Is 180g Vinyl Worth It?

[DasguteOhr]

I use the VTA Riser from the tw tonearm and a millenium block takes less than 20 seconds.
What I still have to do is print out a scale and stick it on. Then write the value on the inner sleeve of the LP. Then I'll have the perfect value even faster for every LP, regardless of whether it's 140g or 180g.

 

[bonzo75]

Nonsense. This thread is embarrassing. If you are playing 180 gm LPs with the same cartridge parameters you use for 120gm LPs, you are ignoring the simple physics that mandate a change in the SRA required when playing thicker vinyl if you want to obtain the best sonic results. It gets worse as arm height adjustments (for VTA/SRA) are just the beginning of the mandatory adjustments . When you change the arm height you typically have to change VTF as well (typically 0.05-0.1 gm). If you use a pivoted arm, other set-up parameters will not only be inaccurate as well (i.e azimuth, zenith?), but may cause JR Bosclair to have a stroke if you do not account for their changed requirements.

This is a topic that has been covered previously in great detail. To begin, the RIAA standard for 33 1/3 rpm LPs are listed here

RIAA Dimentional Standards

What is well known is that unfortunately there is no "standard" thickness for an LP of a given weight. In general, the range of avg thickness for 120gm LPs is 1.2-1.9 mm and for 180 gm LPs it is 1.5-2.8mm. Some of this depends where you measure as the thickness is not necessarily uniform across the surface of an LP a shown here:

View attachment 149112
However, the point of several posts on this topic suggest that some folks believe that the parameters used for playback should be the same for LPs of different thickness. Or, put more accurately, that there is no difference sonically when different thickness LPs are played on the same rig. I strongly disagree. Here are some comments that I think are still relevant from previous post in 2023.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/using-wally-tools.37229/page-7#post-912061. #123

The bottom line is that 180 gm LP are generally about 0.012" (~300 microns) thicker than 120-140 gm LPs. If you have set up your LP rig with a "standard" thickness LP (generally 120gm or 140 gm LPs) and are playing180gm LPs with the same arm height, it is almost certainly not performing optimally if you do not change some important parameters; most notably arm height as mentioned above. The difference in cartridge/arm optimization between 180gm LPs and thinner LPs is so easily demonstrated that every single visitor who has heard me demonstrate this in a controlled and blinded experiment has unequivocally agreed. It's really quite easily heard. The take away summary is that for this and many more reasons, LP playback is a huge pain in the ass that is made even more onerous if you want to play LPs of different thicknesses on a rig that you optimized for playing LPs of only one thicknesses. Deal with it. Here are 4 ways to do so.

1) Adjust your arm height (and other requisite changed parameters) for optimal playback for each thickness of LP in your collection. Get a discounted rate to a psychiatric facility at the same time. You will need it.
2) Take an "ignorance is bliss" approach and don't change anything once you've optimized your system using a reference LP or LPs to set up your rig. Let's face it, the sonic changes of minute adjustments mandated by adjustments for different LP thicknesses are not earth shattering and may not be critical for many or even most listeners. In this case, an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra might just be right for you.
3) Set up your turntable for a 120 gm LP and use a 500uM thick Herbie's mat for 180 gm LPs. (Not ideal but can be very beneficial)
4) If you have a TT that allows 2 or more arms, use 2 identical arm/cartridges with one set up for 120/140gm LPs and the other for 180/200 gm LPs. This method has a lot of merit and frankly, I'm surprised its not utilized more frequently, especially by folks who consider themselves "critical" listeners.

I think most of what you say is fine if you can adjust for VTA but putting a mat on (point 3 in your message) will have more audible difference than adjusting VTA. If that is your approach, then you need to do your auditions with Herbie’s mat while choosing your turntable

 

[PeterA]

Nonsense. This thread is embarrassing. If you are playing 180 gm LPs with the same cartridge parameters you use for 120gm LPs, you are ignoring the simple physics that mandate a change in the SRA required when playing thicker vinyl if you want to obtain the best sonic results. It gets worse as arm height adjustments (for VTA/SRA) are just the beginning of the mandatory adjustments . When you change the arm height you typically have to change VTF as well (typically 0.05-0.1 gm). If you use a pivoted arm, other set-up parameters will not only be inaccurate as well (i.e azimuth, zenith?), but may cause JR Bosclair to have a stroke if you do not account for their changed requirements.

