Thick Vinyl Records

[PeterA]

my comments are not made in a vacuum. unfortunately Peter shades this description from Fremer in a negative light. he is speculating. and he is entitled to his own opinion. and i simply have a different opinion on the context of what i read.

Mike, Thank you for accepting that I could comment on an excerpt of one of Fremer’s reviews posted here. The choice of language can influence one’s understanding and interpretation of another’s writing. When Fremer uses the phrase “velvety, black backgrounds”, it conjures up an image in my mind, and one that I associate with various listening experiences to both live and reproduced music. I’m sure that is his intention and I take him at his written word. I also respect his opinion, though it differs from mine. I just have a different view about the value of that impression and listening experience.

That’s all it is and it’s not a big deal.

 

[microstrip]

my comments are not made in a vacuum. unfortunately Peter shades this description from Fremer in a negative light. he is speculating. and he is entitled to his own opinion. and i simply have a different opinion on the context of what i read.

Surely everyone in this forum is entitled to have a personal opinion and we respect it. However Fremer has written several times on the subject, explaining the expression, that he uses with a very different meaning from what Peter associates with it. I easily understand why Peter choose not to listen to music post 90's in his system, but I find hard to understand why he refuses to research and read from some one he enjoys to comment.

 

[Al M.]

Surely everyone in this forum is entitled to have a personal opinion and we respect it. However Fremer has written several times on the subject, explaining the expression, that he uses with a very different meaning from what Peter associates with it. I easily understand why Peter choose not to listen to music post 90's in his system, but I find hard to understand why he refuses to research and read from some one he enjoys to comment.

I disagree with the term "black background", in fact I hate it, but at the same time I perfectly understand what Fremer means when he uses the term, and I agree with what he wants to describe.

His "black background" is not my "black background" (mine is close to Peter's interpretation of the term), but it would be wrong for me to conflate the two.

 

[PeterA]

Surely everyone in this forum is entitled to have a personal opinion and we respect it. However Fremer has written several times on the subject, explaining the expression, that he uses with a very different meaning from what Peter associates with it. I easily understand why Peter choose not to listen to music post 90's in his system, but I find hard to understand why he refuses to research and read from some one he enjoys to comment.

It’s an old and stale topic. I would prefer to use “low noise floor”. From reading Fremer’s various reviews, I think this is what he means. But for the life of me, I can’t understand why he doesn’t use the simple language and makes it confusing by using a visual description. And does it ever get really black? It does when there’s an absence of ambient information.

Perhaps I will find a review by Fremer one day in which he describes a velvety black background while also describing in some detail the rich subtle nuanced information that exists on good recordings and can be revealed by some systems.

 

[tima]

my comments are not made in a vacuum. unfortunately Peter shades this description from Fremer in a negative light. he is speculating. and he is entitled to his own opinion. and i simply have a different opinion on the context of what i read.

Of course you are free to speculate about what he really means beyond what he says and shade that to suit your taste.

A careful reading of Peter's post reveals what Peter means, not someone else. You brought MF into the conversation, not Peter. If you have a case to make for. 'velvety black backgrounds' you should be able to do that on your own, not on the back of someone else's reputation.

 

[microstrip]

Of course you are free to speculate about what he really means beyond what he says and shade that to suit your taste.

As I have said, we do not need speculation - the term is often used in the audiophile community by reviewers in the positive accession referred by Mike Lavigne. I accept a few do not find comfortable with word and want to change decades of audio glossary in WBF - a lost confusing crusade, IMO, YMMV.

A careful reading of Peter's post reveals what Peter means, not someone else. You brought MF into the conversation, not Peter. If you have a case to make for. 'velvety black backgrounds' you should be able to do that on your own, not on the back of someone else's reputation.

In fact, M. Fremer writes frequently and is read regularly by tens of thousands of audiophiles. Like him or not, he become an audio reference. His work and knowledge are recognized by an whole community, I find we can use his wordings without needing to reinvent the wheel every time. I talked with him a recent vinyl session ay one of our high-end distributors, and besides cartridge alignment, we talked mostly about jazz music and vinyl. I can assure you the vinyl system he set up had a "black background" ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Of course you are free to speculate about what he really means beyond what he says and shade that to suit your taste.

A careful reading of Peter's post reveals what Peter means, not someone else. You brought MF into the conversation, not Peter. If you have a case to make for. 'velvety black backgrounds' you should be able to do that on your own, not on the back of someone else's reputation.

i quoted Fremer's comments only to demonstrate alternate opinions on Original RCA Shaded Dogs verses reissues. we are all free to interpret the value of it. and as Francisco mentions, Fremer's comments don't come with any attached negative baggage, but Peter and you are free to add it as you see fit. and i can disagree.

if i review or comment directly about a record or compare, i'm happy to support my comments. this was not that case. i don't own the original or the particular reissue Fremer is commenting on. i have plenty of pressings of that recording, just not those two.

