New Vinyl LP's

[Nuvistor]

There are quite a few posts saying that the older style record players can damage the modern vinyl LP's. I am not meaning the stereo/mono cartridge problem or the very heavy early pickups tracking at 10 grams or higher. Just the standard 1960/70's record players with a ceramic cartridge tracking at 5 grams or so, Sonotone 9TA type or similar in a SP25 deck.

Are the modern LP's much more fragile than the ones produced 40 or 50 years ago? I don't have any record players, not bought a LP since the 70's.

I can imagine that there are few new record pressing plants, those that are are perhaps using machinery from the 60's and could be worn not giving of there best. I could be wrong perhaps there is new plant pressing the vinyl but not to the same quality. Or could it be that quality is higher demanding better playing equipment?

Any thoughts from the forum members?

Frank
Edit. I was not sure which section to post in.

[SteveCG]

Many possibilities here. One I would mention is the use of high level bass on modern LP recordings/pressings. This seems to exceed that used in the 60/70s and often cannot be tracked by the cartridges of that era - unless you are considering the more upmarket moving magnet models. I suspect that such mis-tracking would damage the modern LPs. Indeed if you try playing charity shop LPs you often find that they do not sound good during loud passages, due to the damage caused by the cheaper cartridges of the 60s era not even being able to track the LPs of that era.

[Nuvistor]

Thanks for the information Steve, I did not know about the higher bass levels on modern LP's, heavy bass and drums is not unique to modern music, there was plenty in the 60's. They must have kept the levels down on those recording then.
I don't have a "discerning ear" ( two hearring aids) I very much enjoy music but I don't need HiFi to enjoy it.

[SteveCG]

Quote: "They must have kept the levels down on those recording then"

I believe that this was they did. I think this is why sometimes 'remastered' LPs issued on CDs sound different, as the LP pressing process often required (for reasons of track running time as well as trackability) a bass cut compared to what may have originally recorded on the master mag tapes.

[BobGreen]

Both mono and stereo LP discs were recorded and played back with electrical pre- and de-emphasis established by the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) during the 1950s. These equalization curves were subsequently adopted internationally. CDs should be cut using RIAA de-emphasis to get back to the original as did the pick-up input circuit in day of old.

[Restoration73]

A production master tape (not the studio master) may have had some eq or compression applied, although RIAA was normally applied in the disc cutter.
In the UK, 1972 was the watershed year when vinyl went from 180g to 120g, with a
reduction in production cost, but a deterioration in flat surfaces - often records were
not allowed to cool flat etc. Small pressing plants still could produced 180g or more (so
called audiophile pressings) at a higher price. However the factor that greatly
degraded vinyl quality was recycling.
Agreed, an old record previously subjected to a cartridge that lacked (mechanical)
compliance could suffer wear damage, but it is possible to find mint pressings.
I have a number of modern pressings that sound rather better than the originals!

[BobGreen]

I have cherished opera LPs from the late 50s and 60s which play today with less distortion than on the original player and my later SP25 with a Shure cartridge. I currently have a bog standard Sony pseudo-stack.

[threeseven]

Even back in the 70's when I first got into audio the lower end record players had a reputation for chewing up records, consequently I would never play mine on such machines. Even some high quality pick up cartridges would mistrack the newer recordings and of course damage it. We had certain records for testing tracking capability that were notoriously difficult, for example the opening of Time on Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. The bell crescendo would dislodge all but the best cartridges!

Subsequently I acquired the Shure test disc which had tracking test, it sorted the men from the boys! There was a mania at the time for setting the lowest possible tracking weight but we learned with this disc that it was a bad thing. Better to set the tracking weight slightly high to avoid mistracking, which is far more damaging to a disc than high (relatively) tracking weight.

[PsychMan]

I have a copy of Sinatra's My Way on 45, sounds beautiful until the end of the record when it gets really loud, and it distorts horrendously.

I expect that's because of an old pickup somewhere mistracking during this section, shame as it takes away from the effect somewhat.

[gramofiend]

Agreed, that setting a quarter to a half gram on the heavy side will pay dividends on the life of records and improved perceived distortion levels.
When I entered the hallowed portals of the BBC in 1970 the player of choice was a heavily modified (in house) Garrard 301, a BBC designed arm and a choice of Shure M3 stereo cartridge, or Goldring G800 for stereo and a turnover Tannoy Viriluctor for mono. Stero tracking force was 4gm for the Shure and 3gm for the Goldring which, for the in house arm was very good! That was studio machinery. In office listening facilities things were bought by committee and were generally Dynatron or Hacker with garrard players and ceramic cartridges. So reasonable quality was assured when you see what was on offer down the scale with the likes of say the record grinding single player from BSR with virtually no tracking adjustment and the likes of a TC8H crystal developing 3-4v audio at ten grams tracking force!

[Nuvistor]

re post 9. It's always possible it was a bad pressing, difficult to know. There certainly were bad pressing around, not surprising with the discs being mass produced. I think some discs were sampled but the main QA was a quick look for scratches and marks before putting in the sleeve.

