Thick Vinyl Records

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I just read the full review linked in this post. Fremer certainly likes this reissue. Given my recent experiments with two identical arm/cartridge comparisons, it is clear to me, perhaps more than ever, that for the best presentation of a given recording in the listening room, the arm/cartridge must be optimized for that record.

I know well that Fremer recommends 92 degrees SRA for the best compromised set up for a variety of records. I really wonder if he adjusted the arm and cartridge for the two different versions of this record. The reissue is 200g. The original is likely 120g or thereabouts. If those weights are correct, that represents roughly a 0.9mm difference in thickness. The 200g LP is almost twice the thickness of the 120g LP. That is substantial. This difference would be clearly audible on a revealing system. Even if he sets up his cartridge 92 degree SRA on the equivalent of a 160g LP as an average, playing a much thinner 120g or thicker 200g would be audible.

I discussed this issue with Marty and the need to optimize the set up when comparing two LPs of different thickness to really understand their relative quality. Based on what I have been hearing in my own system the last few days, I now no longer think one can make a true assessment of the quality of a recording and/or pressing without knowing the arm/cartridge are optimized for a particular record.

Do you think Michael Fremer went to the trouble of doing this by either adjusting one arm/cartridge, or by comparing two identical arm/cartridge combinations,each optimized at 92 degrees for the presumed different thicknesses between the original and reissue pressings? If he had done it that way, it would have been great additional content for the review, or for one of his essays on arm/cartridge set up. We see no mention of it in this review. I wonder if he addresses this issue in any of his writings.

of course you are free to question any review, and make your case. maybe email him and ask him about it. go for it. for myself i'm comfortable accepting his conclusions. my perspective is it's unlikely adjusting for the difference in pressing thickness would change the performance enough to change the result of the compare. would you hear a difference? probably. does it matter in degrees? not much. but some.

to me this is like the center hole alignment device from DS Audio. i have heard the demo of it and it really works. but the experiential pain of the fix is far worse than the performance cost of ignoring it. there are lines i won't cross to enjoy my vinyl. being exactly objectively right is not where i need to be. but that is my personal perspective.

how much vinyl do you play, how big is your collection, and what are your priorities. are you listening, or thinking about perfection? and i'm not being critical of anyone else's priorities. i respect we are all different.

 

[marty]

I don’t think M. Fremer adjusted the VTA when comparing thin (older original) records with thick (new reissue) pressings, but you can never know. Let’s assume he didn’t adjust but that doesn’t tell us much—because, as you pointed out, he has stated that he’s settled on a 92-degree SRA. Most modern reissues are generally cut close to 90 degrees; Kevin Gray, for example, has said he cuts exactly at 90 degrees.

In contrast, the point you’re trying to make is that reissues are at a disadvantage compared to originals, which typically have an SRA in the 90–94 degree range.

In short, Fremer’s decision to use a 92-degree SRA actually suits older originals better, as 92 degrees (within the 90–94 range) was the result of research conducted in the 1980s, if I’m not mistaken. New reissues, especially those cut by Kevin Gray, are done at 90 degrees. Given that, if Fremer still prefers the sound of reissues—which he clearly does—it suggests the reissues are simply better.

P.S. I’m not claiming that reissues are better. I’m only trying to point out the potential disadvantage of using a 92-degree SRA when playing KG reissues.

As far as I know, Fremer does not think re-adjustment of VTA/SRA (at the minimum, not to mention VTF and potentially other parameters, especially when using a pivoted arm) is necessary when playing LPs of different thickness. He is on record as saying so. As much as MF has taught us about LP playback, I am convinced this is a rare unforced error on his part as the differences are easily demonstrated and easily heard. Playing 120gm LPs and 180gm LPs using the same arm/cartridge parameters just makes no sense to me as their different thicknesses clearly mandate a slight difference in set-up parameters if you really want to optimize the SQ for a given thickness LP.

