There are so many subjective judgments and system specific elements to your question that it is impossible to answer with any degree of statistical certainty. The first point is who is making the judgment that the record has deteriorated sonically? Each of us will have a different sensitivity to that. And then of course there is the question of what cartridge are you using, what is the vertical tracking force, what are the errors of set up, What tonearm are you using? And the fact is that the answers to those many elements that go into determining record wear will change over the lifespan of an LP. I have LPs that I have owned for 40 years and more.. During that time they have been played on many different turntables with several different tonearms and several different cartridges. All I know is when I listen to them now I can say they sound good or not so good. I try to concern myself with how the LP sounds in the here and now, with the turntable tonearm and cartridge I am using right now.
How many plays can you get out of a good record?
I haven't seen this question posed in the Audiogon forums, but I have seen many answers on generic audio sites, that say a record can be expected to last for "hundreds" of plays before any sonic degradation is noted, if well cared for.
I'm wondering if they might last even longer with modern audiophile styli / styluses, which track at around 1.8 grams. Does anyone have any real experience or knowledge about the longevity of records in such a scenario? (If records only last 100-200 plays before some degradation, then this means that playing a record once a week could be at least partially deteriorated in two to four years, which is a real shame.)
Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, worn or badly misaligned needle/cartridges did do damage to a fair amount of the 33’s and 45’s in my collection. In particular I wonder if my meticulously set up but lousy tracking Denon 103 carved a few little nasties in my inner grooves. But in the past 30 years or so my high-end turntables/tonearms/cartridges have done essentially nothing to my precious vinyl. Sure, an occasional click or pop will show up. But gone are the days where hashy string sections or spitty sibilants would eventually make an unwelcome appearance. |
I have used Last Record Preservative since it was introduced almost forty years ago. My LP's are still in like-new condition, some of them bought new and now fifty-five years old. I have also always used the best record cleaners available at any given time. My LP's and my drum collection (all vintage, some of them dating back to the late-1920's).are my most-prized possessions. Girlfriends and wives come and go, but records (and CD's) and musical instruments are forever. ;-) |
Now we have the relatively low cost technology to make transparent digital copies off vinyl re-play. Someone should do this with some newly acquired high quality LPs, wait 10-20 years, keep track of the use, and then play the vinyl and compare it to how it sounded 10-20 years prior. That is the only way to make a subjective judgement. I suppose you could shrink the time element by playing the same LP over and over again and compare digital recordings done before vs after. There may be formal studies where a test LP with test tones is played repeatedly, so as to detect loss of HF or bass frequencies. I don't have a good digital recorder, even if I cared about this issue. |
If the pressing is reasonably good, records are clean and your turntable set-up is correct I wouldn’t worry much, though I too treat every record with LAST. It is not recommended to play records more often than once every 24 hours, vinyl needs time to recover. I also have two/three copies of my most favorite records. It is more likely that you will accidentally damage a record than wear it out. |
I have a record which has been played extensively - hundreds of times on a low fi system, and many hundreds on a high end setup. It has been ultrasonically cleaned. I also have a sealed copy of the same record, played only a few times. There is little difference - similar enough that you cannot differentiate them unless cuts are played alternately. I also have an audiophile record which has lost its lustre over some hundreds of playings on a high end system. So I guess the answer is, "depends".
