Vinyl quality...?

[Jeff H]

Here's a question that got overlooked when I posed it in my post on the Ultimate thread:

Some records--older ones, usually--are much thicker/heavier than what we used to seeing these days. Does thicker vinyl make for better sound quality?

Also, I have heard that colored vinyl is "purer" and therefore offers better sound quality. Any truth to this?

I'm hoping that the DJs or other experts who post here might have some insight into this. (And it will take your minds off the Eurodisco debate. To each his own, guys! )

[The Lord of Flatbush]

I always thought if the vinyl was heavier, the sound would be also with more bass. If the vinyl was lighter, the sound would be also with less treble.

This is what I found from some 12" singles in comparison to LP's; Especially with vinyl from the seventies and eighties, alike imports of the nineties toward what we have today.

Depending on what type of cartridges you're using can make a difference in the sound that you hear as well.



_________________
THE BEST, KEPT SECRET IS OUT!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Lord of Flatbush on 2002-06-08 11:11 ]</font>

[Bernie]

On 2002-06-08 08:23, Jeff H wrote:

Some records--older ones, usually--are much thicker/heavier than what we used to seeing these days. Does thicker vinyl make for better sound quality?

Theoretically, thicker vinyl is better since it tends to warp less and the groove footprint from one side won't affect the other side. That was the reasoning behind some records being pressed as single sided jobs. Stay away from those RCA "Dynaflex's" If you know what's good for you. So why are records made thin-economics. The best are 180 gram pressings on "virgin" vinyl (see below).

Also, I have heard that colored vinyl is "purer" and therefore offers better sound quality. Any truth to this?

The complete opposite is true. Picture discs and colored vinyl contain more additives.

"Virgin" vinyl in some cases is actually clear since it has less of these impurities (David Bowie's box set on Rykodisc). To keep costs down smaller record labels actually melted down recycled records which result in a noiser disc. These appear not really as black, but as a muddy dark brown or even bluish. They have dimples and other imperfections including bits of the label from the recycled record!

[The Lord of Flatbush]

Great observation Bernie!

By stating the facts provided knowledge that I wasn't aware of.

Great job once again, Bernie!



_________________
THE BEST, KEPT SECRET IS OUT!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Lord of Flatbush on 2002-06-08 11:51 ]</font>

[NickNack]

We used to get promoted with a lot of 'colored' vinyl. Although they looked great, most of them sounded horrible. I always found they held on to static noise more so than black vinyl. Now Bernie has told me exactly why. Thanks!

[Ricardo_Mata]

Hi! I justed wanted to add my two cents, in this case learned from a friend of my dad who used to own a record company in my native Venezuela, and from 3 years working for an audio/video production company here in Charlotte.

Bernie is absolutely right. Black vinyl contains chemicals that are not present in transparent, but tinted, vinyl. Let's go back to the basics.

Vinyl is derived from petroleum, which contains carbon and other chemicals with interesting electrical properties. One of these properties is usually bad absorption and retention of energy. That is why black vinyl doesn't retend as much static as tinted vinyl. Tinted vinyl is missing most of its carbon (which would make it much darker) and therefore tends to retain much more static. More static, of course, means poorer sound quality.

It is also true that, up to an extent, the thickness of the vinyl plays an important role in the quality of the audio. The depth of the footprint is very important but so is the tranfer process during which the actual electro-static signal is embedded in the vinyl. You can have a deep footprint but a bad tranfer and the resul is going to be bad audio, or you can have just a regular footprint with a great transfer process and the audio is going to be very good.

The quality of the cartridge and the neeedle are also crucial. A bad one of either will result in poor audio.

Finally, a possible answer to the question "Why are records now thinner than in the past?" The answer probably is rising oil prices and a lower demand for vinyl.

I hope this helps.

[DJ Jimmy M]

Thanks for all the info, this explains alot. Also, one other question that maybe someone could answer. I have a spanish import 12" with pic sleave(which is the only reason i picked it up) of "Que Serra Mi Vida" by Gibson Bros. The quality of this 12 is probably the most horrable vinyl i've ever heard in my life. It sounds like literally am radio quality in stereo with no bass and lots of that vinyl static that you usualy hear twards the end of a record. Why is this? My domestic 12" of this sounds great. I don't get it.

