Question: how many plays before vinyl audibly degrades?

Ok, so while I am a veteran music lover, I am brand new to vinyl (and lovin' it!!) and have a querstion. I know running the needle through the grooves wears them down a bit each time. But how much life does it have before you can hear a substantial deterioration in sound? 20 plays? 100 plays?

I ask this because I've bought a few $100 plus records already and will definitely be playing them. But how long before they start to noticeably lose their audio luster?

Thanks for the info!

By the way, this question assumes we're starting with a brand new record.

 

Welcome to the forum!

How long it takes for vinyl to audibly degrade, depends on a lot of factors such as what kind of turntable you're using, tonearm adjustment, tracking force, record care, and a host of other variables. It would be helpful to the others here if you filled out your equipment profile, see this thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=140713

That said, I can tell you that with proper care, and a decent turntable you can expect decades of quality sound from your vinyl.

 

Well that depends greatly on your turntable and stylus. But even with a modest system, you shouldn't hear much degradation as you play your LP's. Your stylus will wear out long before the LP does.

 

Done! My equipment info is now posted on my profile. Thanks for the heads up on that! Granted, the turntable and cartridge I have now (Rega P3-24 w/ Elys 2) will be inferior to what I have five years from now - or maybe even five months from now

 

Is there a more specific answer than this? You say decades. Is that number directly related to the number of plays you think an average record will get? Or is it mostly just about the passage of time? Big difference.

I ask because while I haven't bought any $100 records (yet), I have bought some nice 180g and 200g ones that for me at least weren't cheap. Gotta tell you, I enjoy playing them a lot, but still get a little nervous everytime I pull them out...

 

i've never heard any degrading on any lp i have purchased or been given from the moment i played it..

 

Way back when, those of us who were "serious" about preserving our records would play once and tape to cassette, then file the records away as reference copies and play the tapes.

I have rafts of cassette copies I made of my LPs. I never play them any more--always just go ahead and put the LP on. Times change.

 

Hello,

Don't be nervous Given a decent quality vinyl, playback is what matters. They don't so much wear and they are damaged. It's damage that's your enemy. Damage from incorrect tracking forces, worn stylus, dirt or debris, terrible record players and so on. Never, ever had an album wear out on me. I only get nervous before I play an album, because you don't know if there's damage from the probably very unparticular previous owner. If it plays fine, I relax from then on. Just don't use an overly worn stylus, keep the tracking in check, keep the record and needle reasonably clean. Spin those discs!

 

Just keep your arm and cart properly adjusted, and take care of your vinyl, and there's no reason your records shouldn't last indefinately.

 

I know we hear this (over and over) but nothing definitive has been 'proven' - plus there are so many variables at work here (vinyl properties, pressure, shape of stylus, speed, environmental, etc.) that no one rule is going to be 'the fact.' Vinyl ingredients make some kinds 'harder,' some more resilient, etc. and this will affect their, uhh....'longevity' - just like motor vehicle tires. A fellow I knew in the '80s was an engineer who designed or applied vinyl for industrial use & applications. I learned how incredibly tough that stuff can be.

Now to records. I have records I've owned for over thirty years. I don't know how much I've played the 'most played' ones - but I bet its in the hundreds by now. I've always taken care of my vinyl (decent turntable, cartridge, tracking weight/skating, cleaned LPs before play etc.) and I can't hear any audio degradation whatsoever after all this time - and I've had minimally played mint records to compare them to. Supposedly there have been tests (or at least a test) that played vinyl tracks or passages several thousands times consecutively with the vinyl sustaining no measurable damage. That's just what I've heard. I'm presuming a good set up was used.

 

more like "anal"

 

There was a thread recently concerning Van Halen's 1984 album, an album I've owned since 1984 and played many, many times back then. So I took it out and played it again, and despite all the turntables/needles and indifferent playing conditions it's been subjected to I can't detect any significant wear on the thing. I was amazed. Apart from a few scratches that were my fault, it still sounds great.

 

I've got a few records that have been played, by me, several hundred times.

While they sound fine still, in isolation, they definitely don't sound the same as less played copies of the same record I've bought recently.

Record and stylus wear are continuous. Keep both clean and everything lasts a long time. Generally, damage is more likely from dropping a disc or tonearm.

The more records you have, the less you play each, and record wear as such ceases to be a problem. My well-played records are from the time I had a collection of under 20 albums.

Since you seem to want a specific number, I'll give you a range. Under 20 plays is probably undetectable. Over 200 is probably significant in loss of high frequencies, say in the 10-20KHz range. If there's mistracking in any way, or stylus wear, this gets worse fast.

 

I found this to be a blessing. I have a load of LPs (and unfortunately a bunch that I sold) that are mint and I'm rediscovering them as I haven't used my cassette decks in soooo long as well.

 

Absolutely not true - unless something is wrong with ones playback setup. I have a number of albums I've played that much - EASILY. No audible degradation has occurred (Some of these I have spare NM pressings) - let alone a "significant" loss. I'm sorry to be confrontational here, but this is simply not a universal truth. Maybe in the context of a particular play back & vinyl situation it can occur, or did occur.

