I meant they feel hard -almost like a stone- to touch. A change in material hardness inevitably affects the sound. It can be in a good or a bad way. I don’t know but wonder how much it affects the final sound.
Thick Vinyl Records
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
I haven’t noticed this with Decca, EMI, RCA, Columbia, the thickest of the lot are Westminster monos (sometimes over 200g) and there are other labels. But then I don’t touch the disc only light finger on edge and in centre non vinyl part.
Well, this intrigues the material scientist in me. The phthalate esters used to soften vinyl compounds do migrate and can "evaporate" a bit from the polymer matrix, which would result in hardening over time. It would be interesting to take a fresh record and perform a digital rip, then expose it to staged accelerated aging, making equivalent rips along the way for comparative purposes. It would be a reasonable approximation.
So, since the evaporative affect is an Arrhenius effect, doubling in rate for every 10ºC increase in temperature, a week's exposure at 80ºC would equate to a year at 23ºC. (I don't think 80ºC should be triggering threshold events in the formulation.) Then, after every 10 weeks of aging, you pull the record to cool down, give a Klaudio US washing to remove any other migrated deposits on the groove walls, play a track on the exact same LP set up and record it with the exact same digital set up. After 60 weeks you'd have 60 years worth of aging to compare. I'd better get booking some time in a test oven at work.....
So, since the evaporative affect is an Arrhenius effect, doubling in rate for every 10ºC increase in temperature, a week's exposure at 80ºC would equate to a year at 23ºC. (I don't think 80ºC should be triggering threshold events in the formulation.) Then, after every 10 weeks of aging, you pull the record to cool down, give a Klaudio US washing to remove any other migrated deposits on the groove walls, play a track on the exact same LP set up and record it with the exact same digital set up. After 60 weeks you'd have 60 years worth of aging to compare. I'd better get booking some time in a test oven at work.....
I don't know how many times I have to say this but I find it incredibly naive to make conclusions about the comparative sound of thin or thick vinyl unless you are correcting for the vinyl thickness by adjusting arm height and VTF (at the minimum). Why do folks keep making these inane remarks without doing the work? For god's sake you might as well say 2 LPs sound different because the jackets of the LPs have different colors. Enough hyperbole. Do the correct experiment and then tell us what you found if you want to render a valid opinion.
Here's another way to look at it. If you don't think arm height adjustment is important, than why do we perseverate in setting VTA/SRA at all in our "normal" TT/arm/cartridge set-up? Hell, we often spend hours trying to dial-in the best possible sound with tiny incremental adjustments because they matter. And now, you are going to change LP thickness by ~300 microns and you don't think that matters sonically so you just dismiss this?. Give me a break.
Last edited:
Arm height makes a difference and my comments are based on comparisons I made with set up adjustments. I used to adjust for every record. We just discussed this in private messages a few days ago.
Last edited:
There are many possible explanations for why most audiophile reissues don’t sound as good as the original and early reissues. Many of those possible explanations are stated in this thread. The actual reasons don’t particularly concern me. What matters is selecting the version that sounds best, and I concluded some 25 years ago that the much-ballyhooed (and usually expensive) reissues aimed for the “audiophile” crowd did not sound as good as even my budget reissues that I bought in the 1980s and 90s.
The real crime is that reviewers in the print magazines and e-zines continue to gush over the latest reissues and sometimes even say they sound better than the originals. How can people like Michael Fremer (just to pick on one) say that over and over and not get called out for it? In my experience, with few exceptions, it’s just not true.
The real crime is that reviewers in the print magazines and e-zines continue to gush over the latest reissues and sometimes even say they sound better than the originals. How can people like Michael Fremer (just to pick on one) say that over and over and not get called out for it? In my experience, with few exceptions, it’s just not true.
my view is that grove depth is a lathe set-up issue. my guess is that pressing thickness is not directly related.
logically stylus designs would maybe need to be different if it was customary to vary the set-up of groove depth.
Thank you for the clarification Peter. I just found it upsetting that when you made such a bold statement publicly that thin is better than thick LPs, you did not mention this important consideration. That said, we disagree on your conclusion, but that's fine. I have no issue with that.