 

[mtemur]

of course you are free to question any review, and make your case. maybe email him and ask him about it. go for it. for myself i'm comfortable accepting his conclusions. my perspective is it's unlikely adjusting for the difference in pressing thickness would change the performance enough to change the result of the compare. would you hear a difference? probably. does it matter in degrees? not much. but some.

to me this is like the center hole alignment device from DS Audio. i have heard the demo of it and it really works. but the experiential pain of the fix is far worse than the performance cost of ignoring it. there are lines i won't cross to enjoy my vinyl. being exactly objectively right is not where i need to be. but that is my personal perspective.

how much vinyl do you play, how big is your collection, and what are your priorities. are you listening, or thinking about perfection?

+1

 

[bonzo75]

to me this is like the center hole alignment device from DS Audio. i have heard the demo of it and it really works.

The difference is very audible in the video Fremer posted, with and without the DS centre adjustment

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The difference is very audible in the video Fremer posted, with and without the DS centre adjustment

agree. but doing it for every record, or even most? not real world for me. a personal decision.

 

[Ron Resnick]

there are lines i won't cross to enjoy my vinyl. being exactly objectively right is not where i need to be.

This is how I feel. I draw lines on what I will do and what I won't do to improve technical performance.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

my bottom line is that i certainly want the best set-up i can have for my vinyl and work hard to have that; but anything that gets in the way of actually playing records, whether it's (1) worrying about pressing thickness, or (2) pre-treating records, or (3) center hole alignment, or (4) having the turntable located out of the room, or (5) anything else process-wise i view as a distraction from my personal priorities........is just not getting me where i want to be.

digital is so easy, and vinyl needs to be easy too. i am not put off by the 'hassle' of vinyl. it's user friendly. yet i like the 'culture' of my vinyl and my muscle memory comfort zone doing it takes me to a special place. a 'zone' i love. there is a physical rhythm to handling the records that sucks us in. it's possible we can put so many road blocks in our vinyl listening it can push us away without us realizing it.

YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

As far as I know, Fremer does not think re-adjustment of VTA/SRA (at the minimum, not to mention VTF and potentially other parameters, especially when using a pivoted arm) is necessary when playing LPs of different thickness. He is on record as saying so. As much as MF has taught us about LP playback, I am convinced this is a rare unforced error on his part as the differences are easily demonstrated and easily heard. Playing 120gm LPs and 180gm LPs using the same arm/cartridge parameters just makes no sense to me as their different thicknesses clearly mandate a slight difference in set-up parameters if you really want to optimize the SQ for a given thickness LP.

Probably he read the post linked bellow on Lencoheaven and decided that life is too short to adjust VTA by listening before playing any LP ...

https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=30673.0

I have played with VTA with the Graham Phantom, that gives us precise, fast and repeatable VTA adjustments and know the difference they can produce.
But after a few experiences I settled on the 92º.

Does anyone check and record the SRA of the stylus in the cantilever every time he gets a cartridge replacement?

Edit - I was keeping this post in the "reflexion period", decided to shorten it after I saw Mike previous one.

 

[Salectric]

Fremer certainly likes this reissue.

As he does nearly all reissues he reviews. I would just ask one question---does anybody think Fremer pays retail for these reissues? I don't recall seeing the issue of acquisition cost ever mentioned. I assume, but do not know for a fact, that he gets the reissues for free. Do you think that might affect his credibility?

Frankly I no longer pay any attention to reviewers' comments on sound quality of reissues. I have been burned too many times. I only read reviews to learn about music that I don't already have.

 

[bonzo75]

Mike, I just read the full review linked in this post. Fremer certainly likes this reissue.

I spent money being misled by Fremer's reissue reports and list, high end audio Salvatore blog, and other such stuff before meeting the General, which I stated in my report in 2018. I just don't follow his (Fremer’s) record recommendations at all since

That said...if he is suggesting them due to accessibility...that is fine. I am not sure. But, the gear he reviews and recommends is not for everyone, only for the very rich, so no reason why records should not be the same.

 

[PeterA]

I don’t think M. Fremer adjusted the VTA when comparing thin (older original) records with thick (new reissue) pressings, but you can never know. Let’s assume he didn’t adjust but that doesn’t tell us much—because, as you pointed out, he has stated that he’s settled on a 92-degree SRA. Most modern reissues are generally cut close to 90 degrees; Kevin Gray, for example, has said he cuts exactly at 90 degrees.

