Question about 180g vinyl

[wcfields]

Hi guys,

I'm a newbie vinyl but am wondering about the major differences between regular vinyl (120 - 140g) and the new 180g stuff. Are there any noticeable sound differences between them? I've heard several different opinions on it and want to hear what some of you think.

Thanks!

 

[markw]

The thickness has less to do than the quality of the vinyl used and other things.

Virgin vinyl will produce a quieter surface than "non-virgin" vinyl.

But even this depends on the quality of the master tapes used, the mixing of those tracks, and how carefully the master lacquer is created as far as eq, limiting and groove layout is done. This is what's used to create the "master" from which records are made.

Back in "the day", a lot of this was done sdone quickly and many time shoddily so there is some pi$$ poor vintage vinyl still floating around. Just because it's old does not necessarially mean it's good quality.

One would hope that with the prices and hoopla attendant to vinyl made today that they should be, on average, much better than in vinyl's halcyon days.

But, there were some pretty fine recordings done as far back as the fifties because care was taken all during the creation/pressing process and they didn't use excessively thick vinyl.

Maybe this will help fill in some blanks : http://emusician.com/tutorials/mastering_vinyl/

 

[Swerd]

I'm a newbie vinyl but am wondering about the major differences between regular vinyl (120 - 140g) and the new 180g stuff. Are there any noticeable sound differences between them? I've heard several different opinions on it and want to hear what some of you think.

Read what wikipedia has to say on the subject. Scroll down to the section on Vinyl quality

I remember during the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 how the price of records increased and the records seemed to get more noisy. Vinyl is a petroleum product, and when oil became more expensive, records got lighter, 125 g instead of 180 g. According to wikipedia, recycled vinyl was used instead of virgin vinyl, causing lower quality sound. I had a friend who said that more air was blown into the liquid vinyl during record pressing, making the records lighter and creating more microscopic bubbles on the records surface. I have no way of knowing if he was right, but it made sense.

I also have no idea if today's 180 g vinyl records sound better because of these reasons. I don't weigh them, and my old records are too discreet to comment on their status as virgins.

But if it costs more, you can be certain that audiophiles will buy them and make incredible claims about their superiority.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Read what wikipedia has to say on the subject. Scroll down to the section on Vinyl quality

I remember during the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 how the price of records increased and the records seemed to get more noisy. Vinyl is a petroleum product, and when oil became more expensive, records got lighter, 125 g instead of 180 g. According to wikipedia, recycled vinyl was used instead of virgin vinyl, causing lower quality sound. I had a friend who said that more air was blown into the liquid vinyl during record pressing, making the records lighter and creating more microscopic bubbles on the records surface. I have no way of knowing if he was right, but it made sense.

I also have no idea if today's 180 g vinyl records sound better because of these reasons. I don't weigh them, and my old records are too discreet to comment on their status as virgins.

But if it costs more, you can be certain that audiophiles will buy them and make incredible claims about their superiority.

Boy, that wiki page has a lot of info there, lots of history, etc. Thanks.

 

[NicolasKL]

But if it costs more, you can be certain that audiophiles will buy them and make incredible claims about their superiority.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[highfigh]

Read what wikipedia has to say on the subject. Scroll down to the section on Vinyl quality

I remember during the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 how the price of records increased and the records seemed to get more noisy. Vinyl is a petroleum product, and when oil became more expensive, records got lighter, 125 g instead of 180 g. According to wikipedia, recycled vinyl was used instead of virgin vinyl, causing lower quality sound. I had a friend who said that more air was blown into the liquid vinyl during record pressing, making the records lighter and creating more microscopic bubbles on the records surface. I have no way of knowing if he was right, but it made sense.

I also have no idea if today's 180 g vinyl records sound better because of these reasons. I don't weigh them, and my old records are too discreet to comment on their status as virgins.

But if it costs more, you can be certain that audiophiles will buy them and make incredible claims about their superiority.

I'm not sure any air was blown in, let alone 'more' air. Injection molding machines have a hopper at the side of the mold and the machine has a pre-heater that takes it to about 600° F and at that temperature, most of the air in the plastic will more or less boil out. Part of the problem with re-grind vinyl is that they didn't remove all of the labels from the records that were rejected.

Virgin plastic is always better than re-grind and one of the main reasons the heavier records turn out better is that they aren't trying to make them cheaper, they're trying to make them better, so they let them cool slower, over a longer time period. If they cool too fast, not only is it a huge shock to the mold but the record can turn into a potato chip. If you look at the 125g records and compare them to the normal 140g, the raised area at the center and outer edge is more pronounced and when they changed that, the record companies said it was to minimize groove damage when playing them on a stacking record player. When I started working at a stereo store, we called them 'vinyl grinders'.

 

[wcfields]

Since the grooves are "deeper" (so I'm told) on the 180......wouldn't that allow more of a playback span before wearing out?