This is a topic that has been covered previously in great detail. To begin, the RIAA standard for 33 1/3 rpm LPs are listed here

RIAA Dimentional Standards

What is well known is that unfortunately there is no "standard" thickness for an LP of a given weight. In general, the range of avg thickness for 120gm LPs is 1.2-1.9 mm and for 180 gm LPs it is 1.5-2.8mm. Some of this depends where you measure as the thickness is not necessarily uniform across the surface of an LP a shown here:

View attachment 149112
However, the point of several posts on this topic suggest that some folks believe that the parameters used for playback should be the same for LPs of different thickness. Or, put more accurately, that there is no difference sonically when different thickness LPs are played on the same rig. I strongly disagree. Here are some comments that I think are still relevant from previous post in 2023.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/using-wally-tools.37229/page-7#post-912061. #123

The bottom line is that 180 gm LP are generally about 0.012" (~300 microns) thicker than 120-140 gm LPs. If you have set up your LP rig with a "standard" thickness LP (generally 120gm or 140 gm LPs) and are playing180gm LPs with the same arm height, it is almost certainly not performing optimally if you do not change some important parameters; most notably arm height as mentioned above. The difference in cartridge/arm optimization between 180gm LPs and thinner LPs is so easily demonstrated that every single visitor who has heard me demonstrate this in a controlled and blinded experiment has unequivocally agreed. It's really quite easily heard. The take away summary is that for this and many more reasons, LP playback is a huge pain in the ass that is made even more onerous if you want to play LPs of different thicknesses on a rig that you optimized for playing LPs of only one thicknesses. Deal with it. Here are 4 ways to do so.

1) Adjust your arm height (and other requisite changed parameters) for optimal playback for each thickness of LP in your collection. Get a discounted rate to a psychiatric facility at the same time. You will need it.
2) Take an "ignorance is bliss" approach and don't change anything once you've optimized your system using a reference LP or LPs to set up your rig. Let's face it, the sonic changes of minute adjustments mandated by adjustments for different LP thicknesses are not earth shattering and may not be critical for many or even most listeners. In this case, an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra might just be right for you.
3) Set up your turntable for a 120 gm LP and use a 500uM thick Herbie's mat for 180 gm LPs. (Not ideal but can be very beneficial)
4) If you have a TT that allows 2 or more arms, use 2 identical arm/cartridges with one set up for 120/140gm LPs and the other for 180/200 gm LPs. This method has a lot of merit and frankly, I'm surprised its not utilized more frequently, especially by folks who consider themselves "critical" listeners.

Marty, I used to change arm height for each LP. I know what I heard, though my system at that time was not as revealing. When I did that, the thicker LPs still sounded a bit more damped to me. Let’s disagree about the sound differences of vinyl thicknesses being nonsense.

 

[microstrip]

Nonsense. This thread is embarrassing. If you are playing 180 gm LPs with the same cartridge parameters you use for 120gm LPs, you are ignoring the simple physics that mandate a change in the SRA required when playing thicker vinyl if you want to obtain the best sonic results. It gets worse as arm height adjustments (for VTA/SRA) are just the beginning of the mandatory adjustments . When you change the arm height you typically have to change VTF as well (typically 0.05-0.1 gm). If you use a pivoted arm, other set-up parameters will not only be inaccurate as well (i.e azimuth, zenith?), but may cause JR Bosclair to have a stroke if you do not account for their changed requirements.

