The Impressions on 180gm Vinyl and the $70K System

I use one myself. $15 is a good price, too. This is also the dry brush recommended by the Disc Doctor company.

 

Re: Re: You must chill

Luv M.D.

 

My setup is pretty dang quiet. Out of curiousity, what tracking force do you use?

 

Disagree with you regarding dynamic range. Let me know what you think about this article -

"Stereophile, Vol.22, No.1, January 1999 Micheal Fremer


If compact discs are so damned dynamic and vinyl is so dynamically limited, why do they sound just the opposite? Why do LPs sound so "live,"so explosive, so "there," and CDs so dead? Even the best CDs usually sink to second-rate when you switch to their vinyl versions. I've heard it, you've heard it. Only those in deep denial, those who refuse to listen, don't They'd rather read the published specs and consider the actual listening somekind of mass delusion among Luddite LP fans.

That's what I was thinking while auditioning the Pass Aleph Ono phono preamplifier: a very reasonably priced, well-built, utterly flexible product that does all the important things essentially correctly. Then I remembered an articlesomeone had forwarded me, "The Dynamic Range
Potential of the Phonograph," by electrical engineer Ron Bauman, published in Audio Electronics
in April 1996. In the "About the Author" box it says that Bauman wastes his spare time restoring old Volvos instead of Saabs, but I'll forgive him that lapse in taste because his article is so enlightening.

Bauman explains that low-level ambient details ".. . are represented by stylus motions of less than an ultraviolet wavelength (1/100,000,000of a meter) - a dimension approaching the size of a complex organic molecule."He goes on to say that such tiny motions are usually occurring simultaneously with orchestral crescendos thousands of times larger.That both ends of the dynamic scale get their due - that it works as well as it does - is amazing, isn't it?

Bauman reiterates the well-known and -understood 96dB dynamic range of the 16-bit CD system, and the conventional methodology used todefine the LP's dynamic range - a signal/noise ratio measured at anarbitrary cartridge output level relative to preamplifier noise and usually defined with the input shorted. This dynamic range more often than not falls between 60 and 70dB. That 26dB difference is a gaping Grand Canyon that should render vinyl compressed and lifeless by comparison.

Like all genuine researchers, as opposed to the charlatans passing for scientists among the "measurements are God" crowd, Bauman moves from careful observation to an attempt to understand why the numbers don't add up to what's heard. He postulates that the methodology used to determine the LP's dynamic range is flawed. Bauman changes the playing field, defining dynamic range as "the ratio of the loudest sound to the background noise referenced to the preamp output terminals," because he believes there is"... an intimate relationship between the cartridge and the first preamplifier stage," with the interaction between the two determining the actual dynamic range ofanalog playback.

Painstakingly, and with enough charts and formulae to render the mathlexic unconscious, Bauman builds his case using three modestly priced cartridges (a Sumiko Blue Point, a Grado MCZ, and an Ortofon MC 100), concluding that the optimized combination of low-noise amplifying device and cartridge yields an actual dynamic range that is ".. . equal to, or better than the theoretical best a CD can achieve." In fact, the best combination Bauman measured bettered CD's dynamic range by 16dB. Bauman also states what others have before: that while analog noise (thermal or tape hiss) is added linearly to the signal, our ears constitute a sophisticated filter that can retrieve a great deal of information below the noise - perhaps up to 30dB below. This means we can add up to that much beyond what the measured dynamic range of analog might be. Digital quantizing noise, on the other hand, obliterates information."




BTW, I grew up in the Santa Cruz area and my daughter is in her first year as a Slug. My wife and I have been up there 4 times this year. We absolutely love visiting, except the damned traffic is worse than Los Angeles!

 

Re: Re: Re: The Impressions on 180gm Vinyl and the $70K System

I agree 100% with Dr Prix.

BC

 

My policy regarding cleaning goes like this:

1. Brand new record: play it first (Don't try to fix what ain't broke). If it does not sound "clean" (how clean is up to you), CLEAN IT. If you can't take the surface noise out: RETURN IT. But since there is a limited amount of dealers, make sure you do not overdo it (returning too many records will turn any dealer into a "Soup Nazi").

2. NEVER play a used record with out cleaning it first.


BC

 

In the end, the sound of CDs depends on the mastering. It was never stated exactly what CDs were played in that nursing home, or on what equipment they were played on.

CDs have a higher dynamic range, but since the majority of cds on the market are of analog recordings, they will contain not much more than the original vinyl.

We all should know by now about how the dynamic range is limited in todays CDs by the practice of compression/limitinng. Of course if you compare the vinyl to this type of mastered CD, the vinyl is going to win.

 

Does cleaning harm a record ?