 

My best advice to keep 'em sounding great for the rest of your life -- in addition to correct stylus force, etc., and general good handling and care-taking -- is to get a wet-vacuum record cleaner.

Brands include VPI and Nitty Gritty.

Essential (IMHO) if you're going to buy any used vinyl.

Not one piece of vinyl ever hits my TT -- even if brand new -- until I've Nitty Grittied it.

Way anal, I know ... what can I say?

 

Don't miss the smiley at the top of serge's post--betcha he's secretly one of "us."

Besides, in slightly more diplomatic terms, that's pretty much the reaction the buddy who got me into that practice received from his mother when she learned about it. I think her words were, essentially:

 

With good care and a good playback system that also gets well cared for, I don'e think record wear is a problem. I am still listening to records my dad gave me that have had their 50th birthday, and most are in very good shape and provide a great listen. If you are really concerned about this, you can do a needle drop and create a CDR of your LP. This is the modern version of dubbing them to a cassette tape.

 

I have a Lindsey Buckingham record I've played 300+ times before I needle-dropped it.
The needle-drop is less cloudy than the store-bought CD!

Just keep them clean and use a nice needle. They'll last longer than your CDs.

 

I did over hear this one conversation at a recent record fair in London. This guy was talking about a fellow collector that bought 3 copies of each record he wanted. 1 copy went into the vault, 1 was for display and the other was for playing. Crazy.

I think you're biggest threat comes from improper care of your records and turntable. I know I've never had a problem except when I did something stupid.

Eddie

 

Who here has worked with calibrated test records?

I have a few, and the warnings on them are quite clear. They're accurate at high frequencies for about ten plays, and then useful for a few more. I'm talking the NAB and CBS STR series. At least one of the latter has check boxes on the cover so you can count the plays.

I agree it's not an audible problem on music discs with reasonable playback equipment. Like I said, this hasn't happened since I only had 20 discs. My discs are still good performers, but they've been played on many different cartridges in their lifetime, starting with my first 'semi auto' idler players in the 70s. Gooogle didn't find me enough test papers, maybe an AES member can find something in the library and excerpt it here. I bet someone's done this.

 

Agreed that, providing properly calibrated gear, LPs should survive many dozens of plays without exhibiting any degradation. I suspect that any degradation in sound over the years would be more than offset by the high frequency hearing loss that would accompany the passage of time...

 

FWIW, I once set my Denon DP-47F turntable on "Repeat" and ran it all night using an Audio-Technica AT440ML. I recorded the first pass and the last pass to the PC and couldn't measure or hear any differences. High-frequency response and noise levels were the same for the first and last passes.

Years ago, an audio magazine (Stereo Review or Hi Fidelity, if I recall correctly) set a turntable to repeat the last few minutes of a side and they ran the test continuously for many, many hours. With a line-contact stylus, they were unable to detect any groove wear or damage. But don't count on that happening with a conical stylus!

Forum member "nin" reported on a test done in Sweden with an Ortofon Super OM-40. To sum up, even after 48,000 passes, the line-contact stylus of the Super OM-40 did not do any appreciable damage to the vinyl. But other stylus profiles, like ellipticals, started wearing down the groove after only 60 to 100 passes.

 

Well we have the practical experience factor versus the semi-scientific factor going on. But the more important issue is the practical application of the scientific values or factors being relied upon here.

Seriously, I don't believe we can depend on a final value wear judgment associated with these records without knowing the underlying rationale, global data, and conclusions which led to that judgment. I am presuming the stated test record values are because they cannot guarantee specified results given the big variety of playback applications that the records will have to endure 'out there.' I've had a lot of life experience as a mechanic and machinist (actual four-year academic and formal training, not down at Joe's garage) on race motorcycles, aircraft, submarines, and aircraft carriers. It is common to have a pre-determined 'life' or set replacement time for a lot of things used in those arenas. For example when making components that are part of a nuclear use chain some items or materials were not to be used more than once - regardless of their actual condition. Part of this is for establishing a quality control pattern which has nothing to do with the item itself, but is used for 'looking back' if there became a problem. By analogy to vinyl, one could conclude that because a tool is required is to be replaced after a set amount of use, the tool was worn out or no longer up to the required standard. But thats not necessarily the case - the replacement was to establish control over tool wear issues for quality control and/or later review purposes.

I'd have a lot of questions about these test records. What period were they made? What playback gear and set up factors were they intended for? What were the control parameters or objectives to the number of plays that are being evaluated? This leaves out other relevant factors like the variances in vinyl formula, which would be necessary to make a proper judgment on the specific issue of vinyl wear. It sounds like the test record statement is more in line with a form of a guarantee... they can reasonably guarantee expected results after so many plays, but not so after x amount of use...

I'm not knocking the test record analysis per se, just pointing out that we can't make the deductive leap that the criteria for test record wear = the fact that all vinyl will wear out with a 'certain amount' of use. I have no doubt that at some measurable level, wear 'exists,' but I really don't think it is a factor in the practical sense (unless one is being careless or abusive, etc).