This is a topic that has been covered previously in great detail. To begin, the RIAA standard for 33 1/3 rpm LPs are listed here

RIAA Dimentional Standards

What is well known is that unfortunately there is no "standard" thickness for an LP of a given weight. In general, the range of avg thickness for 120gm LPs is 1.2-1.9 mm and for 180 gm LPs it is 1.5-2.8mm. Some of this depends where you measure as the thickness is not necessarily uniform across the surface of an LP a shown here:

View attachment 149112
However, the point of several posts on this topic suggest that some folks believe that the parameters used for playback should be the same for LPs of different thickness. Or, put more accurately, that there is no difference sonically when different thickness LPs are played on the same rig. I strongly disagree. Here are some comments that I think are still relevant from previous post in 2023.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/using-wally-tools.37229/page-7#post-912061. #123

The bottom line is that 180 gm LP are generally about 0.012" (~300 microns) thicker than 120-140 gm LPs. If you have set up your LP rig with a "standard" thickness LP (generally 120gm or 140 gm LPs) and are playing180gm LPs with the same arm height, it is almost certainly not performing optimally if you do not change some important parameters; most notably arm height as mentioned above. The difference in cartridge/arm optimization between 180gm LPs and thinner LPs is so easily demonstrated that every single visitor who has heard me demonstrate this in a controlled and blinded experiment has unequivocally agreed. It's really quite easily heard. The take away summary is that for this and many more reasons, LP playback is a huge pain in the ass that is made even more onerous if you want to play LPs of different thicknesses on a rig that you optimized for playing LPs of only one thicknesses. Deal with it. Here are 4 ways to do so.

1) Adjust your arm height (and other requisite changed parameters) for optimal playback for each thickness of LP in your collection. Get a discounted rate to a psychiatric facility at the same time. You will need it.
2) Take an "ignorance is bliss" approach and don't change anything once you've optimized your system using a reference LP or LPs to set up your rig. Let's face it, the sonic changes of minute adjustments mandated by adjustments for different LP thicknesses are not earth shattering and may not be critical for many or even most listeners. In this case, an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra might just be right for you.
3) Set up your turntable for a 120 gm LP and use a 500uM thick Herbie's mat for 180 gm LPs. (Not ideal but can be very beneficial)
4) If you have a TT that allows 2 or more arms, use 2 identical arm/cartridges with one set up for 120/140gm LPs and the other for 180/200 gm LPs. This method has a lot of merit and frankly, I'm surprised its not utilized more frequently, especially by folks who consider themselves "critical" listeners.

Great post Marty!

Unfortunately today's serious vinyl audiophiles are lazy and sometimes we must speculate in the absence of proper data - I could not locate current data, but in the 80's I could find articles on LP weight and thickness in Wireless World magazine in our library with charts showing their distribution in samples of a few hundreds of LPs. The variation of thickness was wider than the standard values. The density was also variable - sometimes weight could not be correlated with thickness.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

"duplicate" carts are no guarantee they sound the same IMO

 

[PeterA]

"duplicate" carts are no guarantee they sound the same IMO

Yes, no guarantees. I have four copies of two cartridges. If I were to set up two arms at different heights to compensate for LP thickness, I would try to select two cartridges the sound as close to each other as possible, and then set up the arms to sound as close to each other as possible, given the different thickness records. I agree sample to sample variation exists. But same with arms. The point is to lessen the variance due to record thickness.

 

[Argonaut]

"duplicate" carts are no guarantee they sound the same IMO

Where VdH were concerned imho …

 

[microstrip]

(...) But same with arms. (...)

Can you explain why?

 

[PeterA]

Can you explain why?

Yes I can. I had a conversation with a large SME dealer a few years ago. He told me there is sample to sample variation on the SME arms. We were discussing current production, so I do not know how long this was the case. He paid extra to have a specific technician spend extra time building arms for him for better and more consistent results. The more time spent assembling each a‘em, the better the results because of the tolerances involved. And some assemblers are more experienced than others.

It might not be the same with every arm manufacturer just as a sample to sample variation is not the same with every cartridge manufacturer. I used SME V arms so this was relevant to me at the time. I have not done a serious comparison of my 3012R arms. I am open to the possibility of variation, even from SME.

A Pass Labs dealer once asked me which Pass amplifier was best? I told him I did not know. He told me the latest one off of the assembly line because they were constantly improving little things that did not result in a model change designation.

I guess it comes down to quality control.