|
I have LP's I have played since the 1960's. I also have LP's I bought that were produced in the 50's/60's. Some sound fantastic still. Other's were probably played with inferior cartridges, tables, arms, poor set-ups, and mishandled, including my own (not unusual for the time really....it's 'all we had', and did not angst over record care as we do today). Those may not sound as good, obviously, but still very playable, and some that were taken care of, close to or as good as my newest vinyl today. Keep you table/cart properly set-up and renewed when necessary, and your LP's clean and properly cared for, and obviously they will last for decades, easily. |
Aye, now I understand: Macbeth must've ruined his LP's using an old stylus, prompting this soliloquy! "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, |
It's not a question of tracking weight, it's a question of mistracking. Too light is as bad for records as too heavy. I did wear out a copy of Blonde on Blonde in 1966 using my father's old Collaro player that must have been tracking at about 5g. That was the design weight. The whole thing started sounding like mush. I guess there must have been swarf. I bought another one and my own turntable. |
drbond, Is your cartridge set up correctly? Do you clean the stylus tip after every play? Is the record stored properly? Do you have an adequate record cleaning procedure? Are you a smoker? Do you handle your records without touching the groove area? You say "a good record", but what was the initial quality of the pressing? Do you repeat play or allow a reasonable time interval between plays? Do you have a clean, relatively dust-free environment? With all that I can only say that I have LPs purchased 60 years ago that are still enjoyable and distortion free to listen to. But as any wear may have occurred my hearing resolution has declined, so I can't offer a number. ;^) |
In 2012 I compared a sealed 1971 Howlin Wolf to another original copy that had been played on/off since 1971 (didn't own a TT from 1986-2000). They both sounded the same (good). Found the sealed copy @ my mother's house when she was selling it in 2011. Along with the sealed LP I also found 2 factory matched pairs of Mullard XF2 EL34's, a stack of used RCA 12at7 5-packs (pulls from my old Fender amps) and a small glass vile containing 3 squares of windowpane (the windowpane had turned from translucent to black over a 40 year period). I gave the windowpane to a neighbor that I had grown up with and tossed the 12at7's after bringing them back to CA and testing them (they all had one poorly testing section). DeKay |
I have 28,500 LPs. Those purchased new and of good quality vinyl over 50+ years should sound as good as when new, I've used good (now great) quality equipment (Dynavectors, Lyra and Benz cartridges for 45 years, VPI turntables for 40 years, SME IV arm for over 33 years). @Inna is correct, LPs/vinyl require 24 hours to 100% recover from playing. I've played some records 100-200 times and they sound pristine (and wonderful). |
The general rule from the time I started collecting vinyl was to buy 1st pressing after that quality went down, 2nd have your arm and cartridge setup properly back then they used scopes and took 2 hours or more to aline both. Then store your LPs in rice sleeves, but after you play the LP-like tube gear both slowly start degrading as the groves become worn, the cartridge stylus also. Now if your dealer does not invest in scopes and proper equipment the decay and damage to the vinyl accelerates. Back then the guys into audio used reel-to-reel to playback their music and once you heard that you never go back to LP, same as hearing a 45rpm track to the 33-1/3 LP, again the LP came in last. But that was the only game in town for most of us so we lived with it and enjoyed it. After 2001 I went full CD and never looked back, sold my collection of vinyl for $$$$$ and used that money for audio gear. I Miss the covers of LPs and that is about it. Nothing against the format if you enjoy it that is great, but if not as the myth says the format. Reel to Reel is but today they want $450.00 a tape compared to $6.99 back the day in the ’60s and ’70s. Any format is good as the care taken, and even if mastered from a digital source, in fact, that can sound more accurate than coming from a master tape that is long past its prime and has degraded over the past 60 years. And chances are the master is long gone and they are using safety backups or less generation copies, so digital remasters is a life saver bring the sound back to a much higher quaity, |
I can agree with you on most statements; however, 33 1/3 LP can sound superb, the equal of the best digital. Probably (not probably, certainly) 1/3 of my collection will never see digital format (loss of tapes and lack of interest, especially ethnic music). That's over almost 10,000 LPs. Then there's the 78s which will never be digitized. I must keep all physical formats. Sure, I have some 1950s RR which are fantastically dynamic and colorful. I tend to listen to CDs of former LPs first if they were correctly remastered. Many pop CDs were not and sound much worse than LPs. Then there are high value jazz LPs. I don't own many and I have friends that do. We listen a lot to those. I own many jazz CDs and enjoy them just as much (it helps to have a high end system with a superior listening room). You are like my friends who still have 10,000 LPs but for 20 years only listen to their 3,000+ CDs either directly or through EAC thumbdrives for reasons of convenience. |
Yes, one answer to the question "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?", but perhaps the answer to my question is the same; however, there were good suggestions about record and stylus preservation materials from Last that I will probably use on a few LP's. I already use the Last Stylus cleaner, and Last Stylus treatment, but from now on I plan on using them more often, as opposed to just once a week, or so. |