In contrast, the point you’re trying to make is that reissues are at a disadvantage compared to originals, which typically have an SRA in the 90–94 degree range.

In short, Fremer’s decision to use a 92-degree SRA actually suits older originals better, as 92 degrees (within the 90–94 range) was the result of research conducted in the 1980s, if I’m not mistaken. New reissues, especially those cut by Kevin Gray, are done at 90 degrees. Given that, if Fremer still prefers the sound of reissues—which he clearly does—it suggests the reissues are simply better.

P.S. I’m not claiming that reissues are better. I’m only trying to point out the potential disadvantage of using a 92-degree SRA when playing KG reissues.

I see your point mtemur, but mine is actually a bit different. We do not know what thickness MF uses when measuring for the 92 degrees. I see you point about cutting head angle. That is why thickness alone should not be used. It does seem that 4.0mm arm height for every degree of SRA for a 9" arm is a lot of movement. That is 16 mm for the 90-94 range. The lack of standards here in both cutting angle and thickness lead to what seems like a host of set up compromises. And yet, vinyl still sounds great. I guess the challenge is to limit the ranges. It all makes me wonder if when we hear a particularly great sounding LP, if it is more about the quality of the recording and pressing, or more about getting lucky with the optimum set up parameters.

 

[PeterA]

of course you are free to question any review, and make your case. maybe email him and ask him about it. go for it. for myself i'm comfortable accepting his conclusions. my perspective is it's unlikely adjusting for the difference in pressing thickness would change the performance enough to change the result of the compare. would you hear a difference? probably. does it matter in degrees? not much. but some.

to me this is like the center hole alignment device from DS Audio. i have heard the demo of it and it really works. but the experiential pain of the fix is far worse than the performance cost of ignoring it. there are lines i won't cross to enjoy my vinyl. being exactly objectively right is not where i need to be. but that is my personal perspective.

how much vinyl do you play, how big is your collection, and what are your priorities. are you listening, or thinking about perfection? and i'm not being critical of anyone else's priorities. i respect we are all different.

Same here Mike. We all make our choices that allow us to enjoy the hobby as we so please. I am not here to criticize others' choices either. I embarked on these experiments to learn something new. I was prompted reading this interesting thread, and from a private discussion I had with Marty on the subject. I am asking questions about the validity of an opinion based on methodology. Fremer is a leading voice and advocate for vinyl. As I see it, one can set to 92 and be done and live happily enjoying his LPs. One can have multiple tables, arms, and cartridges like you do, and enjoy a vast variety of presentations. I suppose it all comes down to priorities.

Personally, I am going back and forth on whether or not I prefer the presentations of different cartridges in multiple and same arms, or if I prefer copies of my favorite arm/cartridge combination set up differently for different groups of records in an effort to optimize a particular presentation. One approach is no more valid than the other. It just depends on the goal. It is fascinating to learn just how much the variables can affect the listening experience. To each his own.

 

[Lagonda]

As far as I know, Fremer does not think re-adjustment of VTA/SRA (at the minimum, not to mention VTF and potentially other parameters, especially when using a pivoted arm) is necessary when playing LPs of different thickness. He is on record as saying so. As much as MF has taught us about LP playback, I am convinced this is a rare unforced error on his part as the differences are easily demonstrated and easily heard. Playing 120gm LPs and 180gm LPs using the same arm/cartridge parameters just makes no sense to me as their different thicknesses clearly mandate a slight difference in set-up parameters if you really want to optimize the SQ for a given thickness LP.

He started getting into set parameters adjustments with microscopes and other tools around the same time he did a review of a hearing aid. Maybe the setting by ear is just no longer a viable option.

 

[Lagonda]

The difference is very audible in the video Fremer posted, with and without the DS centre adjustment

Yes, and on how many records in your collection is it necessary ? From my years with a Nakamichi turntable i found that on badly centered records it makes a difference, but on most it does not. And do you want to drill out your record collection for a questionable feature ?

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, and on how many records in your collection is it necessary ? From my years with a Nakamichi turntable i found that on badly centered records it makes a difference, but on most it does not. And do you want to drill out your record collection for a questionable feature ?