 

[microstrip]

Yes I can. I had a conversation with a large SME dealer a few years ago. He told me there is sample to sample variation on the SME arms. We were discussing current production, so I do not know how long this was the case. He paid extra to have a specific technician spend extra time building arms for him for better and more consistent results. The more time spent assembling each a‘em, the better the results because of the tolerances involved. And some assemblers are more experienced than others.

It might not be the same with every arm manufacturer just as a sample to sample variation is not the same with every cartridge manufacturer. I used SME V arms so this was relevant to me at the time. I have not done a serious comparison of my 3012R arms. I am open to the possibility of variation, even from SME.

A Pass Labs dealer once asked me which Pass amplifier was best? I told him I did not know. He told me the latest one off of the assembly line because they were constantly improving little things that did not result in a model change designation.

I guess it comes down to quality control.

Thanks. Probably you are reporting a known problem of early SME V bearings - the SME V was launched almost 40 years ago. Along time there were a few changes (variations, as you say) and occasional problems acknowledged and solved by the manufacturer/distributor - as far as I read more than 5000 units were manufactured along the years. Surely also the usual net stories about people who got second hand abused units from grey market and complain about the country distributor being non helpful.

SME is generally considered a paragon of consistency and quality control. I have owned a reasonable number of them and never had any trouble.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks. Probably you are reporting a known problem of early SME V bearings - the SME V was launched almost 40 years ago. Along time there were a few changes (variations, as you say) and occasional problems acknowledged and solved by the manufacturer/distributor - as far as I read more than 5000 units were manufactured along the years. Surely also the usual net stories about people who got second hand abused units from grey market and complain about the country distributor being non helpful.

SME is generally considered a paragon of consistency and quality control. I have owned a reasonable number of them and never had any trouble.

You don’t have to believe me and it seemsyou did not understand my post. I’m not talking about problematic tonearms with reliability issues or ones that were not functioning properly. I am not talking about gray market products. Variation occurs because different people build things by hand and they can be complicated. Some manufacturers build things within tolerances and even if they meet given specifications, they can sound different. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I don’t don’t think anyone is going to know unless they do direct comparisons.

I was responding to a post from someone who suggested that if I put two of the same cartridges on two of the same arms on my turntable, I would get different sounds. I agree with him that it is a possibility, but not a certainty. Regardless, the different record thickness would likely outweigh any slight variations between cartridges and tone arms, assuming they are both set up properly by the same person. The idea is to reduce the variation in sound from different record thicknesses.

 

[microstrip]

You don’t have to believe me and it seemsyou did not understand my post. I’m not talking about problematic tonearms with reliability issues or ones that were not functioning properly. I am not talking about gray market products. Variation occurs because different people build things by hand and they can be complicated. Some manufacturers build things within tolerances and even if they meet given specifications, they can sound different. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I don’t don’t think anyone is going to know unless they do direct comparisons.

I was responding to a post from someone who suggested that if I put two of the same cartridges on two of the same arms on my turntable, I would get different sounds. I agree with him that it is a possibility, but not a certainty. Regardless, the different record thickness would likely outweigh any slight variations between cartridges and tone arms, assuming they are both set up properly by the same person. The idea is to reduce the variation in sound from different record thicknesses.

Just answered because you addressed cartridges and SME tonearms in the same post - one typical case of inconsistency and one typical case of consistency, in my experience - I also owned many vdH cartridges.

 

[PeterA]

Just answered because you addressed cartridges and SME tonearms in the same post - one typical case of inconsistency and one typical case of consistency, in my experience - I also owned many vdH cartridges.

I do not know how "typical" either case is. Surely we need more data. I believe the SME dealer who orders his personal arms from one particular builder and pays more for the extra time it takes him to build the same arm to higher quality. My experience with vdH Colibris is that they may or may not sound different from each other, but each sounds excellent, none bad. Each is a hand made work of art. My vintage Ortofons are more consistent, but another good friend of mine tells the story of how customers would go into a dealer in his city in Europe and listen to various models and samples of Lyra cartridges. He would pick his favorite model and refuse the new in box sample, requesting only the exact demo sample he actually heard playing music. So, not only vdH, but Lyra too, and it matters more to some than to others.