Many 45's were only expected to be played a few weeks before the next ' chart hit'

[threeseven]

That reminds me of the record buying ritual! Step 1/ Visually inspect record in shop for any obvious defects. Step 2/ Return home and apprehensively test play your precious new record. Step 3/ hopefully, it's ok, with only minor, tolerable defects or, Step 3/ return to record shop to return record with unacceptable defects. Step 4/ Have heated debate with beligerant shop assistant to convince them that noise at the start of a quiet passage is not acceptable, countered by their response that they can't hear it on the shops antiquated replay equipment! Step 5/ Leave shop with your hard won replacement, visit chemist on the way home for valium to relieve the stress of anticipation that this one will be also faulty and having to repeat the exercise!

I remember one particularly bad experience of the above sequence on the release of the Jethro Tull double album "Living In the Past". It took 5 cycles of the above procedure before I finally got a good copy, the shop staff were quite sick of me by then! Still have it, excellent album.

[PsychMan]

There is something lacking in many modern pressings I find, maybe its the expertise is gone, or the plants aren't run as well as they used to be - not enough money in it I suppose.

Case in point for me were several records in the "Desert sessions" series (josh home etc), bought from a shop in London. Of the 4 I bought, all were off centre pressings, and we aren't talking slight, they were unlistenable. I posted them back and received 4 new pressings. 3 out of the 4 had exactly the same problem. In the end I made a mark where the spindle hole should have been and enlarged it with a file and kept them

[threeseven]

Originally Posted by PsychMan

I find, maybe its the expertise is gone,

That'll be it. I haven't bought any new vinyl pressings for over 20 years so I haven't experienced this directly.

The peak of vinyl was the direct cut, anyone remember those? Very limited catalogue but fantastic quality.

[Alan Stepney]

Originally Posted by threeseven

That reminds me of the record buying ritual!
Snipped

Plus, many shops played records to demonstrate them, or because the staff liked them, so that what you bought might be well worn by the time you got it.

That is, until one guy started selling records that had NOT been played and made a feature of the fact.

As for the actual recordings, in the early days of rock etc, they had problems recording some instruments, particularly drums.

It is particularly noticeable if you have the same song on record and a film strip. The latter sounds much better.

[dseymo1]

In the 'olden days', a cutting lathe operator would 'ride gain' to avoid over-modulation during loud passages. These days, of course, the compression is (usually) carried out automatically. Since a skilled human anticipating the amplitude ahead of time might naturally be cautious, it wouldn't be surprising if today's records had significantly greater dynamic range - a good thing in itself, but a challenge for an elderly cheap cartridge!

[Gulliver]

I haven't found that new pressings are poor since the mid 1990s - which was probably the nadir for vinyl.

The remaining pressing plants know that the buyers care about quality and such basic errors as off-centre pressings are definitely a thing of the past.

What one might find is that the mastering is sometimes off. That's not down to the record pressing plant but to the mastering studio/engineer. Sometimes older material is "remastered" with less dynamic range as is the current fashion. Sometimes the original master tapes for the older material aren't in great shape any more.

With modern material many LPs are made from digital masters but still sound great if a high resolution master is used (24-bit, 92kHz or better). But they won't sound quite the same as something recorded on tape and then mastered for vinyl.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by BobGreen

Both mono and stereo LP discs were recorded and played back with electrical pre- and de-emphasis established by the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) during the 1950s. These equalization curves were subsequently adopted internationally. CDs should be cut using RIAA de-emphasis to get back to the original as did the pick-up input circuit in day of old.

The RIAA curve was applied between the master tape and the disc cutting lathe to increase the length of playing time by reducing bass. It also increased high frequencies. The subsequent RIAA de-emphasis circuit restored the bass frequencies and reduced the high frequencies (which also reduced surface noise). You really wouldn't want to apply RIAA pre-emphasis to a tape before making a CD from it unless you like recordings that have no bass and high frequencies that would fry your ears.

[Nuvistor]

Re post 5 and 18.
Is that.
If recovering audio from a master tape to CD do not use RIAA.
If recovering from LP to CD use RIAA to boost bass and cut treble when using magnetic but not if ceramic cartridge.?

edit. wrong post number

[soundhog]

Originally Posted by Gulliver

The remaining pressing plants know that the buyers care about quality and such basic errors as off-centre pressings are definitely a thing of the past.

Oh, if only this were the case. Off centre pressings are very common today indeed, and I've had three in the past couple of months which were so far off as to be unlistenable. One was a friend's release on a Canadian label, and the plant have had to repress a number of copies for replacement purposes. The problem is, a lot of buyers either don't play the things at all (they just file the LP and download the digital version using the code included) or just don't notice the pitch going up and down. I've even had a label owner tell me he couldn't hear the wow on a *very* off centre LP when I was asking for a replacement copy.

The actual quality of the vinyl can be shocking as well. Two LPs in recent times - Jim Noir 'The Finnish Line' and Wrangler 'LA Times' - stand out as having ridiculous levels of surface noise. In the case of the Wrangler LP, things were made worse by it being cut very quietly, so the noise was virtually swamping the audio. The plants are all stretched to over-capacity now, and for a lot of them QC doesn't really exist. I do often wonder why on earth I still bother with vinyl when at least 2 out of every 5 records I buy has some major problem or other.

In comparison, it takes a lot to kill a '60s mono pressing. I've got several albums which look like they've been kicked down the road several times, with that tell-tale label damage around the centre hole from months of autochanger abuse, but they still put in a good performance. I've got LPs from the mid '90s which I've looked after, and often not played much, but have been micro-scratched to death by dust and grit particles in those shiny printed inner sleeves. Often they were there from new!