Why Audiophiles Are Shopping for Vintage Turntables

[Frank Dernie]

I’m not saying that no damage happens objectively. In this type of mechanical system with a hard rock being dragged through an essentially soft surface, certainly there’s going to objectively be wear over time.

I’m pointing out that the way some people speak about the record wear can exaggerate the audible consequences. You’ve set up lots of turntables. I’ve owned my turntable for a long time and I have done plenty of comparisons myself, and I’ve got many records that I’ve listened to a great number of times, and whatever is happening objectively, subjectively the difference is so minuscule that the records tend to sound fantastic even after lots of plays, and similar to new records.

I mentioned a video in which a record was played 100 times on a decent turntable, and you can see and hear for yourself that the difference between the first player and the hundredth play was negligible.

Or at least if somebody said, it was significant serious degradation after 100 plays, I would certainly disagree with that characterization. Check it out for yourself;

The wear tends to be greatest at highest frequencies for the obvious technical reasons. I can no longer hear the "top octave" so little consequence for me.
OTOH the 4-channel LPs we had for a short time modulated the difference information onto an around 50kHz carrier frequency iirc, so they would perhaps be the most vulnerable to sound quality degredation I suppose.
Maybe @sergeauckland has some experience here, given he has the kit to play them?
I do remember from my days working at Garrard that the Bruel and Kjaer test records had some advice about how many times they could be used before the accuracy of the frequency response fell out of tolerance.
Anybody interested by the engineering involved in making and testing LP records and their limitations would be well advised to seek out any of their 60s and 70s technical literature.
Nothing much new has been found since then - though fashion changes what is discussed

 

[sergeauckland]

My 4 channel LP equipment only decodes SQ and QS formats, which are matrixed systems, not using the HF carrier system, called CD-4 (Compatible Discrete, not Compact Disc!). I chose matrixed because of record wear, as I expect few CD-4 LPs will have much if the carrier left unless unplayed. CD-4 was a much better system than SQ or QS under laboratory conditions, in spite of a 15kHz top limit, but managed less well in the real world. My 50 year old SQ LPs decode fine.

As to test records, Decca had a number of test LPs, and they recommended a maximum of 5 plays for guaranteed performance above 10kHz. However, this may have been assuming the sort of heavyweight cartridges of the 1950s and early 1960s, including Decca's own, with a spherical stylus, rather than Shure's or ADCs elliptical 1gm trackers.

By the way, to play CD-4 LPs, it needed a special stylus, developed by Shibata able to track the 50kHz HF carrier. The CD-4 decoder also acted as an external phono stage, another reason for me to stick with SQ as my main two turntables have internal phono stages.

S

 

[AJM1981]

If you enjoy listening to distortion and noise more than what the artists-engineers attempt to bring into your life, be my guest. I just love music and have spent a lifetime trying to reproduce their artistry, bringing it into my listening room in as a clear/clean a manner as I can afford.

I have been on the engineering side.

The point I would like to make is that when, for example watching content on streaming platforms.There are clear cut digital samples in recorded speech and sound effects. I often find them too "plastic-ey crisp' on amps like NAD with good loudspeakers. You can almost hear the cut they made with foley sounds and / or stock samples. There is a lot of emphasis on clicks and snaps as in 'here is a sample', now some speech, 'here is another sample for you'. It is not immersive, it is analytical. Sometimes even openly revealing little mistakes, it might distract anyone with a background in the field. It makes me want to edit it, draws the attention away from what is on screen.

Yes, it produces the "experience of being at the cutting table" near studio monitors, it is functional for that, it tells you what is there. It is probably as uncolored as it can be and the best thing to some, but it is not 'my' best thing for 'my' living room. I like some more unity in the whole soundscape between dialog and foley sound. Whatever someone's opinion might be based on the general concensus.

This is far aside from an opinion about records by the way. I am not a vinyl die-hard.

I'll be your guest.

 

[MattHooper]

Isn't the best often underated thing about vinyl the fact that every sleeve is like a self contained document. The library factor, as in there is a story about the album ánd it also contains a disc.. as a bonus .

I buy lots of new vinyl so I wouldn’t say that’s a factor with all my records.

I don’t view myself as a “record collector” because in my mind that connotes somebody who is significantly driven by the “ collecting” aspect - “ I have to get all the releases of a certain album, or artist” or they will buy items because they are valued by other collectors etc. I only buy albums based on wanting to hear the music first and foremost.

But the “story/artifact” factor is bigger with one genre in my collection: Library Music.