All the best - Andrew

 

Some labels are good, some are bad

That's where your problem is, I believe. I've bought two Get Back reissues, and they'll never get another cent from me.

The copy of Comus's "First Utterance" I bought actually had glue or white goop on it, which I couldn't get out with my Disc Doctor / record vacuum routine. Fortunately the shop I bought it from took it back.

My copy of Gong's "Angel's Egg" is also very, very noisy. It's solid, heavy vinyl, but I've cleaned and played it several times and the surface noise just won't go away. I regret having bought it and don't put it on the turntable anymore. It might make a great skeet target.

However, some new vinyl pressings are spectacular. The LPs by Mum, Pram, Tortoise, and Monade I've bought recently (on the Thrill Jockey, Domino, and Duophonic labels) are on heavy vinyl and are absolutely quiet and excellent.

But an album I bought by American Analog Set, "Know By Heart" on TigerStyle records, is noisy.

I've learned there are some labels to avoid, and others to trust.

 

Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

Get Back re-issues are also in my "avoid" list.

BC

 

Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

Well, that's good to know; two members say to avoid the label and I'm gone. Interestingly my other problem record (among my new ones) is a Spirit album on Sundazed and I believe they have a good reputation. Still I guess records are pretty delicate and can vary from one LP to another.

Thanks guys
Good weekend all
Even Dr Prix
Norm

 

Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

Hi Norm,
How's our buddy Scott B. doing at Kensington's Soundworks??
I haven't seen him in years. I bought the Beatles MFSL box (and many other LPs) from him about 7 years ago. Glad to see he's still around selling audiophile LPs at Rick H.'s place.
Ben

 

Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

BTW, which Spirit LP?

BC

 

Wow! The above question is very interesting!

I'm very particular about the condition of my LPs. I strive to buy only clean vinyl, but sometimes that's hard to do. I have dirty vinyl cleaned with a local retailer's record cleaning machine, or lightly clean them myself with a damp cotton cloth or Discwasher brush. But because of this thread, I may replace my Discwasher brush with a carbon fiber brush. I don't think I'm doing any irreparable harm by lightly applying the Dischwasher brush though.

I don't mind minimal pops and clicks. But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself leaping with concern at any little sound. Sadly, that's what listening to a perfectly sounding digital medium, i.e., CDs, has done to me.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

I think it's The Family That Plays...
Grey cover, Gotta Line On You is the first cut

I will hit you w/ a PM
Peace
Norm

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

Just what I thought. I have it too and mine has some surface noise too.

Oh well.

BC

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

I got that one in the mail from someone. Bought the Impressions from Joes Record Paradise in Rockville MD and just don't have the heart to return it to him.

Well, Scott just told me your system is the s*** so if a record makes noise there I guess it makes noise everywhere. This has been quite the learning experience.

I will never stop buying and playing records though
Thanks again guys
Norm

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

ME three, not good

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some labels are good, some are bad

A true paradise indeed.

BC

 

If it is done incorrectly, it can. Depends on what kind of cleaning you are talking about.

 

Again, the Discwasher brush does more harm than good. Your records would be better of if you avoid using it. If you simply want to remove visible surface contamination, use a carbon fiber brush. Don't be fooled into thinking that the D4 brush is cleaning the record. Understand also that the carbon fiber brush is not 100% sufficient on it's own. This is a dry brush used for cleaning light dust/debris from a record that is already clean. Clean your vinyl properly first, store in clean sleeves, and use the carbon fiber brush when needed.

 

Re: Re: Re: The Impressions on 180gm Vinyl and the $70K System

That seems a bit steep!

My own experience with Discwashers 1 2 and 3 is that they work absolutely great on the first few uses, after which they rapidly lose effectiveness at soaking up the fluid, and so leave fluid residue in the grooves. I use mine dry mostly when I need to. So sue me too! In conjunction with a carbon fiber brush. And I'll resort to the VPI when I really have to. It's such a pain to use, though. I'm past the time of life when I want to spend my time cleaning records.

And to address the original thread, I have been a little disappointed with the quality of the vinyl on most of the newer audiophile LPs I've bought. It's nice and thick, and it's not horrible, but not as quiet as I'd expect. And sometimes a little off center. (The Japanese MoFi pressings, for all of their various faults, were at least quiet and centered.)

 

It has been said that alcohol can be damaging to vinyl. It has then also been said that it's only a problem if it's left on the vinyl for too long.

I have never noticed any damaged attributed to cleaning. However if the fluid is not removed from the record adequately you can end up with more noise than you started with, as the dirt suspended in the fluid is plastered back on the groove walls in different places than it was originally.

 

I end up listening with headphones quite a lot, which makes surface noise much more obvious than it is over the speakers.