The RIAA sets dimensional standards for records. If I understand correctly they specify a minimum groove depth as a function of groove width. Weight and thickness min/max is not standardized, tmk.
"Stereo gramophone records are different from their mono forebears in that the groove is modulated vertically as well. The RIAA standards for the dimensions of gramophone records defines the depth of this modulation in terms of the minimum allowable-width at the top-edge of the groove. This specified to be 25μm (0.001") as this dimension is illustrated by the red line at (b)."
Stereo Lab - Gramophone styli and groove dimensions
Stereo Lab LP stylus and groove dimensions
It's interesting that records are sold these days with stated weight on the sleeve...
I like records that sound great and are durable. I'm not sure if the weight even matters but probably somewhere in the 140g-200g range should be good.
I like records that sound great and are durable. I'm not sure if the weight even matters but probably somewhere in the 140g-200g range should be good.
thick vinyl is a wank tbh. Nothing wrong with thin vinyl as the stylus does not care how thick the vinyl is. the grooves are the same on both. The mastering is infinitely more important than record weight.
Is there a difference between aligning to 200gm and 120gm - of course there is. I used to change alignment to suite thin or thick records, but frankly its counter productive to your overall enjoyment of albums. EVERYTHING you do on your front end makes a difference to the sound. I feel sorry for guys that feel they need to adjust alignment for every record - something is amiss with their systems or they way they listen to and enjoy music.
The Brain is just about the best super computer there is and it's ability to auto correct as long as all the musical fundamentals are there is uncanny. Now days I have all of my tonearms set up for 180gm's and just play music. My Phasemation phono stage has the ability to make most albums sound right, especially in the top end that I no longer crave to change alignment, cables etc to squeeze out a bit more audiophile sound fodder.
Is there a difference between aligning to 200gm and 120gm - of course there is. I used to change alignment to suite thin or thick records, but frankly its counter productive to your overall enjoyment of albums. EVERYTHING you do on your front end makes a difference to the sound. I feel sorry for guys that feel they need to adjust alignment for every record - something is amiss with their systems or they way they listen to and enjoy music.
The Brain is just about the best super computer there is and it's ability to auto correct as long as all the musical fundamentals are there is uncanny. Now days I have all of my tonearms set up for 180gm's and just play music. My Phasemation phono stage has the ability to make most albums sound right, especially in the top end that I no longer crave to change alignment, cables etc to squeeze out a bit more audiophile sound fodder.
Last edited:
Mike,
You do not need to give Fremer the benefit of doubt - he carefully explained what he meant, giving examples, several times. Answering to Peter before I even quoted from his writings. Anyone using google and being over ten years old can find all the information in the net in five minutes. Unfortunately it seems Natural Sound (TM) is not just a sound preference, but also philosophical behaviour that loves speculation and hates carrying research to get the proper information before going in discussion and repeating the same misinformation over and over.
I can't understand how people who proudly and systematically say that they do not read reviews or magazines can comment on reviewers. I do not surely agree with Fremer every time - but fortunately as I have been reading from him since long, I know why and when.
Just to say that IMO and experience the appraisal of re-masters strongly depends on the system being used and user preference
True. Remasters sounded better on my more forgiving former system than they do now on my more revealing system.
BTW, if someone posts a long quote from a reviewer, are you saying that readers are not allowed to comment on that quote from the reviewer? Interesting.
No, I did not say it - for some reason you preferred to answer without properly quoting my post.
I do read occasional reviews from Tima and others accessible on the Internet. I no longer have subscriptions to audio magazines.
Someone posted a long quote from a Michael Fremer review. I commented on that quote from the review. Surely that is not against the terms of service. And surely you understand that I can do it.
If you are someone who has a good number of "thin" and "thick" records, I'd be more inclined to two tonearms set up, one for each, especially if you don't listen to a lot of mono recordings and want to reserve the second arm for a mono cartridge. Although it is easy to adjust VTA on my tonearm, it just seems like a hassle to mess with too often.
Rather than speculating on what he doesn't mean, perhaps take the words he writes as his description of what he hears. And seemingly in an approving way.
my comments are not made in a vacuum. unfortunately Peter shades this description from Fremer in a negative light. he is speculating. and he is entitled to his own opinion. and i simply have a different opinion on the context of what i read.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |