Vinyl making me grumpy.....

[gary7]

I would say that with most of my systems vinyl has sounded very good. I can only remember a time maybe 35-40 years ago that I wasn't happy with my vinyl sound. Don't remember the system I had at the time though. I would say that the single best $150 I've spent for sound was a used Record Doctor RCM 5-6 years ago. Many albums with pops & ticks that disappeared after a scrub & vac. Of course it does nothing for physical damage. Just have to find another copy if possible.

 

[hifitommy]

for cleaning records without spending a small fortune, get thee a Spin Clean for about $129 from music direct. then get some photo easels made of clear plexi from walmart in the picture frame section. they are 3 bucks each (get at least five) and they don't touch the grooves on either front nor back of the disc. use their fluid as directed, the big bottle lasts a LONG time.

get some microfiber cloths from Harbor Freight. use the white cloths to lay the records on after the washing and then wipe the fluid off letting the fibers track along in the grooves. then onto the easels. after about 15-30 minutes they will be very nicely dry.

if your sound problem still exists, try a different cartridge. a nagoaka mm cart will be a bargain.

 

[ScooterMcTav]

Good feedback all, thank you.

Why waste any more time or money, if you like CD's better, just buy them, it won't hurt anyone's feelings.

Not falling for it! Although I like CDs, I grew up with records, and still love their non-fatiguing properties.

FYI right now I'm listening to the Foo Fighters Wasting Light, and it highlights every reason I love vinyl.

Looks like a spin clean might be on order. Though oddly enough, as good as the Foo Fighters sound, some of the tracks on my new pressing of CCRs Chronicle sounds thin. Ever weird.

 

[Thunderbox]

Good amp? Check.
Good TT? Check.
Good preamp? Check.
Good cartridge? Check.

Good sound? Well, I can't tell you that.

After investing some scratch in a decent MC cartridge, I have to say that a surprising amount of my vinyl collection is disappointing me.

Certainly some dics sound just fantastic - the best vinyl I've ever heard in a system I own. Great sound saturation across the board, full competent bass, crisp highs, and lovely mids. This is mostly with new pressings that I have been the sole owner of.

However, older discs are all over the place. Some have zero bottom end (Deeper Purple), some get bloaty on the bottom (the Doors), some are way mid pushed (Bat Out of Hell). I would have thought it might be a setup or connection issue if the symptoms had been consistent. However, we're all over the place.

I am guessing that as the quality of the gear improves, it highlights the differences between good and poor recordings, good and poor pressings, and good and poorly worn LPs. I am also guessing that if I do not like the sound of any LP which is "crappy", then I need to listen to it on a less revealing system.

It is a bit unfortunate, as when I pop in a CD, I can hear what my system is capable of. Then when I put on an LP (or even look at buying a used LP) it seems to be a bit of a crap shoot.

Although I love the detail of CDs, I also appreciate the smooth nature of vinyl, and enjoy it for extended listening sessions. However, vinyl takes space, requires care, and is more expensive than other forms of media we can choose.

Is my experience typical? Is anyone else experiencing this frustration with vinyl? Any suggestions on how you have dealt with this?

Seems the problem is you don't have any speakers. That's where the sounds comes out.

 

[Thunderbox]

So the premise is vinyl sounds better on a lousy system and worse on a good system. I don't think so. Think about what you are saying. Makes no sense at all.

 

[sKiZo]

Another Grumpy?

(There can be only one!)

 

[ScooterMcTav]

Moving coils can bring this out like this. Bad recordings and pressing sound really bad and great ones sound well, really great. They really emphasize the extremes.

I heard that Jolida 302 integrated with an Ortofon Bronze and was really not impressed. I can't recall the phono stage right now but I know from having a Jolida 502CRC that the preamp section is really just average and it really needs good NOS12AX7's to sound good. When I play my 502C I usually bypass the preamp and play only the power amp section and I have it souped up a bit.

I think you should try the Luxman as recommended.

What phono stage are you using? that is also important with moving coil. The Denon's seem to really like an SUT into a high quality MM stage.

Thanks - that was my impression as well - good is better, bad is worse.

Apparently the guts of the 302 are similar to the guts of the 502. I tried using a couple of different preamps through the bypass channel, but found the vocals lost some of that "you are there" presence. The ProJect Phono Box II into a pre input sounds better to me than the outboard pre.

Regardless, I've been swapping back and forth between new issue Tung Sol 12AX7 and JJ ECC803S in the pre position. Neither is really a bad tube, though the JJ has a nice laid back quality.

There are already some NOS 6201 in the driver position. I found the switch to EH KT88 from TS 6550 to be the best tube roll I've done so far.

Seems the problem is you don't have any speakers. That's where the sounds comes out.

Tough crowd, eh?

On one side note, I swapped the Denon into my Dual 1249, and swear (of course) it sounds better than the Rotel.

More self-deluded psychacoustic conclusions to come.....

 

[ScooterMcTav]

So the premise is vinyl sounds better on a lousy system and worse on a good system. I don't think so. Think about what you are saying. Makes no sense at all.

Not quite.

The premise is that well recorded, mastered, and pressed vinyl sounds better the better your system gets.

Poorly recorded, mastered, pressed or abused vinyl sounds worse the better your system gets, as it highlights (reveals) the problems even more.

On another side note, listening to Janis Joplin's Greatest Hits right now, and man, does it have such different character on vinyl than cd (and in a good way).

 

[Thunderbox]

Not quite.

The premise is that well recorded, mastered, and pressed vinyl sounds better the better your system gets.

Poorly recorded, mastered, pressed or abused vinyl sounds worse the better your system gets, as it highlights (reveals) the problems even more.

On another side note, listening to Janis Joplin's Greatest Hits right now, and man, does it have such different character on vinyl than cd (and in a good way).

Maybe I am missing something but it just doesn't sound logical. Good equipment makes good recordings sound better and makes lesser recordings sound worse. Where do you have the line drawn where one sounds better and one sounds worse? I am guessing you are really saying good recordings sound much better but poorly recorded music doesn't improve as much.

 

[sKiZo]

Put simply ... Kain't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, eh ...

If a recording is bad, you CAN tweak it some, but you'll never make it perfect. I use a dbx SNR1 in line with my phono stage, and that can make a substantial difference in the noise floor. As with any post processing, conservative is better, because too high a setting, and you're losing music as well.

You can also "enhance" a cut that suffers from bad mastering with dynamic range enhancement, bass synth and the like. The very best of equipment can't make a bad pressing "right" though, and as mentioned, the better the definition and resolution of your gear, the more obvious the flaws will be.

 

[ScooterMcTav]

Maybe I am missing something but it just doesn't sound logical. Good equipment makes good recordings sound better and makes lesser recordings sound worse. Where do you have the line drawn where one sounds better and one sounds worse? I am guessing you are really saying good recordings sound much better but poorly recorded music doesn't improve as much.

I'd say sure, let's split the difference, TB. I think we're pretty close, but I'll try one more time.

It's not just about the recording - it's also about the physical medium itself. We know that some styli shapes are more forgiving of damaged vinyl, so in the case of some records, a simple spherical stylus might return a better sound than a more advanced shape, based on how the record has been damaged.

Let's also say a disc is pressed with limited LF information (as they often were). Having an HE or ML stylus that extracts every bit of HF detail might make the record unlistenable.

Same with speakers and amplifiers - those that dig out detail and resolution may dig out the kind of detail and resolution that actually makes the music less pleasant than it would be on an inferior system.

So if we took two exact same copies of a brand new pressing, I would expect them to sound better on a better system.

However, with worn, used, abused, or poorly pressed vinyl, it could sound worse on a better (and in many ways, less forgiving) system, for reasons listed above.

In some ways it is the old debate about detail extraction versus musicality. Although not firmly in either camp, I do lean towards musicality, and have experienced recordings and gear that improved the detail extraction, all to the greater detriment of the overall listenability of the system.

 

[Bob]

couple of points. early stereo from the 60's and 70's were hit or miss since the equipment
to play stereo was emerging. I suspect the record companies knew this and didn't put
everything into it. I have some from that era that are pop'n'click monsters

If you're into classical, there have been some great music like on RCA living stereo and
their shaded dogs. Columbia had their 6-eyes. But the best of the best, IMHO, are the
European LPs. EMI, Decca, Philips, and DGG. virgin vinyl and great performances.

Classical generally doesn't battle fraternities and beer so they can remain unmolested and
in reasonable-to-great condition.

try emerson, lake and palmer's Pictures at an Exhibition, then try the classical version
with Giulini on DGG being, in my opinion, the best.

Just to have an example of good mastering (my opinion), try any of the old Cat Stevens
LPs. I recall he used Magneplanar speakers. then, of course, there's Dire Straits.

if you do want improve what you have, digitize them and keep an original copy (both
LP and digitized) but have one that has the clicks/pops/scratches removed
electronically. Reason to have an original is that I don't believe the current pop/click
removing software is state-of-the-art.

 

[ScooterMcTav]

Hey Bob, some of my favorite vinyl is classical.

In fact, one LP that gets spun regularly is a DG pressing of Beethoven's 9th.

Being here in NA, I also have found some really nice pressings in the London FFRR series - many of which were reportedly made alongside Decca pressings.

But yes, in many cases, I wonder how many times a specific classical record had even been played based on its condition. Either the owner was meticulous, or it got played once or twice a year and that was it, and usually on a pretty good stereo.

Mind you, the RCA Red Label Box Set of La Traviata I inherited from my grandmother looks like it was through a frat party. Boy, she loved that opera (as do I now).

The simple availability of music these days has made me a bit slow to jump onto digitizing vinyl. For example, my copy of Spark's "A Woofer in Tweeters Clothing" got edge melted, making a couple of tracks unplayable. However, even a title as obscure as this is now on iTunes, and I happily paid my $7.99 for a pristine digital copy of it. It still sounds as lousy and choked down as the original record did.

Plus I should probably get the family videos and photos digitized before I get started digitizing music, I'd think. That's more of a safety issue - my wife can be a formidable woman.

 

[sKiZo]

Just finished up a little project here digitizing a few hundred shellac classics. Pretty decent results using Audacity with fairly conservative settings on the effects.

And ya ... there's a lot of similarities between a pop, click, and real music, which is where even the best of post processing algorithms fail. I don't expect that will ever be perfect. Best I can say, is go conservative, and be prepared to edit the waveform manually for the "problem" areas ...

PS ... Audacity's latest noise reduction is a big improvement over past efforts. Hard part is getting a viable sample to use as a baseline. That can be right tricky and may take a few shots.

 

[Aerobat]

I tend to be ruthless in culling vinyl records. If it sounds bad, it goes straight to the discard pile. Give them away or if they're really bad, bin them. Over time you develop a collection of great sounding records.

 

[twiiii]

Your not the only one. I got so grumpy i dubbed the good records, kept about 30 outstanding discs, Sheffield, Original Masters, and a few Telarcs, and gave the other 1000 or so away that were Ok and trashed the rest. in the early 80's and late 70's. I mean why keep bad discs. Aftter trashing my last Stanton 981Hzl stylus and my V-15 V MR having failed earlier. A friend sent me a 10 X4 Dynavector and I opened a new adventure. Now I'm using 20 X 2 high output with my linear tracking turntable. I will admit I am using a Mac MP100 pre-preamp now so I can upgrade again to a XX-2 in the near future. feeding C=34 with its processor loop having a DBX 119 and 3BX with a SAE 11 band Program EQ to get optimum sound from each LP. But with care full selection of discs my new collection has far fewer problems of the original collection and sounds so much more satisfying. There are no RCA, Angel, Deutche, or Capitol discs for a start. London Phase 4 is on my no buy list, too. I enjoy Verve, Reprise, Reference recordings, Command, Telarc, Sheffield, some forms of London, Phillips, Sony, and Columbia . I basically collect Big Band,discs, with Symphonic wind band, and a few pop vocals, with maybe a half dozen Classical Albums out of 1000 I have now. I much prefer CD for producing the large dynamic range of classical recordings and capturing the smallest details covered up by tape noise and and many generations of degradation of massed produced LP. Direct to disc is a different story, I also stay away from AAD or ADD CD reissues. They never seem to capture the essence of the original LP. Its like streaming off the internet. Not only can't they capture the LP's, they can't even match the quality if the original CD. Having Head aches and being grouchy is just part of the consumer sound business. I still have my mixed down boot legs of various performers I listened to when I trashed the first LP collection. My Basie, Kenton, Navy and Marine Band tapes for instance are much superior to the LP's of old, no matter how they have been doctored. I have two Christy minstrels concert tapes, that blow the LP's and Cd's out of the water. That said I couldn't match Telarc, Sheffield, or Original Masters if I wanted. So the quality is out there, you just have to find it. I have been collecting Nat King Cole, Sammy Davis, Kai Winding, Urbie Green and Roger Whittaker lately and have been very happy with my search.

 

[onepixel]

So, I just got turned on to this site that may shed some light. The particular page shown is a search by date of AC/DC's Back in Black. It shows the dynamic range over the years and how it's gone to crap. You can search other artists/albums.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=ac/dc&album=back+in+black

 

[dyche01]

I have noticed a big difference between some US and UK pressings. The US version of Amy Winehouse's Back to Black sounds atrocious, while the UK pressing sounds fantastic on exactly the same system. Different mixes I suppose.

 

[holyman772]

So, I just got turned on to this site that may shed some light. The particular page shown is a search by date of AC/DC's Back in Black. It shows the dynamic range over the years and how it's got to crap. You can search other artists/albums.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=ac/dc&album=back+in+black

Wow. Cool site. Checked a couple popular titles (Hotel California, Born to Run) and it's amazing the swing in DR. Even the SACDs in some cases are crap. Very enlightening.

 

[Thunderbox]

I'd say sure, let's split the difference, TB. I think we're pretty close, but I'll try one more time.

It's not just about the recording - it's also about the physical medium itself. We know that some styli shapes are more forgiving of damaged vinyl, so in the case of some records, a simple spherical stylus might return a better sound than a more advanced shape, based on how the record has been damaged.

Let's also say a disc is pressed with limited LF information (as they often were). Having an HE or ML stylus that extracts every bit of HF detail might make the record unlistenable.

Same with speakers and amplifiers - those that dig out detail and resolution may dig out the kind of detail and resolution that actually makes the music less pleasant than it would be on an inferior system.

So if we took two exact same copies of a brand new pressing, I would expect them to sound better on a better system.

However, with worn, used, abused, or poorly pressed vinyl, it could sound worse on a better (and in many ways, less forgiving) system, for reasons listed above.

In some ways it is the old debate about detail extraction versus musicality. Although not firmly in either camp, I do lean towards musicality, and have experienced recordings and gear that improved the detail extraction, all to the greater detriment of the overall listenability of the system.

I hear you. If the record is worn out or damaged too much I only listen to it a very short time. Gets made into a clock where it can be appreciated.