while you were typing your prompt reply.

 

[Axo1989]

Once again we have the same cohort dumping on people's choice to play records, while nobody is dumping on their choice of formats. It's a one-way attempt to shame - sorry, Just State The Facts - endlessly, It's so bizarre how some people are triggered by others enjoying something they think to be substandard.

You can't be a gate-keeper if you take your eye off the gate.

I think it's a game of reflexes, based on semi-arbitrary rules. Some find fun in that, but not so much my thing. Doing it on a tennis court would make more sense.

 

[Robin L]

This is Audio Science Review, right?

So discussions of audio related matters should be based on available data.

First off, sales of LPs are going up. There appears to be no end in sight. Telling people they are morons for embracing the media serves no purpose. I think, knowing the limitations of the media, we should point people in the direction of ways to get around those limitations.

I remember from all my years of playing LPs that I had fewer problems playing pop records than classical or new age records. This was because absolute pitch wasn't as important to pop and the dynamics of most pop music is more restricted than that of other genres. Looking at the genres of music most likely to sell as new LPs we can see a related trend.

A number of people have already pointed to phono preamps as a major source of audible clicks and pops. I remember three tube phone preamps I used - the preamp in the Dynaco Pas 3, the preamp in the Fisher 500C and the preamp in the Scott 299B - as having fewer clicks and pops than what I experienced in my 1970s solid state receivers. The tube preamps may have had a better margin before clipping.

And, of course, having the overhang and vertical tracking angle of the turntable dialed in results in less audible distortion.

The limits of what's audible and what's not is another consideration. Yes, the noise floor of digital formats is lower than analog formats. But how low is low enough? I think this depends on the sorts of listening habits and the types of music of the auditor. Mahler symphonies require a wide dynamic range. Fleetwood Mac doesn't.

Being able to tell people what sort of gear works best for the music they listen to is helpful. There are plenty of folks in this forum that listen to historic recordings, like Blues records from the 1950s and 1960s. The dynamic range and frequency response of these recordings is limited compared to modern recordings. Many people here want to play older records they have either collected over time or acquired, perhaps from relatives.

The issue is not and never has been, what format is, technically speaking, the very best. The issue is how to get the best results out of what we listen to in the formats we have.

 

[drmevo]

This is Audio Science Review, right?

So discussions of audio related matters should be based on available data.

First off, sales of LPs are going up. There appears to be no end in sight. Telling people they are morons for embracing the media serves no purpose. I think, knowing the limitations of the media, we should point people in the direction of ways to get around those limitations.

I remember from all my years of playing LPs that I had fewer problems playing pop records than classical or new age records. This was because absolute pitch wasn't as important to pop and the dynamics of most pop music is more restricted than that of other genres. Looking at the genres of music most likely to sell as new LPs we can see a related trend.

A number of people have already pointed to phono preamps as a major source of audible clicks and pops. I remember three tube phone preamps I used - the preamp in the Dynaco Pas 3, the preamp in the Fisher 500C and the preamp in the Scott 299B - as having fewer clicks and pops than what I experienced in my 1970s solid state receivers. The tube preamps may have had a better margin before clipping.

And, of course, having the overhang and vertical tracking angle of the turntable dialed in results in less audible distortion.

The limits of what's audible and what's not is another consideration. Yes, the noise floor of digital formats is lower than analog formats. But how low is low enough? I think this depends on the sorts of listening habits and the types of music of the auditor. Mahler symphonies require a wide dynamic range. Fleetwood Mac doesn't.

Being able to tell people what sort of gear works best for the music they listen to is helpful. There are plenty of folks in this forum that listen to historic recordings, like Blues records from the 1950s and 1960s. The dynamic range and frequency response of these recordings is limited compared to modern recordings. Many people here want to play older records they have either collected over time or acquired, perhaps from relatives.

The issue is not and never has been, what format is, technically speaking, the very best. The issue is how to get the best results out of what we listen to in the formats we have.

I think that’s pretty fair. I haven’t delved much into classical records, although I do have a handful I picked up mostly from thrift shops a while ago. They’re not all especially damaged or dirty - in fact a couple appeared they had barely been played - but even small artifacts can be pretty intrusive, depending on the timing. I expect modern, quality vinyl could be quieter, but there are so many quiet/silent passages across the spectrum of “classical” music that I normally choose to enjoy it in digital format.