DJ Jimmy M

[Ricardo_Mata]

Hi! The answer to this question is easy: Poor transfer quality.

I'm originally from Venezuela and when I had my mobile DJ business in the late 70's and early 80"s I very, very seldom bought LPs made in Venezuela; I always bought LPs made in the U.S or Europe because they were much better in terms of audio quality.

The basic problem is that in our countries (Latin America) the technology is usually years behind and the quality-control processes are usually very poor.

[BrunoRepublic]

On 2002-06-08 21:04, Ricardo_Mata wrote:
The basic problem is that in our countries (Latin America) the technology is usually years behind and the quality-control processes are usually very poor.

There's more to it than that. Generally, when a record is first mastered, it is done so from either the master tape or a second generation copy. Other countries would be supplied with a third or fourth generation copy; in some places ordinary cassettes were used (yeucch!). Secondly, the "original" pressings were usually cut by a skilled mastering engineer, like the immortal Jose Rodriguez, who had mastered (pun not intended) the art and science of cutting a good record. Test copies of these would often be reviewed by the producers and artists to ensure that the record sounded as good as it could. Outside of the original country, there was little control over this process. In addition to having inferior source material, the records were cut by Joe Blo local mastering engineer and they suffered accordingly. There are occasionally exceptions to this; I have a couple of Canadian records that were pressed from the same stampers as the original US releases (or German, as the case is for one). But that sort of thing is very rare.

Having said that, there are a few countries that have reputations for good vinyl pressings, even though they often were not the original country of origin, such as:
- Germany
- Netherlands
- UK (though bad mastering plagued some labels; they seemed to go totally overboard on compression)
- Sweden and the other Nordic countries
- Japan -- the only country in the world that I'm aware of that has national quality standards for LPs, CDs, etc.

Getting back to vinyl quality... coloured vinyl is a bit of a crap-shoot. I have some coloured vinyl that sounds fabulous and has held up well over repeated playings, like my pink copy of Tomita's "The Bermuda Triangle". But I also have a treasured 12" by The Grid on clear vinyl that sounds noticeably worse each time I play it. The vinyl is so soft that I can see bits of it being scraped off as it gets played!

[Jeff H]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

But at the risk of beating a topic to death, the info on clear/black/colored vinyl causes me to wonder: What about colored vinyl that is transparent? I have a few of these and to my relatively untrained ear they sound great.

[Westwood]

Ricardo and others, can you explain more this part "More static, of course, means poorer sound quality". I am dying to know more about vinyl, is there a site where they explain these things. FOr example, when there is static is it when the record is new that sometimes you have to really pull the record out of the inner sleeve and it's difficult sometimes and the records attracts every bit of dust and dirt on the way to the turntable? Is there a way to get rid of the static (if this is what it is). What about "pop" sounds are those because of the new record and the static?
Please explain, thankssss

[Disco Funk]

I also heard somewhere that pre-early 70's, vinyl was pretty thick, but because of the oil embargo of that period when the price of oil sky rocketed, they started making thinner records. They weren't super thin, but they weren't as thick as they were in the 60s.

Disco Funk

[jazz_pilgrim]

As a UK record buyer, I always reckoned that it always was better to pay twice the price for a US import 12" rather than an UK 12" pressing. The sound quality I gained from the US pressings seemed far superior - especially during the early/mid 80's.

Some good examples of US 12" pressings that I bought ....
Circle City Band - Magic
James Colburn - Caught In The Middle
Chilites - Stop What You're Doing
Krystol - After The Dance

..... where the bass sound was much clearer and more punchy.

Conversely, I found that any UK pressings on the Mercury label I bought - eg Charles Earland, Central Line - were of pretty poor quality. When I play them today, they seem to be much more worn out than similar other records I bought at the time, and play with a lot of distortion.

:)