The Experimental World of Library Music and the Collector Cult That Followed | In Sheeps Clothing

An intro to the surreal and funky world of “library records,” the assembly-line-produced albums designed to soundtrack film and television. It’s hard to sum up the “library record.” Musically speaking, these dusty sought-after gems occupy a broad spectrum of styles. From a beat-digger haven...

insheepsclothinghifi.com

Soft Illusions: The Bruton Music Library, 1977 – 1989

Alongside the industrial manufacture of popular music which characterised the second half of the twentieth century, another type of music aimed at a smaller group of consumers and offering another …

wearethemutants.com

I’ve always been enthralled by soundtrack music, including the extremely muscular and dynamic soundtracks for action and sci-fi and superhero cartoon soundtracks. And when I found there was a whole undiscovered world of this type of music I couldn’t help but go down that rabbit hole. And these can certainly be expensive.

I have a pretty large collection now of library music, and I was able to vet every single album online for it’s music content before I purchased it.

But I also very much enjoy the “ interesting historical artefact” aspect of these albums as well. When I pick up some of them first of all, I find their album covers fascinating. And I’m aware of the fact that sometimes there is little as 200 of these albums pressed at all, none of which were ever meant for the public and most of which ended up in garbage bins.
So there would seem to be an interesting story, and how this object even ended up in my hands after all those years.

Secondly, these records were sent to production houses where the tracks would be listened to, and then if any of the tracks were suitable for the production, they would circle those tracks on a list and send it out for a tape version. So, many of my library albums have the the tracks circled in pencil or pen by whoever selected those tracks for use in a commercial or film. It’s interesting to ponder which commercial or films or TV shows the specific album I’m holding in my hand actually facilitated.

A few interesting covers from the Bruton Library music collection:

 

[Sal1950]

Or Cd or SACD. Whatever. It hardly makes a difference

Yes, of course it does. When you own the CD etc you know exactly what you own, or can research when and where it was mastered and by whom, etc etc.
The streaming product is mostly an unknown. What master it the came from, etc, most of the time your guess is as good as anyones?

from, etc, most of the time your guess is as good as anyones?from, etc, most of the time your guess is as good as anyones?By the way, to play CD-4 LPs, it needed a special stylus, developed by Shibata able to track the 50kHz HF carrier. The CD-4 decoder also acted as an external phono stage, another reason for me to stick with SQ as my main two turntables have internal phono stages.

Good overview of the Quad LP days. The failure of the Quad market could most directly be pointed at the CD-4 discs. Their problems with tracking, combined with accelerated wear, plus the costs of special dedicated gear and more, really put a bad taste in the mouths of enthusiasts back then. SQ and QS could sound good but really missed the mark for good discrete 4 channel playback. Only 8 track tape offered that but had a laundry list of problems all it's own, and 4 channel Reel To Reel tape was great but it's cost & unavailability were big issues there. This total hodge-podge of mediums, each with it's own mix of issues really turned folks off in the end. Thank goodness modern digital has eliminated all those headaches.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, it produces the "experience of being at the cutting table" near studio monitors, it is functional for that, it tells you what is there. It is probably as uncolored as it can be and the best thing to some, but it is not 'my' best thing for 'my' living room. I like some more unity in the whole soundscape between dialog and foley sound. Whatever someone's opinion might be based on the general concensus.

If you prefer the distortion of vinyl over hearing exactly what the artist and engineers worked so hard to bring into your room, be my guest. My preference in this hobby is what has been the goal for nearly 100 years now, it's called High Fidelity.

 

[AJM1981]

If you prefer the distortion of vinyl over hearing exactly what the artist and engineers worked so hard to bring into your room, be my guest. My preference in this hobby is what has been the goal for nearly 100 years now, it's called High Fidelity.

I put about a few disclaimers in there, that i did not speak about vinyl. I did not made any claims whatsoever regarding vinyl. Vinyl to me is that I own some records and a reasonable record player. To others it might be something else.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I have been on the engineering side.

Yes, it produces the "experience of being at the cutting table" near studio monitors, it is functional for that, it tells you what is there. It is probably as uncolored as it can be and the best thing to some, but it is not 'my' best thing for 'my' living room. I like some more unity in the whole soundscape between dialog and foley sound. Whatever someone's opinion might be based on the general concensus.

This is far aside from an opinion about records by the way. I am not a vinyl die-hard.

I'll be your guest.

This is why I only listen to music with hot beeswax poured into my ears for that warm layer that blends together all those artificial digital plastic edges. Plus it smells great and I get to patronize local beekeepers!

 

[AJM1981]

This is why I only listen to music with hot beeswax poured into my ears for that warm layer that blends together all those artificial digital plastic edges. Plus it smells great and I get to patronize local beekeepers!

I would have made the same comment years ago.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I would have made the same comment years ago.

Fair. I suppose in some years my hearing will decline and I will no longer need the wax. Something to look forward to!

 

[AJM1981]

Fair. I suppose in some years my hearing will decline and I will no longer need the wax. Something to look forward to!

your hearing might be worse.

Measurements vs perception. I don't argue with both ways, function and preference.

Choose your way.