 

[tima]

i quoted Fremer's comments only to demonstrate alternate opinions on Original RCA Shaded Dogs verses reissues.

Perhaps your intent, but not what you said. You offered an apologism regarding what you thought he meant. MF is a deflection. -- you introduced him. Better that we limit our discussion to what we here are discussing rather than appeals to purported authorities as an argument against another forum member. We've had this discussion before.

when Fremer uses that 'velvety black backgrounds' term i think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt he does not mean dull or lacking ambience or air.

 

[crosswind]

I have the 4 sided, bought it sealed

Is this the one you are mentioning? It’s available in my local store.

 

[bonzo75]

Is this the one you are mentioning? It’s available in my local store.

View attachment 149444

We were referring to the Reiner Scheherazade

 

[microstrip]

(...) Better that we limit our discussion to what we here are discussing rather than appeals to purported authorities as an argument against another forum member. We've had this discussion before.

Sorry to disagree. IMO we are free to support our opinions and bring opinions of others, as long as they are freely accessible to anyone, as it was the case. Fremer is a known reference in vinyl and audio affairs, any one can easily check if he has been properly quoted and inserted in the debate.

You are not a moderator or forum owner, you are not supposed to limit our freedom and style of posting.

 

[Salectric]

We all want a quiet background but the term “black background” has negative connotations for me in the context of digital sources. Neil Young keeps going through my head—-

“I heard a newborn baby cry
Through the night
I heard a perfect echo die
Into an anonymous wall of digital sound”
(“Natural Beauty”)

 

[tima]

Is this the one you are mentioning? It’s available in my local store.

That might be worth acquiring. Been a while since I played the 33-1/3 version but from memory I thought Rubenstein blew away Yuja Wang on the Rachmaninov.

 

[crosswind]

That might be worth acquiring. Been a while since I played the 33-1/3 version but from memory I thought Rubenstein blew away Yuja Wang on the Rachmaninov.

Thanks tima,

I’ve been holding it in my hands a couple of times, without bringing it home with me, but perhaps I should just buy it the next time, if it’s still available.

 

[PeterA]

I installed a duplicate vintage Ortofon cartridge on my second SME 3012R tonearm last weekend. I set the two arm/cartridge combinations to sound very close to each other, and they do despite one using the vintage Ortofon SUT into the MM input and the other using the internal SUT on my Lamm LP1 phono stage. I followed the set up method that David Karmeli taught me and used the LP he supplied to fine tune by ear.

Once satisfied with the results, I used a digital scale to measure LP weight. The set up LP is 180g. I checked some random LPs in my listening room and they measured 120, 140, 150, and 180g. Fellow WBF member MAXPWR sent me a chart comparing record weight with thickness. As those who have read about DDK's method for arm height adjustment know, David uses standard playing cards stacked and placed between the bottom of the arm base and the locking collar lower on the post. A standard playing card is 0.2mm thick. This corresponds roughly with a thickness difference between 160g and 180g LPs. Some may think that a standard playing card is too course of an adjustment, but remember, Michael Fremer noted that one must raise a typical 9" arm 4.0mm to achieve a difference of 1 degree in SRA. He also recommends a 92 degree SRA which I ignore. A playing card is 1/20th of that, or 1/20th of 1 degree. It is even less for a 12" tonearm because of the extra length. Fine tuning beyond that 1/20th of a degree can be done with very slight changes in VTF, or by using small even thinner pieces of paper instead of playing cards. All this for the SME 3012R. Other arms have different methods.

I optimized the set up of both identical arm/cartridge combinations for that 180g LP by listening for the most natural presentation. I am now adjusting one of the two arms for thinner LPs with promising results. Lowering the arm by two (2) playing cards, or 0.4mm, corresponds with a record weight of 145g. Three (3) cards is roughly a 130g LP. I plan to adjust by ear, not just by following the chart, but it seems to be a nice ballpark and seems to get one pretty close, once a correct height is determined with a record of known weight.

There are other factors involved. Cutting angle varies. Groove thickness might be a factor too, though I do not know. Given my results so far, I think I will be using two identical arm/cartridge combinations on my table for a while, set up for thicker (180g) and thinner (140-150g) records. If I find I have more records in the 110-120g range, I may set the second arm up for that thickness. I may even adjust one card up or down for the two different thinner record weights. I suppose I could add a third arm with my third Ortofon, but I would likely use a third arm for a different cartridge.

I definitely hear an improvement in the presentation with different set ups for different record thicknesses. The presentation sounds more focused, more lively and full of energy, timbre is more believable, nuance and ambiance are improved, and overall, it just sounds more correct or natural when adjusted for the specific LP weight being played. I wish it were not so, but I hear it clearly. The result is a similar quality of presentation on a variety of records. I have yet to do a direct comparison between a thick and thin LP of the same recording, though even there, the remastering will change the way it sounds.

If I decide to reinstall one of my Colibris, it will likely be for thinner LPs because most of my large scale classical LPs are thin and they benefit from the slightly greater resolution of the Colibris, but that is for later. Now I am simply enjoying two arms with the Ortofon, one optimized for thick records, and one for thin records.

LP thickness chart:

 

[Lagonda]

I installed a duplicate vintage Ortofon cartridge on my second SME 3012R tonearm last weekend. I set the two arm/cartridge combinations to sound very close to each other, and they do despite one using the vintage Ortofon SUT into the MM input and the other using the internal SUT on my Lamm LP1 phono stage. I followed the set up method that David Karmeli taught me and used the LP he supplied to fine tune by ear.

Once satisfied with the results, I used a digital scale to measure LP weight. The set up LP is 180g. I checked some random LPs in my listening room and they measured 120, 140, 150, and 180g. Fellow WBF member MAXPWR sent me a chart comparing record weight with thickness. As those who have read about DDK's method for arm height adjustment know, David uses stand playing cards stacked and placed between the top of the arm post base and the locking collar. A standard playing card is 0.2mm thick. This corresponds roughly with a thickness difference between 160g and 180g LPs. Some may think that a standard playing card is too course of an adjustment, but remember, Michael Fremer noted that one must raise a typical 9" arm 4.0mm to achieve a difference of 1 degree in SRA. A card is 1/20th of that, or 1/20th of a degree. It is even less for a 12" tonearm. Fine tuning beyond that 1/20th of a degree can be done with very slight changes in VTF, or by using small pieces of paper instead of playing cards.

I optimized the set up of both identical arm/cartridge combinations for that 180g LP by listening for the most natural presentation. I am now adjusting one of the two arms for thinner LPs with promising results. Lowering the arm by two (2) playing cards (0.4mm) corresponds with a record weight of 145g. Three (3) cards is roughly a 120g LP. I plan to adjust by ear, not just by following the chart, but it seems to be a nice ballpark.

There are other factors involved. Cutting angle varies. Groove thickness might be a factor, I do not know. Give my results so far, I think I will be using two identical arm/cartridge combinations on my table set up for thicker (180g) and thinner (140-150g) records. If I find I have more records in the 110-120g range, I may set the second arm up for that thickness, and I may even adjust one card up or down for the two different thinner record weights.

I definitely hear an improvement in the presentation with different set ups for different record thicknesses. The presentation sounds more focused, more lively and full of energy, timbre is more believable, nuance and ambiance are improved, and overall, it just sounds more correct or natural with adjusted for the specific LP being played. I wish it were not so. The result is the same quality presentation on a variety of records. If I decide to reinstall one of my Colibris, it will likely be for thinner LPs because most of my large scale classical LPs are thin and they benefit from the slightly greater resolution of the Colibris, but that is for later. Now I am simply enjoying two arms with the Ortofon, one optimized for thick records, and one for thin records.

LP thickness chart:

View attachment 149481

Nice project Peter, it does align with my own impressions of VTA and record thickness, and the 3012 R is a relatively forgiving arm when it comes to record thickness.

 

[PeterA]

Nice project Peter, it does align with my own impressions of VTA and record thickness, and the 3012 R is a relatively forgiving arm when it comes to record thickness.

Milan, I follow your point, but the audibility of very slight changes, or how well they are revealed, also depends on the quality of the cartridge and the rest of the system and how well it is set up. I do not have much experience with other arms in my system, a fact that many have noted.

 

[Lagonda]

Milan, I follow your point, but the audibility of very slight changes, or how well they are revealed, also depends on the quality of the cartridge and the rest of the system and how well it is set up. I do not have much experience with other arms in my system, a fact that many have noted.

You did have the newer SME arm and ended up adjusting VTA a lot with that one. My 3012 R is more forgiving with all cartridges i have had on it, the Grand Crue being the most finicky one. My tangential arm is only good for one record thickness, the short length and front trough paddle just make too much sound difference, i have it set for thin records. The majority of my collection anyway.

 

[PeterA]

one other opinion.....of many.....everyone is entitled to their own opinion......maybe generalizations are not the best approach.

>>>>>The results were so far superior in his opinion to what the older metal parts produced that he decided to green light an ambitious RCA Living Stereo reissue program using original 3 and 2 track tapes, all cut by the young Mr. Smith and plated and pressed at QRP. Kassem's reissued feature "Tip-On" jackets like the originals and meticulous attention was paid to the artwork. If you look at the back jacket of this release and compare the photo of Fritz Reiner there to Classic's you'll see a dramatic difference. The Analogue Productions version's photo is dramatically better. In fact it's better than the original as well as is the entire physical packaging.

As for the sound, well I get into arguments all to often with people who insist originals are always better. If after comparing this reissue to the original they still think so, they are hopelessly prejudiced. This reissue easily beats the original I have in every category.p> Of course the original can't begin to approach the 200g QRP pressing quality, especially in terms of velvet-black backgrounds and perfect surfaces. The reissue is far more dynamic, the low frequency extension complete, and most importantly the instrumental textures and tonalities are rich, full and spectacularly transparent. All of the delicacy, three-dimensionality and transparency promised but only partly delivered by the original is fully communicated on this Analogue Productions reissue.<<<<<<

Mike, I just read the full review linked in this post. Fremer certainly likes this reissue. Given my recent experiments with two identical arm/cartridge comparisons, it is clear to me, perhaps more than ever, that for the best presentation of a given recording in the listening room, the arm/cartridge must be optimized for that record.

I know well that Fremer recommends 92 degrees SRA for the best compromised set up for a variety of records. I really wonder if he adjusted the arm and cartridge for the two different versions of this record. The reissue is 200g. The original is likely 120g or thereabouts. If those weights are correct, that represents roughly a 0.9mm difference in thickness. The 200g LP is almost twice the thickness of the 120g LP. That is substantial. This difference would be clearly audible on a revealing system. Even if he sets up his cartridge 92 degree SRA on the equivalent of a 160g LP as an average, playing a much thinner 120g or thicker 200g would be audible. And if his set up is for thicker records, it would clearly favor the thicker pressings over the thinner ones in his collection. Well, that is only my opinion based on what I have learned from my system.

I discussed this issue with Marty and the need to optimize the set up when comparing the same recording on two different thickness LPs to really understand their relative quality. Based on what I have been hearing in my own system the last few days, I now no longer think one can make a true assessment of the quality of a recording and/or pressing without knowing that the arm/cartridge set up is optimized for a particular record.

Do you think Michael Fremer went to the trouble of doing this by either adjusting one arm/cartridge, or by comparing two identical arm/cartridge combinations,each optimized at 92 degrees for the presumed different thicknesses between the original and reissue pressings? If he had done it that way, it would have been great additional content for the review, or for one of his essays on arm/cartridge set up. We see no mention of it in this review. I wonder if he addresses this issue in any of his writings. To me, it is a fascinating topic for those into vinyl.

 

[mtemur]

Mike, I just read the full review linked in this post. Fremer certainly likes this reissue. Given my recent experiments with two identical arm/cartridge comparisons, it is clear to me, perhaps more than ever, that for the best presentation of a given recording in the listening room, the arm/cartridge must be optimized for that record.

I know well that Fremer recommends 92 degrees SRA for the best compromised set up for a variety of records. I really wonder if he adjusted the arm and cartridge for the two different versions of this record. The reissue is 200g. The original is likely 120g or thereabouts. If those weights are correct, that represents roughly a 0.9mm difference in thickness. The 200g LP is almost twice the thickness of the 120g LP. That is substantial. This difference would be clearly audible on a revealing system. Even if he sets up his cartridge 92 degree SRA on the equivalent of a 160g LP as an average, playing a much thinner 120g or thicker 200g would be audible.

I discussed this issue with Marty and the need to optimize the set up when comparing two LPs of different thickness to really understand their relative quality. Based on what I have been hearing in my own system the last few days, I now no longer think one can make a true assessment of the quality of a recording and/or pressing without knowing the arm/cartridge are optimized for a particular record.

Do you think Michael Fremer went to the trouble of doing this by either adjusting one arm/cartridge, or by comparing two identical arm/cartridge combinations,each optimized at 92 degrees for the presumed different thicknesses between the original and reissue pressings? If he had done it that way, it would have been great additional content for the review, or for one of his essays on arm/cartridge set up. We see no mention of it in this review. I wonder if he addresses this issue in any of his writings.

I don’t think M. Fremer adjusted the VTA when comparing thin (older original) records with thick (new reissue) pressings, but you can never know. Let’s assume he didn’t adjust but that doesn’t tell us much—because, as you pointed out, he has stated that he’s settled on a 92-degree SRA. Most modern reissues are generally cut close to 90 degrees; Kevin Gray, for example, has said he cuts exactly at 90 degrees.

In contrast, the point you’re trying to make is that reissues are at a disadvantage compared to originals, which typically have an SRA in the 90–94 degree range.

In short, Fremer’s decision to use a 92-degree SRA actually suits older originals better, as 92 degrees (within the 90–94 range) was the result of research conducted in the 1980s, if I’m not mistaken. New reissues, especially those cut by Kevin Gray, are done at 90 degrees. Given that, if Fremer still prefers the sound of reissues—which he clearly does—it suggests the reissues are simply better.

P.S. I’m not claiming that reissues are better. I’m only trying to point out the potential disadvantage of using a 92-degree SRA when playing KG reissues.