On the other hand, I have a recent pressing of Duke Ellington & John Coltrane, and the background noise is almost stunningly quiet on that record. I think there was some back and forth discussion on this earlier, but on this record, the tape hiss is absolutely louder than any background noise from the vinyl. For the most part, slight artifacts and background noise don’t intrude on the experience for me when it comes to jazz, rock, or hip-hop.

 

[Newman]

This is Audio Science Review, right?
...The issue is not and never has been, what format is, technically speaking, the very best. The issue is how to get the best results out of what we listen to in the formats we have.

I'm pretty sure they are both issues. Why put one issue on a pedestal and declare the other irrelevant?

Especially in the area of audio science! So very much of audio science, if you look at the research, is exactly on the topic of examining new technologies or approaches, comparing with each other and with the old, and determining which one is superior in which ways, and which inferior, and if there are tradeoffs, how they weigh up against one another. Plus, correlating back to audibility and preference.

And you say that is exactly what the issue "is not and never has been"?

Are you sure you are not confusing Science Issues with Hobbyist Issues?

cheers

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I said ‘permanently’, and you ask if that means ‘temporarily’?

It doesn’t have to be ‘chiseling’ or removal of material. It could just be plastic deformation, like a dent in a car’s door.

cheers

That is why a three-channel system may be better. It is not single-seated.

It’s better for multiple listeners but not as good for a single listener

 

[Robin L]

I think that’s pretty fair. I haven’t delved much into classical records, although I do have a handful I picked up mostly from thrift shops a while ago. They’re not all especially damaged or dirty - in fact a couple appeared they had barely been played - but even small artifacts can be pretty intrusive, depending on the timing. I expect modern, quality vinyl could be quieter, but there are so many quiet/silent passages across the spectrum of “classical” music that I normally choose to enjoy it in digital format.

On the other hand, I have a recent pressing of Duke Ellington & John Coltrane, and the background noise is almost stunningly quiet on that record. I think there was some back and forth discussion on this earlier, but on this record, the tape hiss is absolutely louder than any background noise from the vinyl. For the most part, slight artifacts and background noise don’t intrude on the experience for me when it comes to jazz, rock, or hip-hop.

I was recording classical music in the 1990s. I guess that makes me an audio professional, at least back then. And as we should all know by now, Matt Hooper is an audio professional right now.

LP playback gear comes in all sorts of quality levels. Thanks, in part, to my involvement in professional audio, I got to know others involved in professional audio. For a while I was freinds with John Curl. He's famous, among other things, for his Vendetta research phono preamp. An updated version landed inside of his CTC Blowtorch preamp. I heard his home stereo back in 2000. It was the most revealing analog gear I have heard so far. When Matt mentions how music seems to pop out with a more vivid quality with his LP playback system compared to what he hears (for many hours a day in his day job) via digital playback I can concur with hearing the same on John Curl's system. This was with used, $2 records from Amoeba Berkeley, just about ten minutes away from his apartment.

The quality of LP playback is all over the place, and at its very best it's easily comparable to good digital playback. The background noise may be measurably higher but it might not be audibly higher. The quality is not exactly the same, but it's very close. But until one hears that level of quality of playback, one doesn't really know what the format is actually capable of providing. Mind you, to get to that level of performance requires no little expense and a certain amount of knowhow.

 

[Robin L]

I'm pretty sure they are both issues. Why put one issue on a pedestal and declare the other irrelevant?

Especially in the area of audio science! So very much of audio science, if you look at the research, is exactly on the topic of examining new technologies or approaches, comparing with each other and with the old, and determining which one is superior in which ways, and which inferior, and if there are tradeoffs, how they weigh up against one another. Plus, correlating back to audibility and preference.

And you say that is exactly what the issue "is not and never has been"?

Are you sure you are not confusing Science Issues with Hobbyist Issues?

cheers

Again, people are going to play LPs. As long as they are going to play LPs, better to point them in the direction of how to get better performance in that format. They already know digital formats are available. And yes, hobbyist issues are part of the mix anyway. This might be audio science review, but we are also reviewing what is, after all, a hobby.

 

[Newman]

So, room for both discussion types, it seems. I have always agreed on that point.