Glad you learned something today.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Ah yes, good ol' architectrual design, definitely correctly spelled and not at all irrelevant

your hearing might be worse.

Measurements vs perception. I don't argue with both ways, function and preference.

Choose your way.

Glad you learned something today.

 

[AJM1981]

Ah yes, good ol' architectrual design, definitely correctly spelled and not at all irrelevant

Yep, the spelling is wrong indeed. But the main point isn't one to disprove by your baseless rants. Our eyes and ears and other senses perceive stuff rather than measure things exactly. There is a whole subforum dedicated to this and is as much grounded in science as measurements.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Yep, the spelling is wrong indeed. But the main point isn't one to disprove by your baseless rants. Our eyes and ears and other senses perceive stuff rather than measure things exactly. There is a whole subforum dedicated to this and is as much grounded in science as measurements.

None of that is controversial or new to me or to ASR, but also it has nothing to do with your preference for low fidelity hi fi equipment

 

[AJM1981]

None of that is controversial or new to me or to ASR, but also it has nothing to do with your preference for low fidelity hi fi equipment

If it would not be controversial to you, you would not start a virtual masculine dick measurement competition about it.

 

[MattHooper]

None of that is controversial or new to me or to ASR, but also it has nothing to do with your preference for low fidelity hi fi equipment

If you had used the term “lower fidelity” about vinyl playback I would agree - that’s an objective truth in terms of the overall technical capabilities of vinyl versus digital playback.

But I find the use of the term “low fidelity” tends to be used subjectively.

I have plenty of records that I’ve compared to their digital counterparts sound so similar in quality that the differences are very subtle at best. Many of my guests often don’t know they’re listening to a record versus a digital playback. The sound is spectacular whether it happens to be the vinyl source or the digital source. Therefore, I would not call vinyl sound quality in such cases “low fidelity” (but yes, lower fidelity technically).

So the problem is somebody can slap the term “low fidelity” on vinyl in a way that can imply poorer sound quality from vinyl than is actually the case.

Since I’m switching between my vinyl playback and my digital source, all the time I have found that in terms of sound quality, the biggest differences come from the quality of the recordings and production and mastering of the music versus whether I happen to be playing it on the medium of vinyl or digital.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

If you had used the term “lower fidelity” about vinyl playback I would agree - that’s an objective truth in terms of the overall technical capabilities of vinyl versus digital playback.

I was not referring to vinyl playback at all, but to this post (which the poster specifically says is not about vinyl) about high fidelity sounding bad ("plastic-ey crisp," "analytical," "might distract")

 

[Sal1950]

Therefore, I would not call vinyl sound quality in such cases “low fidelity” (but yes, lower fidelity technically).

Simply word games in a attempt to support using a 1950s technology over modern SOTA digital.

I have plenty of records that I’ve compared to their digital counterparts sound so similar in quality that the differences are very subtle at best.

It's easy enough to cherry pick a couple outlying examples using your $10k vinyl gear and $100 pressings against a poorly mastered CD, I've heard some very impressive 78 demos at shows too.
But for 99.9% of all vinyl ever pressed, a near deaf man can hear all the noise, speed irregularities and other technical limitations of vinyl immediately. For those simply interested in listening to the music they love in the best possible manner, promoting putting $ into vinyl is right up their with expensive cables and power cords, a huge waste of available funds.

 

[bagwell359]

I’m not saying that no damage happens objectively. In this type of mechanical system with a hard rock being dragged through an essentially soft surface, certainly there’s going to objectively be wear over time.

I’m pointing out that the way some people speak about the record wear can exaggerate the audible consequences. You’ve set up lots of turntables. I’ve owned my turntable for a long time and I have done plenty of comparisons myself, and I’ve got many records that I’ve listened to a great number of times, and whatever is happening objectively, subjectively the difference is so minuscule that the records tend to sound fantastic even after lots of plays, and similar to new records.

I mentioned a video in which a record was played 100 times on a decent turntable, and you can see and hear for yourself that the difference between the first player and the hundredth play was negligible.

Or at least if somebody said, it was significant serious degradation after 100 plays, I would certainly disagree with that characterization. Check it out for yourself;

The last 20 years I had vinyl I had a Souther SLA-3 arm - straight tracker - and I could run it on virgin vinyl 25 times and detect nothing, but on used vinyl including mine from the pivot arm days, yes inner groove damage. One thing is proper set up, the other is never play a part of record multiple times in a row, it'll cause serious damage due to heat build up.

 

[Dlr0657]

For those simply interested in listening to the music they love in the best possible manner, promoting putting $ into vinyl is right up their with expensive cables and power cords, a huge waste of available funds.

Are you sure?

For decades, vintage recordings were mixed and mastered with the intent that they would be played on vinyl. Is there not something to be said for the original intent of the musicians and sound engineers who were driving towards that medium as their end product (limitations and all)?