People on this forum are spending a lot on analog including multiple TTs, cartridges and arms. One more tweak that works on some records cannot hurt.

Regardless, the point is difference with it on and off is easily audible on Fremer’s video

 

[Lagonda]

People on this forum are spending a lot on analog including multiple TTs, cartridges and arms. One more tweak that works on some records cannot hurt.

Regardless, the point is difference with it on and off is easily audible on Fremer’s video

Yes if you pick a badly centered record for your demonstation, you will hear a big difference. As most spindles do not give you adequate adjustment range, you will have to drill out your records to a oversized hole, good luck placing that record on a regular TT with no centering help afterwards

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes, and on how many records in your collection is it necessary ? From my years with a Nakamichi turntable i found that on badly centered records it makes a difference, but on most it does not. And do you want to drill out your record collection for a questionable feature ?

no way to know without actually checking. and how much effort per pressing does it require to find out?

if one has 12k pressings, or maybe 3k that you listen to often; what are the odds of actually seriously investigating to discover this? about zero. pretty quick it would put the brakes on wanting to listen to vinyl.

sure; if you have 250 records you rotate through then it becomes a realistic thing. like changing VTA each time. but there is a dark side to that perfection equation. maybe it makes sense to have a core collection that you go nuts with if that is your deal. it might ideally fit some listening cultures. no wrong answers.

YMMV.

 

[bonzo75]

no way to know without actually checking. and how much effort per pressing does it require to find out?

if one has 12k pressings, or maybe 3k that you listen to often; what are the odds of actually seriously investigating to discover this? about zero. pretty quick it would put the brakes on wanting to listen to vinyl.

sure; if you have 250 records you rotate through then it becomes a realistic thing. like changing VTA each time. but there is a dark side to that perfection equation. maybe it makes sense to have a core collection that you go nuts with if that is your deal. it might ideally fit some listening cultures. no wrong answers.

YMMV.

The number of records you listen per day will be the same regardless of how many records you own. It will depend on how long you listen, what your OCD level is. For example Mike every time you get up to change a record you switch lights on, mute, then again unmute and switch lights on. Is this 4 clicks times 12000 = 48000? What is another 12000 to it? Incorrect logic though. And if during that period you change cartridge that’s another 12000

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The number of records you listen per day will be the same regardless of how many records you own. It will depend on how long you listen, what your OCD level is.

agree ownership of a large collection is a small factor. but why you listen, and how varied the pressings you listen to, matter a lot. i know over decades my reasons for listening to vinyl has evolved as my musical tastes and knowledge have progressed. i'm much less sound oriented, seeking my most familiar pressings to get that rush, and more musical engagement exploration oriented. assuming the objective performance. so the wonder is in the journey. a large collection just gives you more territory to travel.

For example Mike every time you get up to change a record you switch lights on, mute, then again unmute and switch lights on. Is this 4 clicks times 12000 = 48000? What is another 12000 to it? Incorrect logic though. And if during that period you change cartridge that’s another 12000

by myself i listen to vinyl somewhat seriously 3-4 times a week, 2-3 hours a session. i grab 5-10 records and play through them. i mute to change but don't turn the lights on (my tt lights are plenty). and many times i have more than one tt spinning with a pressing. it's my own listening flow and i can go a few hours without the lights turned on. every step is below my fully conscious mind.

i might raise the lights briefly to read the vinyl jacket enhancing my connection to the music, but not to switch the sides or do set-up stuff.

if i had to STOP .........get into my left brain investigative mind set, and change VTA often, or mess with investigating the center alignment all the time, my choice might mostly be the Wadax where the music flow would get me closer to my desired head space.

sometimes my vinyl or digital listening is less intense and not so flow oriented. it's not always the same. more mixed maybe with web surfing and such. with my music attention in and out.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, and on how many records in your collection is it necessary ? From my years with a Nakamichi turntable i found that on badly centered records it makes a difference, but on most it does not. And do you want to drill out your record collection for a questionable feature ?

I occasionally glance at my cartridge from the listing seat while my record is playing. Most of the time it is rocksteady and I do not see any movement. I think this device is a great solution for a rare problem.