Clownhunt wrote:

gcbv wrote:
The other major aspect of high gram vinyl, albeit the major reason, is the ability to cut deeper physical grooves into the record, vastly improving the ability for the needle to transduce a more accurate waveform...and therefore, higher fidelity.

The most obvious aspect of this would be low-end signal information. With high weight LPs (if mastered properly, you know), you can easily discern a major difference.

Actually this isn't true. all records are cut onto similar laquer (or copper) masters, regardless of the type of vinyl they will be pressed to. hence groove depth is determined ultimately by the depth of laquer on the master disc. i.e. cut too deep and you'd cut into the aluminium below. groove depth is also affected by the level of the cut, obviousy louder program needs a deeper groove. but a deeper groove takes up more room on the disc so the side length is the ultimate factor.

as to sound qualty of vinyl i think using good virgin vinyl affects sound quality more than weight even, though weight is good obviously

D

180G is the SUV of audiophiles - I'm really starting to get annoyed with the trend. It's wasteful.

Good mastering, good vinyl, and good quality control = great sounding records. Nothing to do with weight.

Clownhunt wrote:no we use the same 14" master laquers for everything. the cutting engineer probably won't know whether his cut will end up on thick thin vinyl or a pic disc or whatever.

D

so much for the myth about groove depth

Sid Hartha wrote:180G is 90% sales gimmick

Agreed.

I don't think it makes a difference, sonically.

But it's pretty hard to set up a test. You'd have to get 120g and 180g pressings off the same stampers. Maybe some enterprising mastering engineer will do or has done this.

tmidgett wrote:

Sid Hartha wrote:180G is 90% sales gimmick

Agreed.

I don't think it makes a difference, sonically.

But it's pretty hard to set up a test. You'd have to get 120g and 180g pressings off the same stampers. Maybe some enterprising mastering engineer will do or has done this.

My comment is, admittedly, subjective - though it is worth noting that there's no correlation between groove "depth" and vinyl weight. Even the "deepest' masters only penetrate a small percentage of the thickness of a standard weight pressing. Remember, you're only listening to the surface of the record.

One advantage to heavier pressings is that they're less likely to be warped during manufacture - but this isn't a big problem if the pressing plant has adequate quality control.

tmidgett wrote:

Sid Hartha wrote:180G is 90% sales gimmick

Agreed.

I don't think it makes a difference, sonically.

But it's pretty hard to set up a test. You'd have to get 120g and 180g pressings off the same stampers. Maybe some enterprising mastering engineer will do or has done this.

I am shocked to hear this, if it is true. It seems that the records that sound the best in my collection are more often than not 180 gram. Though it would seem that 180 gram records are mostly releaesed by bands on labels that are in better positions financially, which in turn, I suppose, would give them access to better mastering, better vinyl, and better quality control.

sphincter wrote:
Yeah, obviously you can choose to listen to an album on repeat on an ipod but the tendancy is not to, there's a whole world of temptation there isn't there? I can totally admit if that I had an ipod in my hands with my whole record collection on it I'd be lazy/stupid and go nuts with it, I think a lot of people are the same perhaps and I'd have to make myself get into albums instead of it just happening naturally.

Perhaps you wouldn't, good for you.

I didn't mean to sound arrogant. The temptation to use the shuffle option is there, and I certainly could not resist, myself. (The Shuffle option does have its merits, however. Hearing certain tracks out of context from the album does unearth radical new perspectives.) But this option is a novelty and it wears off quickly. After a few weeks you remember what it is about music that you love-- listening to albums. Except now you can do it on the goddamned CTA. If you don't return to whole albums, you're probably just buying bad music.

Bump.

My girlfriend was saying that the vinyl vs. CD thing was bullshit...that CDs are better.

I had trouble explaining why vinyl was superior. Steve V.'s "honest" description is the best thing I can come up with if you're communicating in layman's terms.

Kerble...perhaps there is a Vinyl vs. CD "Either/Or" I couldn't find? A little help here would be appreciated.

Come on...when she asked what the difference was, I had to stop myself before I said, "it's [vinyl] warmer."

I think I can do better.

Minotaur029 wrote:Come on...when she asked what the difference was, I had to stop myself before I said, "it's [vinyl] warmer."

I think I can do better.

Play her Fugazi's Epic Problem on CD and then on a decent Turntable set up and when she says; "I can't hear the difference." You tell her what the epic problem is...

...and that vinyl is just better.

sphincter wrote:I ordered mine off Amazon....£15, they ripped me off.

I wanna upgrade my entry level turntable but don't have huge amounts of cash so won't be splashing out for one of those geeky VPI whatever-a-thons, anyone got any solid, realistic recommendations?

I was going to plunk down $329 for a Pro-Ject debut, but in reading about them, and the factories that spit them out alongside Music Hall's low-end, i got kinda nervous. I went to an audio shop in New Jersey, and sitting on the demo table was a Thorens TD-190 for $150. With an Ortofon 10, which I find decent for rock records. I've heard people diss the 190, so I compared it to the Pro-Ject, which came with an Orto 5, and the build quality and sound of the Thorens seemed much better. I bought it. It felt like someone just handed me $180.

I really don't think it's prohibitively expensive to listen to music on vinyl. My amp is a 65 watt Optonica (the Sharp high-end, but still budget) that cost $40. $40! That's like a night at the movies. It's got two kickass phono stages, and a separate amp for each speaker set. It weighs a fucking ton. The big brother of that machine -- 80 watts -- just sold for $170 or so on eBay. Is that expensive? I don't think so. For under $200 I'm listening to records, and they sound totally great. With the number of Sansui and other Japanese amps you can have for cheap, it seems like iPods and far more costly.

Minotaur029 wrote:Bump.

My girlfriend was saying that the vinyl vs. CD thing was bullshit...that CDs are better.

I had trouble explaining why vinyl was superior. Steve V.'s "honest" description is the best thing I can come up with if you're communicating in layman's terms.

Kerble...perhaps there is a Vinyl vs. CD "Either/Or" I couldn't find? A little help here would be appreciated.

The reason everyone always says Vinyl sounds better is because they want to see who falls for it. Then they laugh at your gullibility behind your back. But to your face they nod their heads to the music and say ridiculous things like, "See, dude. Doesn't it sound WARM? And HONEST?" And you say "Yeah, I guess." That's the part the really gets'em rollin, when you say 'I guess'.

BUMP!


This evening I dug through my records and listened to one of the first pieces of recorded music I ever purchased -- a Kiss record from the late 1970's. This record has been subjected to untold abuse, both by my greasy little-kid hands and the horrid needles that must have burned enough permanent damage on to these artifacts to make a real audiophile shiver in disgust.

And yet, this record sounds (on my admittedly half-assed setup), approximately as good as it did (holy fuck!) 30 years ago.

Also: a while ago I found an Art Blakey record at the Brown Elephant thrift store in Chicago. I paid $1 for this record, and it was in beautiful condition. Sounds new. This record is almost 45 years old.

I have an iPod. I like my iPod. It's great for travelling, etc. But I don't believe that I will have the forethought/diligence to carry these audio files with me for the next 30 plus years. And if these computer files somehow exist 30 years from now, they will no doubt be obsolete.

I believe that vinyl records sound better, but I'm not an audiophile (yet), and this is not the reason I buy music in the format.

OK.