 

[highfigh]

Since the grooves are "deeper" (so I'm told) on the 180......wouldn't that allow more of a playback span before wearing out?

The groove doesn't need to be deeper. The stylus will only contact the area it needs and if the angle of the groove walls is the same, whether 125g or 180g, the added height is just wasted. If anything, the groove will leave more body to the disc, which means it should be stronger and more rigid.

The worst case would be if they use the same old stampers to make new 180g records. The carbon black in the plastic wears the surface and they unly used them for a specific number of stampings before discarding them for new ones. If the mother is still in good condition, they could still use that, too. If they remaster for the new issues, I think they should sound pretty good.

 

[wcfields]

The groove doesn't need to be deeper. The stylus will only contact the area it needs and if the angle of the groove walls is the same, whether 125g or 180g, the added height is just wasted. If anything, the groove will leave more body to the disc, which means it should be stronger and more rigid.

The worst case would be if they use the same old stampers to make new 180g records. The carbon black in the plastic wears the surface and they unly used them for a specific number of stampings before discarding them for new ones. If the mother is still in good condition, they could still use that, too. If they remaster for the new issues, I think they should sound pretty good.

cool thanks.

So if I listen to a record say 50 - 60 times......will it sound worse than it did say on my 5th listen? Does the quality get worse the more the use it has?

Sorry if that sounds dumb

 

[highfigh]

cool thanks.

So if I listen to a record say 50 - 60 times......will it sound worse than it did say on my 5th listen? Does the quality get worse the more the use it has?

Sorry if that sounds dumb

Maybe, probably. No way to tell though, since no recording medium or system is perfect. It has to wear because there's no such thing as a truly frictionless surface and with all of the carbon black in vinyl, it's not all that smooth when you look at it under a microscope. Most of the time, people listen through the noise and I don't see any reason to be too neurotic about it. I know of many who would buy an album and record it the second time they played it. The first was "to smooth off any rough spots". Yeah, I know. Second, cassettes are not capable of the frequency response of a clean album with a great cartridge, so they never listened to it at its best.

Just as an example, I have an album that ended up playing for hours, because I accidentally pressed the repeat button and had to leave. I expected to be gone for minutes and for the turntable to just stop but apparently, I was an idiot. I still listen to it. I told one of the guys in the band about this when he came into the store I worked for and when he went to his car, be came back with a new copy for me.

An elliptical stylus with radii of .4 mil x .7 mil has an incredibly small contact area and even at 1.5g tracking force, the Kg/cm² or lb/in² is fairly high. It's transient though and along with friction, a record has no choice but to wear. I don't recommend using D3/D4 cleaning fluid that comes with Discwasher cleaners because of the residue left behind.

 

[Swerd]

My take on the Discwasher cleaning fluid residue debate is that, on balance, it's a good thing to have. As you pointed out in your informative post above, no system is perfect - certainly not vinyl records .

The additive put into those record cleaning fluids is a very small amount of non-ionic detergent, such as Kodak photo-flo, Shell NP-40, Triton X-100, or literally dozens of other brand names. The purpose of these additives is to prevent water from beading up on a plastic surface as it dries. It breaks up the surface tension of water and allows it to spread out in a thin even layer as it dries.

If you ever developed photographic film (remember that?), it was very easy to see the effect of photo-flo in the final wash. It prevented the appearance of dust spots on the dried negative. Without photo-flo, these dust spots, usually a combination of dust particles and the salts (calcium carbonate) found in hard water, became concentrated in water drops as they beaded up and dried. They left large visible spots when the enlarged prints were made. The non-ionic detergents didn't eliminate the contaminants, but it prevented them from accumulating in the water beads during drying. The same could be happening on vinyl records as you clean them.

Vinyl can develop a large static charge and attract dust. An additional benefit of these detergents comes from their ability to minimize the static charge on records. It only takes 1 or 2 drops of these detergents in a gallon of fluid to do this job. As these additives cost money, Discwasher probably does not add too much.

So like so many other things, it's a trade-off. I think the benefits out weigh the drawbacks.

 

[3db]

But if it costs more, you can be certain that audiophiles will buy them and make incredible claims about their superiority.

Don't forget they espouse the superiorty off expensive CD players, cables, interconnects etc.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Don't forget they espouse the superiorty off expensive CD players, cables, interconnects etc.

Yes, of course they do, but, this is the vinyl post for 180g vinyl

 

[3db]

Yes, of course they do, but, this is the vinyl post for 180g vinyl

Well i"ve heard some vinyl recording that put their CD counterparts of the same recording to shame and I ain't no audiophile. I've also heard many of teh reverse too. If it sounds better, its better, regardless of accuracy or whatever numbers one cares to throw at it. Lets just leave it at that without digging up that age old arguement again.